Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

[yuna628 9,713]

10 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What if it was a Muslim baker being asked for a same sex wedding cake?  I think this was already asked in Dearborn, MI, and they refused.  Now this was at the time that same sex weddings were not recognized in Michigan, so the MDL blew it off.  If memory serves, this baker in front of SCOTUS initially refused this couple when CO also did not recognize same sex marriages.

 

The thing I don’t understand is why would this couple even want this guy to make their cake for them?  

I don't think it was that they wanted him to. Tend to think normal people just pick from a list of cake bakers in their area, make an appointment and go in. The guy went with his mom, had no idea they would be treated that way, and were horrified. It makes them wonder what other people could refuse them services under the same excuse. Sure they could have just moved on.. but it's their prerogative to sue if they want.. and they clearly have the money to kill. Often wonder how many problems could be avoided, within the first few minutes of interaction. Could he have handled himself with better tact? Was he nasty or dismissive? We just don't know. Some people want to make a point with a lawsuit.. that's what we tend to do in America.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

No I don't think you understand the distinction.

 

Asking a Muslim Restaurant to cook pork dishes for your wedding is NOT the same thing as asking a baker to bake you a cake.

 

The baker bakes cake. It's what they do. They do it for all of their customers.

 

The Muslim Restaurant never cooks pork. It isn't what they do for anyone, regardless of the religious affiliation of the person they are cooking for. It just simply isn't in their description. THey have never offered it to anyone and will never offer it.

 

The Muslim Restaurant wouldn't be "discriminating" against you because they don't cook pork for ANYONE. It would only be discrimination if they have some clientele that they cook pork for, but they refuse to do it for you specifically for some reason. The baker is discriminating against you because they bake cakes for all other people, but not for you specifically.

 

Come up with another example if you'd like, but this one very clearly doesn't work.

or similarly, asking a kosher deli for a non kosher sandwich. 

and what happens when we end up at the bottom of a slippery slope and pediatrician can refuse to treat babies born out of wedlock?

[yuna628 9,713]

42 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

has there  been a description of what the gay couple wanted on the cake?

It was a plain cake. No words or descriptions or anything remarkable. The only thing was the inside - rainbow foodcoloring. By all accounts the most boring cake you could pick. No doubt he had stock wedding cakes already in his business that were more 'artistic' by far.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

What if it was a Muslim baker being asked for a same sex wedding cake?  I think this was already asked in Dearborn, MI, and they refused.  Now this was at the time that same sex weddings were not recognized in Michigan, so the MDL blew it off.  If memory serves, this baker in front of SCOTUS initially refused this couple when CO also did not recognize same sex marriages.

 

The thing I don’t understand is why would this couple even want this guy to make their cake for them?  

I missed this post before.

 

In my opinion a Muslim wedding cake baker should also not be able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple, as long as weddings for same sex couples are legal where they perform their job.

 

If he/she is a Muslim baker who doesn't bake wedding cakes, they can't be expected to learn to bake a cake for the wedding though (Similar to the question earlier about forcing a Muslim chef to prepare pork)

 

If it is a service you would offer to anyone else, you shouldn't be able to say no to someone just because you don't like their lifestyle. Now if they want you to write something on the cake, that you wouldn't write for anyone else, then you can say no. But you can't offer a service to one person but refuse the other person because of their religion, their race, their sex, their sexual orientation etc... It isn't freedom of religion because you baking a cake for them does not impede your ability to practice your religion. You can't be forced to go to the church and stand there during the wedding. You don't even need to attend the reception. But if you are in the business of wedding cakes, you make wedding cakes.

 

EDIT:

 

To be completely consistent - If you were a baker who made birthday cakes and an obvious Neo-Nazi came into your store asking for a birthday cake (Say they had a face tattoo of a swastika and "White power" on their forehead or something). If you make birthday cakes for other people, you can't refuse them just because you don't like who they are. Now if they ask you to write "White Power, Death to Jews" on the birthday cake...you can refuse that because you wouldn't write that on ANYONE's birthday cake, let alone theirs.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,793]

47 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It was a plain cake. No words or descriptions or anything remarkable. The only thing was the inside - rainbow foodcoloring. By all accounts the most boring cake you could pick. No doubt he had stock wedding cakes already in his business that were more 'artistic' by far.

