re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

quote:

---

If it's just names and even a year, then they should not be able to refuse it if they've done it on others cakes. Names and dates are not an expression of something and I would still call it a plain cake. When you add statements is when it becomes different...and the courts will decide their interpretation of that...maybe in right, maybe I'm wrong.

---

Now we're just moving the goalpost and debating semantics as to what we are going to rule as a statement. I would say putting the two brides on a wedding cake to be used at the wedding is an expression. That however is secondary to my point. No matter how right or wrong their beliefs may be, does a business owner not have the right to refuse their products if they are going to be used in a manner in which they do not want them to be used in?

quote:

---

No. Once they pay you...it's no longer your product

---

They paid them? When did this happen?

quote:

---

the cake itself is not a representation of them.

---

What?

quote:

---

If I buy a hammer, should the manufacturer be able to tell me I can't use it to build houses...or even better....can they tell me I can't use it at a gay couple's wedding?

---

Before you buy the hammer, if you tell them you want to use the hammer for something they disagree with, yes they should be able to refuse you service. You go to buy a gun and tell the seller you are going to do someone harm with it, they should be able to refuse service, right? Yes that is an extreme hypothetical, but that is the scenario. Before a transaction has taken place, can a provider refuse service of their product to someone if they do not agree with how their product will be used?

I don't think anyone will ever claim these people to be "smart"

Guns are different...there's are laws that require those types of refusals. Things like tools, food, etc, should not be allowed to be refused even if a customer says where they'll use it. If it's some sort of copyright infringement or not requesting use of their logo/name on something, that's different. A cake is just a cake.

I think you're over thinking it. Art is not the same as food, or specifically, a cake. This is a baker that makes lots of things, even if they just make cakes it's not the same thing. That art belongs to the artist, like a picture/photograph belongs to the taker. No one else can make that particular piece of art or display it publicly without permission. A cake is a common item and is not granted any sort of ownership or possession.

In short, yes the artist can refuse that. A request was made and denied. With a cake, it's just a cake.

quote:

---

I think you're over thinking it. Art is not the same as food, or specifically, a cake. This is a baker that makes lots of things, even if they just make cakes it's not the same thing. That art belongs to the artist, like a picture/photograph belongs to the taker. No one else can make that particular piece of art or display it publicly without permission. A cake is a common item and is not granted any sort of ownership or possession.

In short, yes the artist can refuse that. A request was made and denied. With a cake, it's just a cake

---

A painting is just a painting. You are now just disagreeing with your own argument. As you said earlier, once it is bought, that art no longer belongs to the artist. Nobody can make that baker's cake or display it without their permission (you know, the actual transaction that still never happened that you keep assuming has). Once the artist sells that painting, it can be displayed anywhere the new owner wants it to be.

A request was made and denied with the cake. Until that cake is sold, it is that baker's property. It is on his books. You flip flop your opinion when presented with the same scenario, the only difference is the product provided. It is still a product and property of the provider. It is fine if you want to be logically inconsistent. Mental gymnastics are good for the brain, keep it in shape.

quote:

---

painting is just a painting. You are now just disagreeing with your own argument. As you said earlier, once it is bought, that art no longer belongs to the artist. Nobody can make that baker's cake or display it without their permission (you know, the actual transaction that still never happened that you keep assuming has). Once the artist sells that painting, it can be displayed anywhere the new owner wants it to be.

---

Well if the artist doesn't have copyright or whatever they get on their stuff...then yes the new owner can display it wherever they want... I guess I should have been more clear. And maybe I'm wrong to some degree, I'm not a lawyer for this stuff. If that piece of art is just a piece of art with no legal bindings, then yes to me it's just like the cake. So, no I didn't flip flop...I just wasn't clear enough for you.

The point is, you cannot demand where and how something like a cake is displayed. They could have refused to sell it as they did, but then they have to prove their reasoning was not discriminatory. All they had to do was make a cake, could have refused to put certain statements on it, and if the customer wasn't happy with that they can go elsewhere. You can't make someone customize something to your wants, but you can take your business to someone who will do what you want.

quote:

---

The point is, you cannot demand where and how something like a cake is displayed.

---

You absolutely can if you haven't sold it yet. No transaction had taken place. As you said:

quote:

---

if the customer wasn't happy with that they can go elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

They could have refused to sell it as they did, but then they have to prove their reasoning was not discriminatory. All they had to do was make a cake, could have refused to put certain statements on it, and if the customer wasn't happy with that they can go elsewhere.

---

Now we're just punting down the road to try and define the fine line at which it is fine to refuse.

I just can't believe I'm actually having a discussion on whether or not a provider should have to provide their good or service to any ceremony, no matter what, even if it is against their religious beliefs. What you are saying is that a business owner has no religious rights or rights to refuse service. We have discrimination laws against refusal to a specific person for defined reasons. To my knowledge, we have no laws that say a business refusing to provide their service for a specific type of event that is against their religious beliefs is illegal, until now.

quote:

---

Let's spin this around...what if they asked for a plain unmarked cake and didn't say anything about who it's for. Then they put their own writing on the cake and use it in their wedding. Should the baker be able to sue them for whatever now?

---

No, because as I've said multiple, multiple times, once the transaction takes place, the cake is no longer their property.

quote:

---

It's a cake they bake, once it leaves their business...their say in what happens to it is irrelevant.

---

No shite. I've never once argues this. Are you even reading my posts? Here is the problem. The cake HASN'T left their business. The transaction never took place. They do not want their product being a part of something they disagree with. Before the transaction takes place, they do have that type of control of their product.

quote:

---

hey're providing a cake to a customer...if they're also providing the cake cutting service, set up and delivery, etc where they'd have to be at the service they damn well should be able to refuse.

---

Do you know many bakers that provide a wedding cake and don't assist with the transportation or anything? I've never seen one. The conversation never got that far. The baker, decided not to waste everybody's time and went ahead and refused to provide their services.

You are just making things even more complicated with all of your different rules. You are apparently fine if the couple came in and said they wanted a cake with all these designs and the bakery to provide the services for it, then the baker refused to do all of that and would just provide a plain white cake because they disagree with the service it is being used at and don't want to be a part of it. So, now they are refusing part of their product and services for the same reason you have a problem with them refusing to provide their cake. So, part of their services are okay to discriminate against, but not others? Do you see the inconsistency? How about, instead of wasting the couples time, once he knows the cake they are going to design is not something they want to be a part of, just say thanks but no thanks and both parties go on their way?