Local bakery owner refuses to make gay couple's wedding cake

[JonNC]

Centuries-old. People have been using religious beliefs to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and other racial injustices since long before the Civil War. We don’t buy the argument when it comes to black people, and we shouldn’t buy it when it comes to gay people.

This is outrageous. To compare this instance on the OP to slavery is plain stupid. Next thing you’ll tell us is this couple now knows how the middle passage felt.

Jim Crow and slavery laws were from the government, not the actions of a local business person. And the government entities involved could not claim a right to religious free exercise, because government doesn’t have rights. No one is forcing the couple to go into a particular bakery against their will. Now, if the government passed a law preventing the couple from getting a wedding cake anywhere, then that would be a violation of the couple’s rights.

Slavery is nothing like this situation, because human rights were entirely denied human beings, .and to compare the motivations of this baker to slaveholders is outrageous. Slaves were bought and sold, beaten and killed. Frankly, to make this comparison is beyond absurd, it is insulting to the memory of those who suffered through it.

 

[dvdjs]

Jim Crow and slavery laws were from the government, not the actions of a local business person. And the government entities involved could not claim a right to religious free exercise, because government doesn’t have rights. No one is forcing the couple to go into a particular bakery against their will. Now, if the government passed a law preventing the couple from getting a wedding cake anywhere, then that would be a violation of the couple’s rights.

So let’s leave the government out. In your perfect world would it be acceptable for a business to deny service or employment to someone because of their race? For a hotel, restaurant, theater, etc. to deny access on account of race?

 

[JonNC]

So let’s leave the government out. In your perfect world would it be acceptable for a business to deny service or employment to someone because of their race? For a hotel, restaurant, theater, etc. to deny access on account of race?

Acceptable? No! I’ve already answered that. Why would you think I believe it is acceptable? It would be a heinous practice, and a frankly stupid business model. It would keep me out of the business, and cause me to encourage others not to patronize it. But I agree with Goldwater’s position that to apply the standards that MUST be applied to government to private individuals, is in opposition to constitutional principles such as freedom of association.
I would defend the right of a Jewish baker not to make a neo-Nazi cake, a black not to bake a KKK cake, a Catholic not to make a Jack Chick cake, a Japanese American not to make an FDR cake, and a progressive not to make a Trump-themed cake.

 

[Rau]

Providing services doesn’t equal celebrating.It doesn’t even mean “supporting”.

I think it’s just a matter of degree:

• sell a cake off the shelf
• design a cake depicting SSM
• design and set out the floral arrangements
• shoot video and prepare a beautiful photo and video tribute to memorialize the event.

No one objects to point 1, but objections become more likely and more justifiable as you go down the list.

 

[dvdjs]

Acceptable? No! I’ve already answered that. Why would you think I believe it is acceptable? It would be a heinous practice, and a frankly stupid business model. It would keep me out of the business, and cause me to encourage others not to patronize it. But I agree with Goldwater’s position that to apply the standards that MUST be applied to government to private individuals, is in opposition to constitutional principles such as freedom of association.

Honestly I am confused. by your answer. Ithink.

Goldwater opposed the federal government’s taking action against enterprises owned by a private individual or individuals on behalf of people denied access on account of race. You may think it a bad business model, for owners to makes that decision, and so heinous that you would never do it your self. But are you willing to stand with government action to prevent such heinous acts?

 

[dvdjs]

I think it’s just a matter of degree:

• sell a cake off the shelf
• design a cake depicting SSM
• design and set out the floral arrangements
• shoot video and prepare a beautiful photo and video tribute to memorialize the event.

No one objects to point 1, but objections become more likely and more justifiable as you go down the list.

I agree and expect that the courts will find some balance between extreme absolutists positions.

 

[JonNC]

I think it’s just a matter of degree:

• sell a cake off the shelf
• design a cake depicting SSM
• design and set out the floral arrangements
• shoot video and prepare a beautiful photo and video tribute to memorialize the event.

No one objects to point 1, but objections become more likely and more justifiable as you go down the list.

I absolutely agree.

 

[JonNC]

Honestly I am confused. by your answer. Ithink.

Goldwater opposed the federal government’s taking action against enterprises owned by a private individual or individuals on behalf of people denied access on account of race. You may think it a bad business model, for owners to makes that decision, and so heinous that you would never do it your self. But are you willing to stand with government action to prevent such heinous acts?

Not if they violate basic constitutional principles, no. I think I made that clear quite often. Had I been in the Senate in 1957 and 1960, I would have voted for those bills. In 1964, no, because of titles II and VI.
I would stand with government not doing government business with a company that acts that way, however.

Honestly, I don’t see how my answers can be that confusing

 

[dvdjs]

Not if they violate basic constitutional principles, no. I think I made that clear quite often. Had I been in the Senate in 1957 and 1960, I would have voted for those bills. In 1964, no, because of titles II and VI.
I would stand with government not doing government business with a company that acts that way, however.

