Cake Equality for all!

This is an interesting case!

We have all heard how bakers and photographers are being sued left and right for declining gay-wedding business. But now a baker who refused an anti-gay message is having the weight of the government thrown at them. It should be interesting because legally and logically there is no way a person can argue that you have a right to refuse the anti-gay message but must provide pro-gay cakes.

Of course the government and gay movement do not care what is logical or legal so I expect to see them both argue one baker has a right to refuse and the other not. But this one is actually a good test-case. I had thought the way to protect rights was to try something like this. This is the kind of case Supreme Courts were meant to hear.

Quote: your link

"There's no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado.

This opinion will prevail and the whole thing will be soon forgotten.

Quote: AZDuffman

This is an interesting case!

We have all heard how bakers and photographers are being sued left and right for declining gay-wedding business. But now a baker who refused an anti-gay message is having the weight of the government thrown at them. It should be interesting because legally and logically there is no way a person can argue that you have a right to refuse the anti-gay message but must provide pro-gay cakes.

Of course the government and gay movement do not care what is logical or legal so I expect to see them both argue one baker has a right to refuse and the other not. But this one is actually a good test-case. I had thought the way to protect rights was to try something like this. This is the kind of case Supreme Courts were meant to hear.

If a gay couple wants a standard cake. They should be able to buy a standard cake.
If a religious nut wants a special obscene cake, the baker can refuse.
Its common sense.

Quote: terapined

If a gay couple wants a standard cake. They should be able to buy a standard cake.
If a religious nut wants a special obscene cake, the baker can refuse.
Its common sense.

Uh, sorry, but I miss the "common sense" part. Both are "standard cakes." It is the same effort to write the message on the cake. So why do you say one baker can have their right to refuse business trampled on by in your terms "gay nut cases" and the other may refuse business they choose not to have?

Seriously, I don't get it.

I don't know how this will be resolved but I suspect that if we go down the route where someone can use the right to their religious beliefs to discriminate against a class of people whether it is gays, women, race, the religious beliefs will eventually lose out.

As I've said before, religious beliefs are completely arbitrary. They can be anything. So, they can create conflict every time a new one comes into existence.

If someone decides their religion says they can't serve women after 9pm in their restaurant, that is the thing that will eventually lose. A fixed entity like women will win against religious beliefs if push comes to shove. If a situation occurs that pushes something to that limit.

Not sure as to limits of service, but simple restaurant service is also a service.

And a new wacky religion can come into existence at any time. Just needs some followers.

I would say all the other conditions are of a certain limited nature except religion.

Quote: rxwine

I don't know how this will be resolved but I suspect that if we go down the route where someone can use the right to their religious beliefs to discriminate against a class of people whether it is gays, women, race, the religious beliefs will eventually lose out.

As I've said before, religious beliefs are completely arbitrary. They can be anything. So, they can create conflict every time a new one comes into existence.

If someone decides their religion says they can't serve women after 9pm in their restaurant, that is the thing that will eventually lose. A fixed entity like women will win against religious beliefs if push comes to shove. If a situation occurs that pushes something to that limit.

Not sure as to limits of service, but simple restaurant service is also a service.

I see two thing here. The first is just leave religion out of it. I should be able to say, "I don't want your business" to anybody for any reason. Here is an example. As most know, I deal cards at parties of various sorts. There are jobs I turn down. I turn down a certain college because it is loud, hot, and just a hard gig to me. I just do not want that business.

In basic terms religion or sexual preference has nothing to do with it. A contract cannot exist unless both parties want and agree to enter into it. When one side is compelled you do not have freedom but tyranny.

Which brings us to the "restaurant" example. Restaurants have an "open contract" of sorts. All may enter. All may order anything on the menu and assuming they have not run out, the restaurant will then fill the order at the price quoted. But restaurants do have the right to refuse service. So if two gays want to eat in a restaurant then said restaurant must serve them assuming the order off the menu. OTOH if they start showing affection then the proprietor has the right to tell them to knock it off or leave.

My point is it is a natural, not religious, right to not enter into a contract.

Quote: AZDuffman

But restaurants do have the right to refuse service. So if two gays want to eat in a restaurant then said restaurant must serve them assuming the order off the menu. OTOH if they start showing affection then the proprietor has the right to tell them to knock it off or leave.

My point is it is a natural, not religious, right to not enter into a contract.

I think the thing is, let's take a big business like a super-Wal-Mart, they could have a rule for no handholding and kissing. But they can't just target gays. They have to target everyone.

Business has been deemed not as one sided for the property owner as private property with no business on it. On private, non-business property you can target protected groups or anyone, (except people with lawful authority) to shove off for any reason.

We know that people who did business at one time did practice discrimination without being interfered with. And I know the idea is, one should just walk down the street and do business with someone else. But I could see back when there are a lot of small towns. You had one choice, maybe two if you're lucky.

That way of doing business was a hardship on the smallest minorities in places whether it was a single family of people not approved by the majority. Could be the Catholic family, the black family, the unmarried couple, the Irish etc. If the minority is small enough in the community, they can apply no economic pressure in such situations. They are simply refused business. Doesn't seem right to me.

So, it's not like it hasn't been tried.,

Things could be worse, you know.

Quote: rxwine

We know that people who did business at one time did practice discrimination without being interfered with. And I know the idea is, one should just walk down the street and do business with someone else. But I could see back when there are a lot of small towns. You had one choice, maybe two if you're lucky.

That way of doing business was a hardship on the smallest minorities in places whether it was a single family of people not approved by the majority. Could be the Catholic family, the black family, the unmarried couple, the Irish etc. If the minority is small enough in the community, they can apply no economic pressure in such situations. They are simply refused business. Doesn't seem right to me.

So, it's not like it hasn't been tried.,

But there is a difference here. I draw it at product or service customization. I mentioned it in the post. A restaurant with posted prices has a much thinner case than a photographer, caterer, or cake decorator. As to the "not seeming right" well there is probably a line in the middle. But to me the line has to respect the rights of both sides.

One of my favorites was Augusta Country Club. People said it was "not right" when they would not admit women. But I say that people who think it is "not right" need to buy land, design and build a golf course, then build the same prestige Augusta built over the years. Then they can make the decisions on who gets admitted.

I met a DJ once who did a good business in gay weddings other DJs turned down. He thought the other guys were crazy. The other guys were happy to refer the business out. The buyers got a happier DJ and presumably better service. That is the right way to handle things, not to trample on people's rights by force of "law."

When you first brought this argument up AZ I thought you were right. I thought let's have the free market decide. However, I am really won over by rxwine. It is fine to say to a minority, go build your own country club but it seems like an unfair imposition. What if in the meantime the real estate agents won't sell her the land and the construction companies won't build it. She can't exercise her financial muscle. She could organize boycotts and practice civil disobedience, which will work eventually but what if she was in a small town and nobody thought it was a good cause. She is left out with nothing to do and no where to turn. This seems like a big weakness in letting hard work and the free market overcome these prejudices, the government or courts need to help the discriminated party out at least a little bit.