Baker Sued Over Refusing Gay Wedding Cake Order

Lounge By reginaherrin Updated 11 Dec 2013 , 6:18pm by jason_kraft

reginaherrin Posted 10 Dec 2013 , 11:38pm
post #1 of 77

I just read a story about a Colorado bakery owner that was sued over refusing to accept a same *** wedding cake order.  The judge ruled that the bakery cannot refuse such orders because it is discrimination.   The bakery owner refused the wedding cake due to his religious convictions but is willing to do any other order for same *** couples (birthdays, cookies etc...).  I was just curious what everyone else thought about this.  Here is the site I got it from http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/10/3042471/fox-colorado-bakery/.  He says he does not want to "participate" in the wedding and thinks every wedding cake he does he is participating in it.  I think that is the stupidest statement I have ever heard.  Just because you do their wedding cake does not mean you are "participating" anyway in the actual wedding.  I have done several same *** wedding cakes and have no problem doing them.  I think he is a total jerk to do what he did.  However, I am not sure if I agree with the judges ruling and I think it should be within our rights as private business owners to refuse to take certain orders.  For instance, erotic cakes.  Some bakers refuse to do them at all and some don't mind doing them.  I do them but only up to a certain point, I don't do the really raunchy and gross ones.  I do think the judge was taking away his rights though on it, even if I don't agree with why he turned it down. But I do see that it can turn into not taking orders from certain religions or cultures which is super wrong.  What do you all think? 

76 replies
BatterUpCake Posted 10 Dec 2013 , 11:54pm
post #2 of 77

"I think it should be within our rights as private business owners to refuse to take certain orders" If I decide I do not want to do purple cakes that is my business and the Govt has no business in my business. If I was receiving public funding I would feel completely different. A private business should be able to make their own choices and deal with the consequences from their customers that they want. If they decide not to serve gays/blacks/Hispanics teenagers that is their choice. Of course they will lose a large segment of the population and the customers who believe they are in the wrong.They probably won't stay open long....unless it is teenagers they don't serve...everyone would understand that...lol.

Annabakescakes Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:03am
post #3 of 77

5...4...3....2....1..... Even with one mod sick and the other who barely logs on, this post will not last long. But yes, I think the government needs to butt out. If someone wants to be a racist d-bag, I do not frequent their business. If other's chose to do so, that is on them. Same should go for people who have a moral objection to homo***uality.

 

I am considering not doing sports cakes because I hate them the whole time I am doing them, I wonder if anyone has a problem with that?

jason_kraft Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:05am
post #4 of 77

AIn the US, federal law says that if you offer services to the general public you cannot discriminate based on race, gender, religion, disability, etc. ***ual orientation is not covered under federal law (yet) but many states do protect it, including Colorado. You can legally refuse things like erotic cakes because they do not involve a protected class.

jason_kraft Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:09am
post #5 of 77

A

Original message sent by Annabakescakes

I am considering not doing sports cakes because I hate them the whole time I am doing them, I wonder if anyone has a problem with that?

Nope, whether or not someone participates in sports is not a protected class.

Here is a complete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

BatterUpCake Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:13am
post #6 of 77

Anna, why would the mod delete this?

 

I personally have no problem serving anyone except D-bags and they come in every shape, size and class. I just disagree with govt intervention. It starts small and only gets worse from there!

rychevamp Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:14am
post #7 of 77

Yeah, his statement seems a little silly. You're making someone a cake, you are not in their wedding.  I've done several cakes for gay couples and I'm all for it.  More business for me :).  To me a cake is a cake, I don't have a problem with who it's for. Religion is not a factor for me.

I think there is a difference in not doing an erotic type cake and a cake for a gay couple.  If you don't like doing erotic cakes, it's more of "I don't make that style of cake" than "I won't make your cake because you are gay".  That is discrimination plain and simple.  I don't know what I think about the judges ruling.  I think his reason for turning them down is wrong, but is the judges' ruling the way to go?  

Living in the Bay Area, there are a lot of same *** couples, and I'll make cakes for their weddings.  If your business is such that you can turn away money, go for it. But, I for one wouldn't do it.  

KatieKake Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:24am
post #8 of 77

I would prefer to do an same *** cake then a erotic cake, I have made a naked lady cake, and that is my limit, and it was years ago, for a very close group of people for a birthday party.

 

I do think a  person should have the right to turn down an order if they so desire, but on the other hand, it can get to be discrimination. For instance you can't get the morning after pill at certain pharmacies, because of some ones religious beliefs, or the employer does not want to provide counterceptives to his employees. A person is entitled to their religious beliefs, but the are not entitled to impose their beliefs on their employees,  nor  the general public that are their customers.

