Baker Sued Over Refusing Gay Wedding Cake Order
Lounge By reginaherrin Updated 11 Dec 2013 , 6:18pm by jason_kraft
A
Original message sent by Annabakescakes
[U][B][I]I find it incrmedibly ironic that these gays fight for freedom of association, and yet force others to associate with people they don't want to associate with.[/I][/B][/U]
Amazingly stupid thing to say.
Ordering a cake from me is not forced association. It's an order!
Here's another analogy: I don't think infant baptism is right. I believe that religion should be a choice snd not forced upon people who aren't even sentient yet (infants). I think that baptisms should be performed on adults who have made that choice themselves.
This 'belief' sure doesn't stop me from taking orders for christening cakes! We average about 3-4 christening cskes every weekend.
A
Original message sent by kakeladi
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.
All businesses do have the right to follow their religious convictions, as long as those convictions do not trample the civil rights of protected minority groups.
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??
The government is perfectly fine with businesses that close on Sundays for any reason, religious or otherwise. In fact, in northern NJ (where I grew up) some cities have blue laws that force most retailers to stay closed on Sunday.
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.
No sign is necessary. They could have refused service by saying they were booked for that date, but as soon as you say "I won't serve you because you are X" there is a problem. Of course if you make a pattern of being "booked" for certain minorities there would be a similar issue.
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.
The Hobby Lobby issue (where they are being required to provide insurance coverage for birth control for their employees) is not related to discrimination.
Quote:
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.
I don't really get the irony, or at least I don't see any humor in it.
It sounds like you are missing the point of the lawsuit. What these guys did was in some ways similar to what Rosa Parks did. You could say the same types of things about her being unwise to make a stink, except she was risking a lot more than someone spitting on her food. I doubt she was comfortable sitting on the bus with some white person glaring at her for not giving up her seat. She did it to stand up for what is right. To help those who come after her. It wasn't just about that seat on that bus that day. And I doubt these guys still want a cake from this person.
A
Original message sent by Annabakescakes
[U][B][I]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.[/I][/B][/U]
Replace "gays" with "black people" and you have the prevailing view for a sizable percentage of the US population that led to passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So essentially you discriminate in your business. What happens when the local Judge says that you have discriminated on a person because of the customers secksual orientation, and it's supported by their religious beliefs; just because you find it raunchy and gross you must make it or be fined.
This type of argument can go on for infinity. Which is why human communities make laws and follow customs.
For those who say that 'those who know the truth should decide what's right.'
On what grounds does one claim to have a monopoly on 'truth.' Someone else's truth may be held just as strongly and sincerely as theirs.
When asked why they have the truth, or what gives them the right to set the standard for the truth: the answer usually is because "Were right. You're wrong. You're a___ [ insert insult here ]__."
The pendulum swings back and forth throughout time depending on who is in power. The Liberal Principle of public uncensored discussion which leads to local laws for the community, of the people, by the people, for the people, works best. The Great American Experiment of Democracy.
What is going on today is sometimes more like the inquisition rather than the open liberal debate of free citizens. There are too many ‘thought police’ vigilantes that prevent the type of discussion that builds and strengthens a free society. We are a country based on laws.
Apparently the Colorado baker didn't follow his, and he's being punished by his community.
Originally Posted by reginaherrin 
"......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........"
PS: I'd probably have to go to jail rather than make the raunchy and gross ones myself, so I am simpatico here.
AThere is a big difference between choosing which types of cake design you are willing/technically able to make and offer (personal choice) and discriminating by refusing to make cakes for certain people based on whichever arbitrary classification of the human race they fall into. To me choosing not to do erotic cakes is the same as choosing not to do fondant cakes, or not to do royal-iced cakes. Choosing to not offer a particular service, rather than choosing who not to offer it to. How sad we even have to have a discussion like this in 2013.
MBalaska, choosing or not choosing to do an erotic cake is in no way discrimination. Erotic cakes have nothing whatsoever to do with religion or any one type of person. I have had white people and black people and Asian people, women and men, gay and straight order erotic cakes so there is not discrimination with not doing one type of cake. I don't think one type of cake is going to be mad that I did not make them and try to sue me over it.
Anna, these gay men undoubtedly do not plan to get this baker to make his cake. They are trying to stand up for what is right and fight injustice. I find it ironic gays are subject to all our laws while they are do not have their full rights. It is just how howsweet said, this is just like the civil rights movement where black people did not have full rights and were treated horribly yet expected to take it and abide by all our laws. Should they have just shut up and taken everything and live in a country that did not see them as a full human being?
AThe discrimination will continue, people just won't be dumb enough in the future to tell someone the real reason for refusing their order.
This just made me think. Our local mall doesn't allow teens to be in there without an adult (21) after 5 pm. Is that discrimination or is that having rules to protect your assets? I am in no way comparing it with this situation....just pondering
I love that cake…gorgeous!!!
Quote:
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.
