Panel: Baker must make cakes for gay weddings
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DENVER (AP) A state panel is ordering a Colorado baker to make cakes for gay wedding.
Colorados Civil Rights Commission on Friday upheld a judges ruling that baker Jack Phillips cannot refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. The panel says doing so violates state laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gay people.
Phillips is a devout Christian who says he will make other cakes for gay couples but not ones for weddings. He was sued by a gay couple after refusing to make a cake for their reception.
The commission also ordered Phillips business to make quarterly reports for two years on any antidiscrimination training for staff and on any other gay couples turned away. Phillips can appeal the ruling to the state court of appeals.
###
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/30/panel_baker_must_make_cakes_for_gay_weddings/
Omaha Steve
(99,840 posts)I would eat a cake somebody was ordered to make. "I don't know how the hot peppers got in there" or worse.
MissMillie
(38,601 posts)He's probably a GOP nutbag. Which is why you're right--he'd probably muck with the cake. Devout Christians don't have to have a pulpit for their faith. They have to live it--by being loving and generous.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)Not only because they wouldn't want spend their money on him, also there's the fear he would put something vile in the cake.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)LeftofObama
(4,243 posts)Thanks, but no thanks!
valerief
(53,235 posts)Bakers should do the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub-a-dub-dub
Seriously, this is good news in Colorado. Freedom from/of religion scores another point.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Jeez, I never thought of it, but among the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, they are the last ones who should be raising objections.
valerief
(53,235 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)(Anytown) - The appeals court of Bumfuck upheld an Anytown Superior Court Ruling on Wednesday, in the case of Patricia Cake, who had been in a tub with two men, but refused their request to bake them a cake as fast as she can. The circumstances under which she had been in the tub with the two men, a prominent local butcher and candlestick maker are not entirely clear. It is believed that they had gotten into the tub together to wash up after attending a dinner event catered by the butcher at which local athlete Jack B. Quick had jumped over one of the candlesticks.
While admitting she had no problem being in the tub with two naked men washing each other, she believed that baking them a cake was "simply going too far."
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)Considering what turning someone out means in modern vernacular gives the last line of that rhyme some updated irony.
"Turn 'em out. Knaves all three"
LoisB
(7,250 posts)I would buy a cupcake from them.
Skittles
(153,262 posts)just make them sport a sign saying NO GAY CUSTOMERS so gay folk, and those of us who are in solidarity with gay folk, can boycott the business.
Reter
(2,188 posts)No way should they be able to refuse to sell to a cake to a gay couple. However, it is their right what to put on that cake. You can't force then to decorate "God bless Harry and Joseph" on the cake, nor can you force them to put two grooms on top of the cake.
Still, I have no idea why anyone wouldn't. Why wouldn't the owner want the sale?
MissMillie
(38,601 posts)But I'm thinking EVERY couple should order a cake without the topper.
Then the baker wouldn't know.
Anyone can buy a topper anywhere.
When it'S all over, brag about where you got your cake. If the baker doesn't like it, tough shit.
father founding
(619 posts)WTF, Is he the only freakin baker in Colorado ?
toopers
(1,224 posts)eom
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)However, in these circumstances, there appears to be a state law addressing commercial discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Perhaps the appropriate thing to do is to lobby for and obtain passage of a law which requires nondiscriminatory service to racists, and we'll see how it goes.
Until then, it would appear that the normal rule of business applies, which is that private businesses, in general, retain the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason not deemed unlawful.
toopers
(1,224 posts)But I would not be surprised if a member of the KKK walks into a jewish owned bakery or a black owned bakery and requests the bakers to create a cake in the shape of a hood, covered in white frosting and red swatiskas with the message "2000 more years of White Supremacy". And you think the bakers should be forced to create this cake?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Again, you seem to be confusing the concept of denying service on the basis of "who the customer is" versus "what the customer wants".
In what way does a "gay wedding cake" differ from a "wedding cake"?
It's a cake. Period. There is nothing in the story about the couple wanting anything offensive printed on the cake.
If you believe there is something offensive they wanted printed on the cake, would you please identify what it is?
Your analogy is deeply flawed.
If you wanted a more accurate analogy it is this:
A member of the KKK wants a birthday cake for a friend. The bakery owner says, "No, we do not provide cakes for white peoples' birthdays."
Because the fact of the matter is that if a male and female members of the KKK walked into the bakery and said "We want a wedding cake", and service is denied because they are white, then the denial has nothing to do with their KKK activities.
It would be illegal to refuse service to a KKK member "because they are white". It would be legal to refuse service "because I don't want to put 'I hate black folks' on a cake."
Do you understand the difference between those two things? Yes or no?
At this juncture, it seems you are deliberately missing the point.
What about this cake differed from any way from any other cake, aside from the fact that the customers were gay?
The state law in question says that the baker cannot deny them service at a commercial establishment open to the public because the customers are gay. Period. End of story.
Had they wanted some particular cake which, as a cake, the baker found offensive, that would be a different matter. However, what the baker finds offensive here has nothing, nothing to do with the form of the cake, words on the cake, ingredients in the cake, or any other aspect of the cake. The refusal is based on the identity of the customers, not what they wanted to buy.
