- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does the cake baker allow gay couples to buy his premade cakes?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:41 am to Revelator
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:41 am to Revelator
quote:
The proper framing is: he is denying a service.
quote:
A very certain and specific service, yes.
That he offers to everyone that is not gay.(That is discrimination based on sexual orientation which violates state law)
If he didn't offer custom wedding cakes to anyone, then he could not be compelled to offer one to this couple.
Since he does, he can.
It's the same reason everyone finally stopped using the dumbass analogy of a muslim deli serving pork. They can't be compelled to serve you pork because they don't serve anyone pork. They would not be denying you a service that they offer to everyone else.
4
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:42 am to Green Chili Tiger
Wasn't this a custom cake??
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:43 am to Green Chili Tiger
The point is that a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and any laws that already on the books preventing this are immoral.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:45 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Wasn't this a custom cake??
That is my understanding. Yes.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:47 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The point is that a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and any laws that already on the books preventing this are immoral.
Then your issues with this go back a really long way and there is not a single state in the union that agrees with you. Not sure what country would be a good option for you at this point.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:51 am to Green Chili Tiger
There's quite a bit of difference between selling a cake and decorating that cake.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:08 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:It was a wedding cake. I haven't read anything that made this cake any more "custom" than any other wedding cake.
Wasn't this a custom cake??
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:10 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
You are missing the point.
This is not the same scenario at all no matter how leftists want to frame it that way.
He doesn't sell gay wedding cakes. To anyone. Gay people or straight people. There is no discrimination.
If he would sell wedding cakes to blacks but not Indians than that would be discrimination. He does not do this.
He is being choosy about what celebrations he will partake in not who he will sell him products to.
This is not the same scenario at all no matter how leftists want to frame it that way.
He doesn't sell gay wedding cakes. To anyone. Gay people or straight people. There is no discrimination.
If he would sell wedding cakes to blacks but not Indians than that would be discrimination. He does not do this.
He is being choosy about what celebrations he will partake in not who he will sell him products to.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:14 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Dude he does not sell gay wedding cakes. To anyone. Gay or straight. It is so simple.
He will do a custom order gay birthday cake.
There is no discrimination on special orders.
Do you think he should be forced to make a special order rape cake or satanic cake?
He will do a custom order gay birthday cake.
There is no discrimination on special orders.
Do you think he should be forced to make a special order rape cake or satanic cake?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:16 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Also - there is more than just pushing a cake across the counter and the couple walks out with it. Most high end bakeries (and those wishing to become high end in the wedding arena) are expected to service the wedding reception where the cake will be displayed. There is cooperation between the baker, the caterer, and the florist to design the presentation. The baker delivers the cake and sets up the cake table at the reception. For intricate designs the baker provides the service to slice and serve the cake.
All valid points. None of which the baker in question has brought up. Instead of hurling insults like in your previous post, how about having a civil discussion?
quote:
If they had wanted a stock cake, and walked out with it - no problem.
This is where I get confused. The baker is against supporting the celebration of gay marriage, but he states that they can buy any of his other cakes to use in their celebration of gay marriage...Why is he ok with his supporting of gay marriage through pre-made cakes versus not being ok with making one specifically for a wedding?
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:18 pm to crazyatthecamp
quote:
Dude he does not sell gay wedding cakes. To anyone. Gay or straight. It is so simple.
He will do a custom order gay birthday cake.
There is no discrimination on special orders.
Do you think he should be forced to make a special order rape cake or satanic cake?
You don't get it. The issue is not about themes or messages on cakes. It's about what the cake is being used for.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:18 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
If he didn't offer custom wedding cakes to anyone, then he could not be compelled to offer one to this couple
By your own definition, " custom" means something. It means it's unique, one of a kind, different than the rest.
So because the cake made for the gay marriage is different than any other, you can't simply use catch all terminology to address the issue.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:19 pm to SUB
quote:
He's already baked cakes celebrating gay marriage if he baked them under the premise that gay couples could buy them
No, he's baked cakes. That's it. How someone uses that generic cake, he doesn't care. He doesn't even care about the gay wedding.