Batterup....because ***ual orientation has been assigned in the discrimination category as a "protected class" it falls under "those" rules. Penis cakes and unescorted minors are irrevelant. That's another issue....not one that falls under the discrimination act.
but doesn't treatment based on age regardless of whether it is elderly or young fall under a protected class?
not arguing the original case but wondering why one is accepted by a whole community of people and another is not?? If the mall said anyone over 65 had to be escorted there would be an uproar...please understand I am not on one side or another...just thinking out loud. I would gladly do the cake....
AReligion is protected, no? Shouldn't exercising your religious beliefs in your business be your right? If you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, that means ANY reason. I think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to make that cake. It just means more gay wedding cakes for another bakery.
I am all for gay marriage, but I also support the right of a small business to refuse service.
AAn age limit is an age limit - not discrimination, and irrelevant here.
Should we allow 10 year olds to have driver's licenses? Or let tweens into the bar.
I teach sugar*craft snd have a 16 year limit in all my classes. It's an age limit, or maybe you think I should start allowing 7 year olds in my wired sugar flowers classes.
ACurves is for women, is that not discrimination toward men? A small business should be able decide who they cater to. That decision could be the nail in their coffin, but I do believe a business owner should have their right protected too.
AThis bakery didn't refuse service to a gay person, per se. I doubt they would have refused to sell them a cupcake at the counter. They refused to make a cake that was for a celebration of something that conflicted with their moral/religious beliefs. If someone asked me to make a cake for the marriage of a 50 year old to a 5 year old (arranged marriage in some countries), there's no way I would. If it were some satanic themed celebration, I would decline as well. A small business owner should not be forced to do something that conflicts with their religious beliefs. It's not like there's no other bakery in town.
A
Original message sent by BrandisBaked
Curves is for women, is that not discrimination toward men? A small business should be able decide who they cater to. That decision could be the nail in their coffin, but I do believe a business owner should have their right protected too.
Women-only gyms have been successfully sued for discrimination by men who wish to join. Some states have passed laws that exempt gyms from gender discrimination, although it's not clear whether or not these state laws are constitutional.
http://fitnessmarketing.com/2011/04/are-women-only-gyms-guilty-of-discrimination/
A
Original message sent by BrandisBaked
This bakery didn't refuse service to a gay person, per se.
The bakery refused to sell a specific product to a gay couple, when they had no problem selling the same product so a straight couple. The fact that they would still sell other products without discriminating is irrelevant, since partial discrimination is still discrimination.
Quote:
An age limit is an age limit - not discrimination, and irrelevant here.
Should we allow 10 year olds to have driver's licenses? Or let tweens into the bar.
I teach sugar*craft snd have a 16 year limit in all my classes. It's an age limit, or maybe you think I should start allowing 7 year olds in my wired sugar flowers classes.
no need to get Snarky....just posing a question
A
Original message sent by BatterUpCake
but doesn't treatment based on age regardless of whether it is elderly or young fall under a protected class?
Yes it does, but there are exemptions to discrimination laws based on health and safety. So if a mall creates a policy that an escort is required for people under a certain age after a certain time and they can reasonably make a case that this is required for public safety, this policy would stand up to legal scrutiny.
A
Original message sent by BrandisBaked
If someone asked me to make a cake for the marriage of a 50 year old to a 5 year old (arranged marriage in some countries), there's no way I would. If it were some satanic themed celebration, I would decline as well.
All you have to do now is compare gay marriage to beastiality and you've hit the trifecta. :?
Brandi, that was kind of my thought process at first as well (even though I do believe what he did was wrong) until howsweet said something about the bakery owner not having a problem with any other celebration that would conflict with his beliefs like bar mitzvahs or Buddhist weddings or an Arab wedding etc.... Those too would conflict with his religious beliefs and according to him he would be "participating" in the celebration since he is doing the cake for that occasion. Yet he has no problem doing those cakes. And the example of the wedding of a 50 year old to a 5 year old doesn't hold up because it is not a custom in our country and we are talking about the United States and no other country.
A
Original message sent by reginaherrin
And the example of the wedding of a 50 year old to a 5 year old doesn't hold up because it is not a custom in our country and we are talking about the United States and no other country.
There's also the fact that such a marriage would be a crime in the US, and reporting it to the authorities would make the issue moot.
If someone asked me to make a cake for the marriage of a 50 year old to a 5 year old (arranged marriage in some countries), there's no way I would. If it were some satanic themed celebration, I would decline as well. A small business owner should not be forced to do something that conflicts with their religious beliefs. It's not like there's no other bakery in town.
In the case of the prearranged marriage you're refusing to participate with a group who does harm to others. Forcing a person into marriage. Satanism ....I don't even know what that is. I imagine it ranges from silliness to sacrificing babies and animals. Either way, no one is born a Satanist. Discrimination against gays is discrimination against what they are. Homo***uality isn't a choice someone makes. Look how many groups who specialize in "fixing" them have had to admit they were wrong.
And in some cases there literally may be no other bakery in town
AThis isn't about gay marriage. It's about a small business owner's right to refuse service based on his own religious beliefs.
Quote by @%username% on %date%
%body%