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.
So buy enough cakes for the wedding reception. There's no rule that says "Thou shalt only be provisioned a solitary wedding cake". There's no potato in the world that grows that can feed 50 people French fries either, wonder how McDonalds deals with it...
Doesn't matter, consider, portrait artist who also sells paintings they've done (some portraits, pets, landscapes, still life), anti-war, unilateral nuclear disarmament, etc. Asked by a former USAF FCC service person, to paint them a portrait, portraying them over a Minuteman III console in full dress. The serviceman is "choosing every detail", does that mean that the painter must paint their portrait? Note Veterans are a protected class.
Maybe, I'm not sure about the laws regarding painters. Does he do commissions? Would he do the same exact painting for another person, but not for this guy? Did the painter say, no you are a Veteran I will not do any painting for you at all?
Like I have said I could understand if the couple wanted "gays are great" or an objectionable image on the cake, or if they asked for a design that he did not offer I would side with the baker fully, but that is not what happened in this case. Their cake was pretty run of the mill. No words, no topper, no images. Just a 4 tier white cake with some teal and black detailing. Not even initials on it. He refused them any wedding cake.
Yet the slippery slope argument is okay when your people use it? Like LGBT rights is supposed to lead to polygamy and child rape and man/animal marriage? Like background checks for guns is going to lead to stormtroopers in black masks kicking down doors to take people's guns?
"My people" ??
Who exactly are "my" people?
FYI:
I'm more Libertarian than I am Republican. (although I will vote Conservative until Libertarians can field a viable candidate)
I'm ok with gay marriage.....because I believe in personal freedoms of course, but more importantly becausethat the government has no constitutional authority to regulate marriageat all.
But the flip side of that coin means that I also believe in religious freedom as well as freedom of association and the right to own your own labor.
So, the same vein of logic that's used to keep the government from dictating who can and cannot get married is also used to keep the government from telling anyone they must provide labor against their will for any reason at all........religious or otherwise.
My reason for siding with the baker in this case has nothing to do with my religion or my views on LGBT rights.
Oh and BTW, "your people" could gain a touch of credibility if they'd acknowledge that we already have background checks, that the "gun show loophole" is largely a myth and that there are some anti 2nd amendment types who would be just fine with door to door confiscation of guns, if they could get away with it.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them (every gun) Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in. I would have done it.”
~ Sen. Diane Feinstein (D)
Libertarian Philosophy = Live and let live............but that's a two sided coin.
If you respect LGBT people's rights to get married, then you must also respect the baker's self ownership of labor and religious freedom.
It is saying it is completely acceptable and that is flat out wrong.
yes, perhaps, but, he still owns that right...if someone won't do it for you than move on....find another, period. People are making way too much out of things today....stubborn, spoiled, entitled, whatever you want to call it. For God's sake, just move on....taking it to court...for what....so the entire world can see how utterly stubborn you are?
I mean you in general, not you.
yanno, all this stuff about, "Oh that offends me", is just down right stupid....and people demanding apologies? Move the hell on, and forget about it, chaulk it up to being a person your never going to be.....
Oh wha wha wha that statue offends me....
so what...move on....forget about it...it was a long time ago, let it be a reminder to people how creepy and mean man can be.....
taking it down isn't going to solve anything....
telling me your offended isn't going to change how I think, change comes thru generations, and change has come in my lifetime...only you don't see it, young people refuse to see it, b/c they didn't live it....I did...and there has been huge changes going on. When I see an inter-racial couple I smile inside and want to yell....yeahhhhh!!!
Change doesnt' and won't come by forcing your opinions down the throats of others, all you will do is stagnate change.
It is saying it is completely acceptable and that is flat out wrong.
yeah so what? A whole lot of people feel the same way you do, but by making it a big thing, is also wrong and doesn't bring change about....change only comes when you teach kids not to hate....when you raise kids to respect the rights of others....and they realize, just b/c you believe one way and I believe another doesn't make you right and me wrong, it is in fact personal culture....
If I walked up to you, and said, YOU HAVE to do something! I'd back you right into a corner...and you can't do that, you get no where doing that.
you want to be gay, that's your right, your choice, and if someone doesn't approve of you, that is their right, their choice....
end of story. It will take generations to change that, and the more you fight it, and try and force it on people, the longer is will take.
If you want to take over a land, you don't do so by forcing people, you multiply your race, as fast as you can, you move into the area, you act like the locals, and take jobs, dress and smile like them and say Good Morning, stay patient, and maybe 5 - 10 generations down the road, you'll then have enough people to infiltrate into their judicial systems, take over their state jobs, their country jobs, serve on boards, townships politics....and then BOOM, one day, you'll have the land. Patience in pretending to be just like the locals.
Maybe, I'm not sure about the laws regarding painters. Does he do commissions? Would he do the same exact painting for another person, but not for this guy? Did the painter say, no you are a Veteran I will not do any painting for you at all?
All commissions are unique. Same as the baker, if you want the same, you buy off the shelf/peg/wall. That's why it's commissioned over bought, and why they refused bought over commissioned. The laws regarding painters won't be any different than any other custom produced business, like graphic artists, portrait artists, photographers, flower arrangers, cake bakers, home decorators, custom furniture builders and installers. Custom made cakes can be anything from the icing a 3 year old splats on the surface, to works of art you're actually reluctant to eat, they're all the same, they're considered public accommodations, and under Colorado law they cannot refuse any service to protected classes.
The cake maker did not say he would deny them all service, just he would not make a custom wedding cake for a SSM. You may be trying to look for a hole in the comparison, but the comparison is pretty close using different subjects, and you can bet regardless of the direction the court goes, that these kinds of things do happen all of the time, do you want those business people to be refused their right of expression as artisans and artists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Like I have said I could understand if the couple wanted "gays are great" or an objectionable image on the cake, or if they asked for a design that he did not offer I would side with the baker fully, but that is not what happened in this case. Their cake was pretty run of the mill. No words, no topper, no images. Just a 4 tier white cake with some teal and black detailing. Not even initials on it. He refused them any wedding cake.