Makes one wonder why they didn’t make it themselves and save some money?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Makes one wonder why they didn’t make it themselves and save some money?

You can wonder that, but it doesn't really matter. They have every right to pay someone to bake a wedding cake. Most people don't bake it themselves.

[Dashinka 24,793]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I missed this post before.

 

In my opinion a Muslim wedding cake baker should also not be able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple, as long as weddings for same sex couples are legal where they perform their job.

 

If he/she is a Muslim baker who doesn't bake wedding cakes, they can't be expected to learn to bake a cake for the wedding though (Similar to the question earlier about forcing a Muslim chef to prepare pork)

 

If it is a service you would offer to anyone else, you shouldn't be able to say no to someone just because you don't like their lifestyle. Now if they want you to write something on the cake, that you wouldn't write for anyone else, then you can say no. But you can't offer a service to one person but refuse the other person because of their religion, their race, their sex, their sexual orientation etc... It isn't freedom of religion because you baking a cake for them does not impede your ability to practice your religion. You can't be forced to go to the church and stand there during the wedding. You don't even need to attend the reception. But if you are in the business of wedding cakes, you make wedding cakes.

I still think the best comparison is an artist business asked to do something against their deeply held beliefs (pick your example).  Will the state force them to do it or put them out of business?

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I still think the best comparison is an artist business asked to do something against their deeply held beliefs (pick your example).  Will the state force them to do it or put them out of business?

That isn't the best example in my opinion because in this situation the baker is doing something that he does every single day for other customers. The status of the customer doesn't change the act. 

 

He isn't doing something special for him, he bakes cakes every day. They were asking for essentially the exact same job that he would gladly accept from a straight couple. He is just doing it for someone he deems "special" and wants to exclude.

 

If ANYONE asked an artist to paint something that said "White power, Death to Jews", I'd imagine the artist would say no. It wouldn't matter if the person asking was white, black, gay, straight etc... So they aren't discriminating because they would refuse that from anyone.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,793]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

You can wonder that, but it doesn't really matter. They have every right to pay someone to bake a wedding cake. Most people don't bake it themselves.

 But you are saying the business owner does not have the right to turn down the money?  All in all, I think it is pretty dumb for a business owner to turn down business, but that should be their decision, not the states.  When we start passing laws limiting free speech or free expression we will regret it in the end regardless of how much we might disagree with their speech or expression.

[Dashinka 24,793]

Just now, bcking said:

That isn't the best example in my opinion because in this situation the baker is doing something that he does every single day.

 

He isn't doing something special for him, he bakes cakes every day. They were asking for essentially the exact same job that he would gladly accept from a straight couple. He is just doing it for someone he deems "special" and wants to exclude.

 

If ANYONE asked an artist to paint something that said "White power, Death to Jews", I'd imagine the artist would say no. It wouldn't matter if the person asking was white, black, gay, straight etc... So they aren't discriminating because they would refuse that from anyone.

What if an artist refused to do a portrait of a same sex couple?  Or better yet, what if a gay artist refused to do a portrait of an opposite sex couple?  

 

I realize that cake decorators are not doctors, but to simply dismiss their artistry is wrong.  Most of the time their cakes are one off creations just like a painting.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

 But you are saying the business owner does not have the right to turn down the money?  All in all, I think it is pretty dumb for a business owner to turn down business, but that should be their decision, not the states.  When we start passing laws limiting free speech or free expression we will regret it in the end regardless of how much we might disagree with their speech or expression.

His "expression" doesn't change because of the status of the customer. The cake is the same. We aren't limiting his "expression". We are just saying he can't pick and choose who he does it for based on their sexual orientation (or race, or any other reason).