He doesn't want to be part of their process...the cake to design, delivering to the wedding, cutting and serving cake. That's what he objects to. And he should be able to object for any reason.
Interesting that Colorado upheld that gays could deny Christians but the reverse ends up at the Supreme Court.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:23 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
He doesn't want to be part of their process...the cake to design, delivering to the wedding, cutting and serving cake.
Where does he say this? Or are you making assumptions? How do you know they didn't have someone at the venue lined up to do this?
quote:
hat's what he objects to. And he should be able to object for any reason.
I agree
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:25 pm to SUB
quote:
He's already baked cakes celebrating gay marriage if he baked them under the premise that gay couples could buy them.
Nope. If he bakes a generic cake and someone brings it home and uses it in a satanic ritual, is he giving his blessing to the ritual?
But, if a person comes in and says," I'd like you to create for me a cake to be used in a satanic ritual" he is cognizant of that fact.
It makes a world of difference to his conscience.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:25 pm to SUB
quote:
It was a wedding cake. I haven't read anything that made this cake any more "custom" than any other wedding cake.
quote:
Phillips has continued to operate his bakeshop, but says he no longer designs custom cakes because he will not abide by the state’s policy of equal treatment.
In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the baker’s claim that designing a custom wedding cake involves expression. If so, forcing him to design a cake that violates his views conflicts with the freedom of speech protected by the 1st Amendment, his lawyers say.
quote:
The justices will not hear his separate claim that requiring him to make a custom cake violates his right to the free exercise of religion also protected by the 1st Amendment.
It certainly appears the custom nature of the cake was the issue, regardless of message.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:28 pm to Revelator
Exactly,
Like if a customer in a gun shop says:
"I'm shopping for a pistol for self-defense"
vs.
"I'm planning a murder and need your help picking out the right gun"
Like if a customer in a gun shop says:
"I'm shopping for a pistol for self-defense"
vs.
"I'm planning a murder and need your help picking out the right gun"
Posted on 12/5/17 at 12:29 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:
However if he chooses to go into that business then he can't discriminate based on gender, race, sexuality, etc...or you at least have to hide that you are doing it a little better.
Well, that's the issue. It's reverse discrimination. The Baker cannot uphold his religious beliefs (in his opinion, not mine), by knowingly contributing his talent to the union of a couple he feels is going against God's word. I suppose he feels it's his duty to "witness" to the couple through this tactic, although I disagree with the premise. But that's not for me to decide how he should practice his religious beliefs so long as someone's physical or financial security isn't threatened, and in this case it isn't.
Just because you put your dick in a place most men don't does not mean you should receive special treatment. He could refuse his services to a straight couple and face no litigation.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 1:23 pm to SUB
You can refuse service to anyone you want. Most retail businesses still have a sign out front that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service." It's free enterprise, you don't have to do business with people you don't want to do business with, right, wrong, or indifferent. Is it bad for your business if you don't feel like serving some of your customers? Maybe, but let the business owner worry about that.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 2:30 pm to rooster108bm
"Please explain how you can make someone else express your first amendment rights."
I don't know that you can, but you may be focusing on the wrong person's rights. In this case, it's the baker who is asserting that the First Amendment protects him from having to make the cake for a gay wedding. It's the baker's 1st Am. rights that are at issue.
I suppose that, incidentally, you could say that the statute requires the baker to engage in expression favored by the gay couple but I suggest that you're getting away from the issue, which is whether the baker's rights are infringed by the state statute as it is being applied to him.
I don't know that you can, but you may be focusing on the wrong person's rights. In this case, it's the baker who is asserting that the First Amendment protects him from having to make the cake for a gay wedding. It's the baker's 1st Am. rights that are at issue.
I suppose that, incidentally, you could say that the statute requires the baker to engage in expression favored by the gay couple but I suggest that you're getting away from the issue, which is whether the baker's rights are infringed by the state statute as it is being applied to him.
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News