Its not for you to determine whether or not his objections are valid, it takes a huge amount of ego (or little empathy) to decide on someone else's behalf that their objection is invalid. They never got into the actual discussion about the cakes appearance, because the craftsman determined that by making a cake for a SSM was a violation of his personal beliefs. They could have wanted a naked poundcake, and it would be just as appropriate from his objection to refuse as a reproduction of the Disney Castle with every Disney Character lined up around it in icing. The fact that he blank refused I think is actually one of the strengths of the case, had he refused after discussion of design, then his objection isn't just the SSM, but to something more than just the SSM.
Again though the issue really isn't that he refused a protected class, its that he refused the event of a SSM, it's already been noted that SSM does not need to take place between homosexuals or bisexuals, any more than DSM need take place between heterosexuals or bisexuals. The assumption is that it will be, but there are many reasons to marry, and not all are because you've determined that forever and ever you're going to be happy doing the wild thing with the person you're married to.
All commissions are unique. Same as the baker, if you want the same, you buy off the shelf/peg/wall. That's why it's commissioned over bought, and why they refused bought over commissioned. The laws regarding painters won't be any different than any other custom produced business, like graphic artists, portrait artists, photographers, flower arrangers, cake bakers, home decorators, custom furniture builders and installers. Custom made cakes can be anything from the icing a 3 year old splats on the surface, to works of art you're actually reluctant to eat, they're all the same, they're considered public accommodations, and under Colorado law they cannot refuse any service to protected classes.
The cake maker did not say he would deny them all service, just he would not make a custom wedding cake for a SSM. You may be trying to look for a hole in the comparison, but the comparison is pretty close using different subjects, and you can bet regardless of the direction the court goes, that these kinds of things do happen all of the time, do you want those business people to be refused their right of expression as artisans and artists?
Its not for you to determine whether or not his objections are valid, it takes a huge amount of ego (or little empathy) to decide on someone else's behalf that their objection is invalid. They never got into the actual discussion about the cakes appearance, because the craftsman determined that by making a cake for a SSM was a violation of his personal beliefs. They could have wanted a naked poundcake, and it would be just as appropriate from his objection to refuse as a reproduction of the Disney Castle with every Disney Character lined up around it in icing. The fact that he blank refused I think is actually one of the strengths of the case, had he refused after discussion of design, then his objection isn't just the SSM, but to something more than just the SSM.
Again though the issue really isn't that he refused a protected class, its that he refused the event of a SSM, it's already been noted that SSM does not need to take place between homosexuals or bisexuals, any more than DSM need take place between heterosexuals or bisexuals. The assumption is that it will be, but there are many reasons to marry, and not all are because you've determined that forever and ever you're going to be happy doing the wild thing with the person you're married to.
HE was not part of the even of the marriage, he was part of the event of making and selling cakes. The guy who made my smoker is not part of the BBQ I had, he was part of making and selling smokers. The guy who I bought my car from wan not part of the event of my road trip, he was part of the event of sales of a car.
IF the baker was actually part of the wedding I would agree that he was part of the event, but he did not attend the wedding, walk anyone down an aisle, officiate, sign the license, and neither did his cake. The baker didn't even have to attend the reception, or serve the cake. So the only event he was event he was involved in was the event of baking a cake, which is what he opened a bakery to do.
I agree I don't get to decide, the court does. I'm simply debating a topic on a debate forum just like you.
HE was not part of the even of the marriage, he was part of the event of making and selling cakes. The guy who made my smoker is not part of the BBQ I had, he was part of making and selling smokers. The guy who I bought my car from wan not part of the event of my road trip, he was part of the event of sales of a car.
IF the baker was actually part of the wedding I would agree that he was part of the event, but he did not attend the wedding, walk anyone down an aisle, officiate, sign the license, and neither did his cake. The baker didn't even have to attend the reception, or serve the cake. So the only event he was event he was involved in was the event of baking a cake, which is what he opened a bakery to do.
I agree I don't get to decide, the court does. I'm simply debating a topic on a debate forum just like you.
All the examples you suggest are "off the peg" examples, and examples where there was no conflict. It's not whether or not he was part of anything, it's whether his right to expression as an artist is secondary to the right of a quasi protected class to demand service. Was your construction guy who made your smoker an artist? Is the car you bought a work of art? Would you agree that a person who is a custom car painter is an artist? Therefore what is the difference between someone custom painting a car, and someone who custom decorates a cake?
You understand that to condone an event, does not require your participation, yes? If you provide something for an event, then you condone it, do you agree? So if someone provides an auditorium for a KKK gathering, they are more or less condoning the meeting, if they have ethical objections they should be free to refuse them the use of the auditorium (or I'd argue they have the right to refuse for any reason whatsoever, as freedom of association is a guaranteed right). Certainly the auditorium would be the target of vilification for holding such a gathering, as would any businesses who provide services to that gathering (catering, decorations, etc.). So public opinion also holds that providing services confers a degree of condoning any event, just look at the complaints about the NRA functions.
Thus if someone has an ethical objection to SSM (regardless of participants orientation), then there is a degree of implicit condoning of the event. This may clash with their ethics or beliefs thus the conflict, and the fact is that we as a people, actually hold that providing services is an indirect form of participation, or certainly condoning any event associated with those services, by our very responses to businesses providing services to groups, organizations, and people we object to.
It is saying it is completely acceptable and that is flat out wrong.
Do you believe passing gas in public should be illegal?
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.