 

I am some what confused by the baker, he will do birthday cakes,  cookies, but not wedding cakes. If making a wedding cake is participating in the wedding, making a birthday cake is  participating in their life style. 
 

This is a fine line and like you I am not really sure who is right. The baker, who should have the right to turn down an order, or the judge who  is ruling against discrimination.

howsweet Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:36am
post #9 of 77

From what I understand of his religion,  refusing to make the cake was actually against its teachings. In the Bible wasn't Jesus criticized for acts of kindness to the "wrong sort"?   This baker demoralized those customers unkindly and unnecessarily.  After all, we all know there are ways to lose a customer without insulting them or confronting them about their beliefs and ***ual  orientation.

 

And what about other cakes that would conflict with his beliefs. Does he refuse to do Bar Mitvahs or Buddhist weddings? To me, it sounded like a smug, holier than thou act of hate. Whatever it was, it sure wasn't an act of love.

howsweet Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:38am
post #10 of 77
Quote:

Originally Posted by KatieKake 

 

This is a fine line and like you I am not really sure who is right. The baker, who should have the right to turn down an order, or the judge who  is ruling against discrimination.

It's not a fine line as far as the CO law goes. It was a pretty simple ruling for the judge.

howsweet Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:44am
post #11 of 77

My very first wedding cake. I never met the customers in person. They did all their ordering over email and it was set in place before guests arrived. It's just now occurring to me that the reason they picked out their wedding cake this way, without even having a tasting, could have been because they were afraid something like that would happen to them.

 

reginaherrin Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:45am
post #12 of 77

What everyone is saying is exactly why I am on the fence about this.  Yes I am totally against someone turning down someone because of certain aspects of their lifestyle but I just don't know if I believe you should be made to do something you are so against (whether it is right or not).  But I do get how doing erotic cakes being different then gay wedding cakes.  But in the long run, discrimination is discrimination and should never happen. 

reginaherrin Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:48am
post #13 of 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by howsweet 
 

From what I understand of his religion,  refusing to make the cake was actually against its teachings. In the Bible wasn't Jesus criticized for acts of kindness to the "wrong sort"?   This baker demoralized those customers unkindly and unnecessarily.  After all, we all know there are ways to lose a customer without insulting them or confronting them about their beliefs and ***ual  orientation.

 

And what about other cakes that would conflict with his beliefs. Does he refuse to do Bar Mitvahs or Buddhist weddings? To me, it sounded like a smug, holier than thou act of hate. Whatever it was, it sure wasn't an act of love.


Howsweet, great reply and makes so much sense.  Very good point.

BatterUpCake Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 12:57am
post #14 of 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by howsweet 
 

My very first wedding cake. I never met the customers in person. They did all their ordering over email and it was set in place before guests arrived. It's just now occurring to me that the reason they picked out their wedding cake this way, without even having a tasting, could have been because they were afraid something like that would happen to them.

 

I have seen this cake of yours before but I never associated the rainbow theme with "gayness" I just always thought it was a bright choice for a wedding. The roses ae spectacular, BTW

howsweet Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 1:13am
post #15 of 77

Thanks!  I'm still mortified about the piping. There's sort of something wrong with me - I can't do consistent piping. Or anything that requires consistency like that - handwriting, knitting crocheting.

BatterUpCake Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 1:17am
post #16 of 77

I hate piping...can't wait to get to that term in school. Maybe they can make me like it!

MBalaska Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 1:44am
post #17 of 77

[Lucretius De Rerum Natura iv. 637] quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum, what is food to one person may be bitter poison to others.
 

howsweet Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 1:49am
post #18 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBalaska 
 

[Lucretius De Rerum Natura iv. 637] quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum, what is food to one person may be bitter poison to others.
 


Not sure what your point is, but if it's bitter poison for a person to do the right thing, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. (See, I can quote famous sayings, too  :D haha)

 

Edit: Ohhh, you're referring to the rest of that poem?

Annabakescakes Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 2:58am
post #19 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annabakescakes 

I am considering not doing sports cakes because I hate them the whole time I am doing them, I wonder if anyone has a problem with that?

Nope, whether or not someone participates in sports is not a protected class.

Here is a complete list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class


It's called sarcasm, a form a humor.

 

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

 

This might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Elcee Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 3:30am
post #20 of 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatterUpCake 
 

"I think it should be within our rights as private business owners to refuse to take certain orders" If I decide I do not want to do purple cakes that is my business and the Govt has no business in my business. If I was receiving public funding I would feel completely different. A private business should be able to make their own choices and deal with the consequences from their customers that they want. If they decide not to serve gays/blacks/Hispanics teenagers that is their choice. Of course they will lose a large segment of the population and the customers who believe they are in the wrong.They probably won't stay open long....unless it is teenagers they don't serve...everyone would understand that...lol.