 

Again I have no problem with him refusing to make a cake that overtly celebrates homosexually. That is forcing him to do something he wouldn't otherwise do. That wasn't the case here. THey were asking him to make a cake that he would have gladly made for a straight couple. That isn't "freedom of expression", that is discrimination.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What if an artist refused to do a portrait of a same sex couple?  Or better yet, what if a gay artist refused to do a portrait of an opposite sex couple?  

 

I realize that cake decorators are not doctors, but to simply dismiss their artistry is wrong.  Most of the time their cakes are one off creations just like a painting.

I'm not dismissing their artistry at all. In fact earlier i was trying to include other types of artists (chefs) into the group.

 

If the same sex couple was requesting a style of portrait that the artist paints for all of their other clientele (Say, them sitting in chairs together with the family pet or something benign), then yes I would consider that discrimination if the ONLY reason they are saying no is because they are gay. Same with the opposite (gay artist painting an opposite sex couple).

 

The key is whether you would provide that EXACT same service/art to another client with EVERYTHING ELSE being equal EXCEPT their sexual orientation conforms to your "liking". If that is the ONLY thing keeping you from providing the service, that is discrimination.

 

If the same sex couple asked for a portrait where the one man was scantily clad and he was lying on top of the man then the artist would have to ask himself "Would I paint this for a straight couple?". If the answer is no he wouldn't do it for ANYONE, he can freely refuse.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,793]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I'm sure she does feel it is art. We tend to put a little bit of ourselves into anything we create really. But like I said, is the cakes he had made and was prepared to offer them no less artistic? A lot of pre made cakes in bakeries are still very beautiful and have designs. I don't believe the cake he offered was devoid of design at all, it was a standard wedding cake design that certainly requires skill. What they did want though was a rainbow cake... that is when you cut the inside, it's rainbow colored... otherwise it was a very plain cake, it would have no writing or other design. So where do we draw the artistic line? I find it hypocritical of him to offer them a standard cake he had already made, using his artistry.. that's all really. By his own account he says it is the ''making of the cake'' that causes him to violate his 'faith', so how does ''already making a cake beforehand and letting them buy it'' any real difference? The ADF which helps represent the baker says that his cake would be ''the iconic centerpiece of the marriage celebration” and “announces through Phillips’s voice that a marriage has occurred and should be celebrated.” Again, can they answer how him offering a cake he has already pre-made by him to the couple is any less a centerpiece and doesn't represent something? He's not making the cake specific to the couple's request (rainbow food coloring dye) but he has without a doubt made a wedding cake.

 

Here is an example of a wedding cake similar to the one my sister had, a standard stock cake no less created with skill, and no less a wedding cake. It's something similar to what was offered likely.

 

 

I just feel that this is where his argument gets weak. If he had refused across the board... maybe. But in conjunction with his lawyers he's trying to find a narrow argument in a clever way.. when he offered them a different cake, his moral objection starts to crumble.

So what you are saying the baker did not refuse to serve them, he refused to lend his customized talent to them.  The state now should control how people or business owners share their individual talent?  What then was so horrific about the baker’s actions?  We all need to conform to the social attitude of the state now?  By the way, I don’t consider a form cake in a case as being the same thing as one that requires more artistic input.  For all we know, he didn’t even make the cakes he was offering.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

So what you are saying the baker did not refuse to serve them, he refused to lend his customized talent to them.  The state now should control how people or business owners share their individual talent?  What then was so horrific about the baker’s actions?  We all need to conform to the social attitude of the state now?  By the way, I don’t consider a form cake in a case as being the same thing as one that requires more artistic input.  For all we know, he didn’t even make the cakes he was offering.

A chef has individualized customized talent. Many of the best chefs in the world do things that no one else can do. So I return to that category again.

 

Do you think a chef should be able to "refuse their customized talent" to people because of their skin color, religion or sexual orientation?

[Dashinka 24,793]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

A chef has individualized customized talent. Many of the best chefs in the world do things that no one else can do. So I return to that category again.

 

Do you think a chef should be able to "refuse their customized talent" to people because of their skin color, religion or sexual orientation?

I do.  This way the chef’s or other’s bigotry is out in the open.  However, I guess the other way, they can keep it hidden.