Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do see some hypocrisy in people supporting baker #2 but not baker #1. In both instances, the customer wanted a cake that made a "statement" (that "statement" being made in actual words on cake #2, and by the fact that a wedding cake is part of celebrating the couple to be wed, in cake #1). In both instances, the baker held a strong conviction against that statement/message which the cake was conveying (with or without words).
Note: I am not saying I agree or disagree with either baker, just that I do see more similarity in the two cases than most posters here concede.
Not seeing that at all. The second baker provided the cake - and we have no reason to believe she would have declined the service if she knew the beliefs of the client ahead of time. She simply refused to put a hateful message on the cake. Who's to say she wouldn't have declined to put ANY hateful message on there - not just anti-gay ones? There *might* be a case had she been willing to provid hate filled messages on her cakes in support of other groups.
I do see some hypocrisy in people supporting baker #2 but not baker #1. In both instances, the customer wanted a cake that made a "statement" (that "statement" being made in actual words on cake #2, and by the fact that a wedding cake is part of celebrating the couple to be wed, in cake #1). In both instances, the baker held a strong conviction against that statement/message which the cake was conveying (with or without words).
Note: I am not saying I agree or disagree with either baker, just that I do see more similarity in the two cases than most posters here concede.
If the baker had a problem with the message of a wedding cake, he should not have offered them for sale. OR was it because of the sexual orientation of the couple? That is in violation of anti-discrimination laws in that state.
In the other case she did not agree with the message of hate on the cake, and did not offer any cakes with a message of hate.
The bakery OFFERED wedding cakes. If a seller OFFERS something for sale, then he can not discriminate based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation in that state.
When you get a business license and set up a business that is open to the public you have to follow the laws of the state you are operating in.
IF one can claim "religious beliefs" to get around this law, then why not use "religious beliefs" to not serve blacks, or Muslims, or women?
Even the supreme court has ruled that "religious beliefs" do not allow you to break generally applicable laws.
I understand what you are saying, and I understand why such laws exist in general. But I do find it unfortunate that people must violate genuine, deeply-held religious or moral convictions just because of the business they happened to go into, possibly decades ago when today's scenarios were non-existent.
If someone owned a pharmacy, but held a sincere belief that suicide/euthanasia is immoral, should that pharmacist be required to dispense the lethal drugs? Or what if you were a physician, and you were required to inject the lethal drugs into your patient's IV?
What if laws changed, and convicted felons could purchase guns? But the gun store owner feels strongly opposed to selling to such customers?
Or what if you turned your family home into a Bed & Breakfast, and there was a prostitute who wanted to book a room every weekend (assume that prostitution is legal), and she hangs around for breakfast (hookers gotta eat) and you worry about the anti-woman message the prostitute's frequent presence is sending to your daughters, who help serve the guests.
I'm just trying to show you that there are plenty of topics on which people have deeply-held convictions.
And it is unfortunate that past, widespread discrimination against certain groups of people, now have caused laws that force people to either violate their sincere convictions, or close their businesses.
First of all, it wasn't a "gay bakery" ... secondly, they were more than happy to make them a cake. They weren't willing to put a hateful message on the cake.
No hypocrisy here.
How do we know it was "hateful"? Simply because that baker said it was? Was it possibly something from the Bible itself? We don't know do we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver
wow.. just wow.
First off, the religious owner refused to bake a cake at all just because they customers were gay.
This current baker NEVER refused to bake them a cake. He refused to put the message on the cake. He even gave them other options. This is completely different.
This so called customer had an agenda and I doubt he ever truly wanted the cake to begin with.
To me, it is not different. I think it is worthy challenge. Does anyone know if the true issue with the baker that refused to do the cake for the homosexuals had to do with what decorated the cake or the cake itself. Could that baker have said she would give them the cake but that adding the wording and decorations would be their responsibility and then it would have been OK. Like, "I can bake the cake but not decorate it." Would that have been OK, not wanting to of the same sex top deco?
Quote:
Originally Posted by apexgds
She wasn't withholding a service. She was happy to bake the cake for them, and even decorate it, just not decorate it with that particular subject matter. She offered a way to make it happen.
That's different than not even being willing to bake a cake at all.
I don't really think that it is different especially since we do not know what she was asked to put on the top that she considered "hateful" especially since many people find Biblical reference regarding sodomy "hateful" which it is not.