No, it's not your "choice" to practice illegal discrimination.

jason_kraft Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 3:53am
post #21 of 77

A

Original message sent by Annabakescakes

It's called sarcasm, a form a humor.

What an intriguing concept. Can you explain in further detail how sarcasm can form a humor?

jason_kraft Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 3:57am
post #22 of 77

A

Original message sent by Elcee

No, it's not your "choice" to practice illegal discrimination.

You do have a choice to discriminate based on protected classes, but only if you refrain from selling to, serving, or advertising to the general public (e.g. a private club with selective membership).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

Elcee Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 4:13am
post #23 of 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_kraft 


You do have a choice to discriminate based on protected classes, but only if you refrain from selling to, serving, or advertising to the general public (e.g. a private club with selective membership).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations


Ah, but we're not discussing a private club or an entity that refrains from selling to, serving, or advertising to the general public, are we?

jason_kraft Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 4:19am
post #24 of 77

A

Original message sent by Elcee

Ah, but we're not discussing a private club or an entity that refrains from selling to, serving, or advertising to the general public, are we?

Not in this case, but a hypothetical entity that chooses to discriminate based on protected classes is free to do so providing they do not participate in the nation's economy. When you sell to the general public you implicitly derive benefits provided by the government, but if you want to play in your own private sandbox without said benefits you can make your own rules.

MBalaska Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 4:44am
post #25 of 77

the news reported that the Judge in the case used the Colorado business law that states you can't refuse to serve someone based on marital status, ***ual orientation.

and that the baker will be fined for every further refusal to make gay cakes.

kakeladi Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 5:03am
post #26 of 77

I haven't read all the replies but I did read most of  one report on this.  The one fact that I saw was that there is a law already in that area/state/county(?) that

businesses cannot discriminate so that's what the judge based his ruling on.  I agree w/another poster that goverment should stay out of our businesses

but in this case the law already exsists so the business needs to obey it.  I agree with their reason to refuse the order based on their religious convictions - any business should have the right to follow their religious convictions in the U.S.  If a business wants to close on Sunday (or any day of the week) because they want to go to church why should goverment say they can't??  maybe if they had a sign up that said We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone (words to that effect) that would have stopped this problem for them - I don't know if that would have worked or not.

A somewhat similar problem is being fought by Hobby Lobby re: gov'mt mandated insurance that covers abortions (or is it birth control?)  Haven't followed that too closely so don't know if that has been worked out of not.

BrandisBaked Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 5:16am
post #27 of 77

AWasn't there a bakery that refused to make a cake for little Adolf Hitler's birthday?

Godot Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 5:31am
post #28 of 77

AYeah - it wss s couple of years ago. It turned out that the family got a little more (negative) attention than they thought they would.

They had named their kids Adolf Hitler snd Heinrich Himmler and there was one other kid with the name of a nazi.

After the articles in the media the fsmily was investigated and the children removed from the parents custody.

That said - I hsd a consultation with a lovely couple on Saturday - both women. We do gay wedding cakes and partnership cakes all the time.

Love is love.

Annabakescakes Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 5:32am
post #29 of 77

I find it incredibly ironic that these gays fight for freedom of association, and yet force others to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

 

And I say these gays, and not gay people in general because not a single one of my gay friends gives a rip about the hub-bub in the media. Yes, they would like the option to marry someone of their same ***, but certainly don't want to patronize an establishment who doesn't want to serve them. And neither would I. I hate giving money to people who hate me. I try to use businesses who have the same beliefs as me, as well.

 

Also, I am incredibly careful when speaking to someone who is preparing my food, I especially don't want to piss them off. I remember a time quite well, even though it was half my lifetime ago, at my McDonald's job. (I was 17) This was in a very small town, and everyone of a certain age knew each other, and half of them worked at McDonald's. The drive through gal shouts, "Hey it is JANE DOE!" (Jason: that is the feminine form of a generic name used when trying to protect an identity, or when you don't know their name.) EVERYONE hated this girl in high school, and 3 or 4 of them all worked there, so they thought it would be funny to spit in her burger, so they did.

 

I was a prep cook at Cracker Barrel for a time, and I heard a story about how some guy sent his food back 3 times, so the last time, the line cook stuck one hand down the front of his pants, and the other down the back of his pants, rubbed them all around, took them out and spit on them, and rubbed it like lotion, then used his vile hands to cook the food to perfection. Imagine my horror.

 

So, if I go in to order a steak from someone who says they hate people like me, I would  "Thanks much for letting me know! Have a nice life, a$$hole!" and I will go somewhere else.

Annabakescakes Posted 11 Dec 2013 , 5:36am
post #30 of 77

BTW I have never done a gay wedding cake, but I hope I get to, because I love fabulous cakes and rainbows and such! I had a consultation for one last year, but they went with cheap, rather than good.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%