JudyM
(29,294 posts)So he will bake cakes for the LGBT community, just not wedding cakes. Not so much of a bright line here.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What makes a "gay wedding cake" different from a "wedding cake"?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)How precisely would a state law "prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gay people." apply to your scenario?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But our friend cannot distinguish between "finding expressions offensive" and "finding people offensive per se".
olddad56
(5,732 posts)maybe everyone should have the right to refuse any customer providing it is stated on a sigh in their window. That could prompt something that we have needed in this country for a long time, a genuine consumer's union. The members of the union set some reasonable guidelines, and if the business, or corporation isn't willing to abide by the union's guidelines, the members of the union, don't do business with the business, or corporation until the union and the business reach an agreement.
truthisfreedom
(23,164 posts)A pre-made cake for a gay wedding, but to be forced to make a custom cake? Seems to be bordering on a violation of his free speech.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And there is a state law barring discrimination in the provision of commercial services on the basis of sexual orientation.
If the owner did not "believe in" inter-racial marriages, and certainly many people find them offensive, then would your opinion be the same?
And if not, why not?
I would be interested in knowing your answer.
truthisfreedom
(23,164 posts)Sometimes doing designs that are requested by the customer. I tell my three painters that if they don't want to paint a particular design because they find it offensive, or for any reason whatsoever, they don't have to. Forcing them to paint something that they don't believe in is akin to forcing them to say something they don't believe. On the other hand, they also paint their own designs and we sell them on our website. I don't care what a customer believes or thinks, I'm happy to sell him/her whatever wares we have available, but I would never force my painters to paint something they hate. This case might be reversed on appeal based on free speech. Cake decorators are artists who express with their art. Being forced to decorate a cake in a manner they find offensive is akin to making them say something they don't believe. Another analogy is, say someone wants to have a cake decorated with a swastika. Do the free speech rights of nazis get violated if a custom cake baker refuses to make this cake? Or do the free speech rights of the cake decorating artists get violated if they are Jewish and are forced to decorate said cake with a swastika?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You can certainly refuse to decorate a cake with a swastika:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/-year-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake
The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.
Indeed, there is no law which prohibits one from refusing service on the basis of all types of opinions which your customer might hold. A private business can refuse service to whomever they want, for any reason or no reason, but with one important caveat.
Taking your example, if you don't want to put a racist or offensive message in your product, that's fine - and it is fine for what amounts to two reasons. The first of those reasons is that whether someone cannot a racist or offensive message is independent of that customer's race, sex, religion, national origin, etc.. And the "etc." defining those sorts of categories are, with the exception of religion, generally immutable characteristics of personhood.
And that's why you won't answer the question.
Can you, categorically, deny service to black customers in your business? No, you can't.
What was the "offensive message" to be put on the cake? "Congratulations Bert & Ernie?"
Go ahead, tell me. I'll wait.
In order to perpetuate this nonsense that refusing service to gay people is somehow a "first amendment issue" whereas refusing service to people of a given race is not, you have to make up a fact that isn't there.
The baker is not objecting to some sort of "offensive message on the cake". The baker is objecting to the fact that these two people are getting married, and want to have a cake just like anyone else who is getting married.
Answer my question:
Are the circumstances the same if the person has a "religious objection" to inter-racial marriage?
YES or NO?
Because there are, certainly, people who will be happy to inform you that their views on race are indeed "religious beliefs".
You do seem late to the "my public commercial discrimination against gay people is a protected religious belief" party, so let me see if I can head off one of the usual non-arguments for you:
"Well how come they don't make halal butchers sell pork?"
The reason that halal butchers don't have to sell pork is, simply enough, because they don't sell pork. Period. To anyone.
The halal butcher will, of course, sell halal meat - i.e. the wares they sell - to anyone who comes in (wearing a shirt and shoes) and asks to purchase something they are selling. In other words, they are not discriminating against anyone by not selling pork. Now, if the halal butcher refused to sell halal meat to someone who was black, Jewish, female, or what-have-you, then the halal butcher would have a problem on his hands.
You seem not to understand that, by statute, sexual orientation was added to the roster of specific examples of bases on which businesses open to the public cannot discriminate in the provision of services. These customers were denied service because they are gay. That is the only reason why they were denied service. It was not because of some "offensive message on the cake" or anything like the product of your imagination. And the simplest reason one can deduce why it has nothing to do with the message on the cake is the fact that you can't tell me what that "offensive message" might have been.
And do you know why you cannot back up your "offensive message" point?
Because the story doesn't say what was to be written on the cake.
And do you know why the story doesn't say what was to be written on the cake?
Because the reason for the denial of service has NOTHING to do with any message they wanted on the cake.
They were denied service because they are gay. Full stop. Not because of anything anyone wanted to say, not say, or be forced to say. It is not a "speech" issue in the least.
Now, please, would you answer my question about how you would feel if someone had a "religious belief" about inter-racial marriage and refused service. I feel I have earned that from you.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Dollars to donuts he'd pile in a heaping helping of hot peppers or Tabasco just to be an asshole.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)from a bigoted asshole.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)At least five posts so far fearing what the baker would put in the cake. People go to prison for that. Real genuine prison. A woman in my state about ten years ago made laxative brownies and served them to her co workers. Ha HA HA. I think she got two years for that ha ha ha.
You would have to be really damned stupid to sell a contaminated product.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Well there is many things they can do without getting caught. I personally would never want a cake from them under any circumstances. The things they could do without being obvious is too much to even wonder about. Why take the chance?