If the baker had a problem with the message of a wedding cake, he should not have offered them for sale. OR was it because of the sexual orientation of the couple? That is in violation of anti-discrimination laws in that state.
In the other case she did not agree with the message of hate on the cake, and did not offer any cakes with a message of hate.
I shouldn't have to explain this. You do know that many people embrace the idea of marriage, between a man and a woman, but not same-sex marriage (I'm not in that camp, but many, many people have strong convictions against same-sex marriage). So yes, the message that the baker opposed was the message of celebrating same-sex marriage, even though same-sex marriage is legal.
Hateful thoughts are (generally) legal, but the other baker refused to violate her conscience by celebrating that message with words on a cake.
Get it now? You don't have to agree with the bakers, but do you now see the similarity in the two bakers each being opposed to a message?
How do we know it was "hateful"? Simply because that baker said it was? Was it possibly something from the Bible itself? We don't know do we?
The message he wanted was "God HATES homosexuals, so yep pretty siure it is about hate since the word is right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
To me, it is not different. I think it is worthy challenge. Does anyone know if the true issue with the baker that refused to do the cake for the homosexuals had to do with what decorated the cake or the cake itself. Could that baker have said she would give them the cake but that adding the wording and decorations would be their responsibility and then it would have been OK. Like, "I can bake the cake but not decorate it." Would that have been OK, not wanting to of the same sex top deco?
That cast they were refused the cake before they even got to discussing design or decoration. Plus the baker himself SAID that he refused to make them the cake because it was for a homosexual wedding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
I don't really think that it is different especially since we do not know what she was asked to put on the top that she considered "hateful" especially since many people find Biblical reference regarding sodomy "hateful" which it is not.
I shouldn't have to explain this. You do know that many people embrace the idea of marriage, between a man and a woman, but not same-sex marriage (I'm not in that camp, but many, many people have strong convictions against same-sex marriage). So yes, the message that the baker opposed was the message of celebrating same-sex marriage, even though same-sex marriage is legal.
Hateful thoughts are (generally) legal, but the other baker refused to violate her conscience by celebrating that message with words on a cake.
Get it now? You don't have to agree with the bakers, but do you now see the similarity in the two bakers each being opposed to a message?
But the baker at Azucar will not decorate any cake that has a hate message for ANYONE.
The baker at masterpiece will bake wedding cakes for couple A but not couple B based on their sexual orientation.
One does not offer a produce (cakes with a message of hate)
The other does offer a product (wedding cakes) but not for some people.
But the baker at Azucar will not decorate any cake that has a hate message for ANYONE.
The baker at masterpiece will bake wedding cakes for couple A but not couple B based on their sexual orientation.
One does not offer a produce (cakes with a message of hate)
The other does offer a product (wedding cakes) but not for some people.
I disagree with the baker's belief about making a cake for the same-sex couple, but i do believe in her right to hold those beliefs.
If I wanted a cake, and for whatever reason, the baker was offended at the "message" of the cake I wanted, I'd would simply go elsewhere. I would respect the baker's right to hold convictions that differed from mine.
Likewise, I respect your right to hold opinions that differ from mine. This is one of those "agree to disagree" times.
I disagree with the baker's belief about making a cake for the same-sex couple, but i do believe in her right to hold those beliefs.
If I wanted a cake, and for whatever reason, the baker was offended at the "message" of the cake I wanted, I'd would simply go elsewhere. I would respect the baker's right to hold convictions that differed from mine.
Likewise, I respect your right to hold opinions that differ from mine. This is one of those "agree to disagree" times.
Peace.
I agree that the baker can have any beliefs they choose. When they act on those beliefs in violation of the law is when there is a problem.
If a Muslim business has beliefs about serving women, is it ok for them to refuse service to women?
If a Christian business has beliefs about interracial couples, can they refuse service to them?
The point is anyone can have any beliefs they choose, and use those beliefs to violate any law they choose if we were to allow such. I believe that speed limits suck, but if I act on those beliefs I will get a ticket.
That is the point of generally applicable laws applying to everyone.
I honestly don't know what I would have done as the baker in that situation. I don't doubt that my actions would be different if i was the owner (who for the sake of argument lets say is upper middle class) or if i was a part time worker in debt with kids to feed.
Either way, time for the bakery to update its policies. Maybe "hate messages" should cost a premium?
Honestly, I think the artist in me would have less moral trouble w the pictograph vs writing "God hates Gays." Better able to rationalization it i guess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