Honestly, I don’t see how my answers can be that confusing

Because I would doubt to the end that decent people hold that position.

The is not a constitutional problem with the legislation according to courts since 1964.
But it appears that you would support to a return to the pre-1964 practice in which the federal government would not restrain private businesses from withholding service on the basis of race. This makes you position on the bakery case clearer as well.

 

[JonNC]

Because I would doubt to the end that decent people hold that position.

The is not a constitutional problem with the legislation according to courts since 1964.
But it appears that you would support to a return to the pre-1964 practice in which the federal government would not restrain private businesses from withholding service on the basis of race. This makes you position on the bakery case clearer as well.

Sure it does. I strongly believe in individual rights and the principles in the Constitution.
Lots of decent people hold to this position. I think the immoral position is the one that expects government to do it when it is really something individuals should do at a local level.

And we can see part of the problem. Why progressives scream about bakers not serving same gender wedding cakes, they are many of them silent about the baker and the Trump themed cake, a cake for a 9 year old. The hypocrisy is palpable.
Honestly, I refuse to be part of an effort to force a Jew to serve a neo-Nazi event, but that’s what will happen because you are probably right. The SCOTUS will, to some degree, side with the same gender couple against religious free exercise.

So, I would doubt to the end that decent people would want to force the black baker to bake for a KKK event.

 

[dvdjs]

Sure it does. I strongly believe in individual rights and the principles in the Constitution.
Lots of decent people hold to this position. I think the immoral position is the one that expects government to do it when it is really something individuals should do at a local level.

Please don’t some Constitutional idol; the reality is the law has been settled in favor fo the the the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The real moral issue is that some would accepti nvidious discrimination in the realm of labor and public accommodation. We disagree on what it means to be decent.

 

[Otar_Mendes]

If I were a business owner I would simply say: yes, I will make your cake for your same-sex “wedding”, but please be aware–everything you pay me will be donated to a charity that supports traditional marriage. So you are essentially donating to a coalition that opposes gay marriage.

There is no law that prohibits me from saying that.

It would be in the gay couple’s interest to take their business elsewhere.

hahah that’s actually pretty clever

 

[JonNC]

Please don’t some Constitutional idol; the reality is the law has been settled in favor fo the the the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The real moral issue is that some would accepti nvidious discrimination in the realm of labor and public accommodation. We disagree on what it means to be decent.

I don’t think there’s any doubt about the way the courts have settled regarding the '64 act.
And before you continue misrepresenting what I said, go back and look at what I said about what is and isn’t acceptable.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t think there’s any doubt about the way the courts have settled regarding the '64 act.

And before you continue misrepresenting what I said, go back and look at what I said about what is and isn’t acceptable.

People like to use the word "unacceptable’ for things they object to in principle, but actually accept in practice. You walk the line of using the word, perhaps in some personal sense, while advocating, against settled law, for the government to be completely accepting of this illegal behavior. If that is a misrepresentation, then try to communicate your position better.

 

[ProdigalSun]

You are not under the impression that the owner of a Jewish deli can refuse to sell a pastrami sandwich to a guy with an anti-Semitic tattoo, are you?

The standard is not that a business has to do whatever the customer wants. The standard is that the business has to offer the same service to Customer A as to Customer B. If a baker does not make wedding cakes at all, then the business cannot get into trouble for refusing to make a wedding cake for a wedding the owner does not think is moral, advisable or whatever.

Of course you didn’t answer my question.

A Jewish bakery that makes and decorates cakes would be forced to make and decorate a cake for a KKK party. Is this the world you want to live in?

 

[ProdigalSun]

What’s the difference between a gay wedding and a straight wedding?

In my eyes one is real and one is a farce tantamount to a sin and I should have a right to not be forced to be a party to sin and scandal.

 

[ProdigalSun]

People like to use the word "unacceptable’ for things they object to in principle, but actually accept in practice. You walk the line of using the word, perhaps in some personal sense, while advocating, against settled law, for the government to be completely accepting of this illegal behavior. If that is a misrepresentation, then try to communicate your position better.

So than you believe that the Jewish baker or the Gay baker does not have a right to refuse to provide their services to an act that they are replused by even though it is legal.

Please answer me this question. Do you actually fell that this is acceptable to force this on these bakers???

 

[dvdjs]

So than you believe that the Jewish baker or the Gay baker does not have a right to refuse to provide their services to an act that they are replused by even though it is legal.

I am not sure what it means “to provide services to an act”. Perhaps you could sharpen up the idea.

I think that the bakers can limit services - no pork products allowed, for example, provided that the do it in a manner that does not involve invidious discrimination.
I think that they cannot refuse service to individuals for reasons that do not pass constitutional muster.

I think no one should be forced. The choices, IMO, should be limited to complying with the law or accepting the penalty under the law. or one could find another line of work of lesser moral gravity.