IS REFUSAL TO WRITE ANTI-GAY CAKE MESSAGE A VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

[Warren Stupidity]

http://religiondispatches.org/is-refusal-to-write-anti-gay-cake-message-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/

In which theists get all confused about the difference between refusing to serve somebody in a public place of business because they happen to be gay, and refusing to write hateful nonsense. The bakery is not providing hateful messages on cakes as a public service, they are providing cakes as a public service.

[Rainforestgoddess]

1. I would think the bakery could refuse

To make a penis cake, because of their personal objection to it. So if they personally object to the anti gay design, what's the problem? They would provide him with a blank cake and he could decorate it himself.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. So if they were in the penis cake business they couldn't refuse

to sell penis cakes to gay people, but if they aren't in the penis cake business they are under no obligation to start making penis cakes. This is only confusing if somebody is looking for some angle under which it really is ok to discriminate against gay people. Instead this is an obvious right wing ploy to "muddy the waters" under their "religious freedom to be a bigot" program. What is amazing is how many progressives, even here on DU, can't seem to tell the difference.

[Rainforestgoddess]

8. Exactly. Unless the business

Is "Hate Cakes 'R' Us" they are under no obligation to make a hate cake for *anyone*.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I'm on kickstarter right fucking now

Shit, somebody else already raised 5,000,000.

[Curmudgeoness]

3. I am sure that a bakery can refuse to write hateful or profane things

on cakes without it being an issue. If someone wanted to have "fuck you, I want to see you dead" put on a cake, no one would bat an eye if they refused. In fact, the police would probably be called in. This is a non-starter, just some asshole hoping to get publicity.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. And yet even here on DU people are unsure about this.

Amazing things one can learn here.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. I swear that there are people

who post on the internet with the only purpose being to be assholes.

[skepticscott]

6. It's not so much their purpose

any more than it is the purpose of water to be wet. It's just their natural state.

[mr blur]

7. No, of course it isn't.

[Tobin S.]

10. That's kind of like

someone telling me to say something and me refusing to say it is somehow a violation of their rights.

[Heddi]

11. Amazingly, there are college-educated people who can't tell the difference

between objecting to what's being written on the cake, and objecting to the purpose of the cake.

the endless "but what if a DRAGON came into the bakery and wanted a cake baked with LIVING CHILDREN...THEN WHAT??!?" or or or what if the person who wanted a cake was originally named BARBARA but then got a sex change and the cake said HAPPY BIRTHDAY BARBARA but now their name is BOB and they wanted it changed to HAPPY BIRTHDAY BOB and the baker said no would that be bigotry? Because they're refusing the cake?? or or or orroror orororororowhatabout if JESUS was born and the baker was an ATHEIST and JESUS was also the guy who worked in the kitchen of a restaurant and was MEXICAN and his BIRTHDAY was on CHRISTMAS and his mom wanted a cake that said HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS and the atheist baker said NO! I HATE JESUS but the mom's like 'But he's my son" and the atheist is like GOD IS DEAD would that be bigotry????" is just hyperbolic nonsense. And it's known to be hyperbolic nonsense.

It's also known to be a Gish Gallup. Get drawn into nonsensical minutae that has no bearing on the actual events, then make the unwillingness to discuss the minutae to be the point of the discussion, not the discussion itself.

[Panich52]

12. Religionists have no real concept of true religious freedom

This bigot's suit should be thrown out. If a baker doesn't want to accept a customer's request, why should they have to? It's not like there's only 1 baker in the world.

And on related issue, a while back a baker was sued f/ not providing a cake to a same-sex wedding. They were sued. I don't remember specifics, but if cake was paid for, suit is appropriate. If they refused the order of such a cake, the suit was a waste of court time - as the bigot's suit is.

In both, let court of public opinion decide. Air out grievance and see which baker gains more biz than loses - the bigot or the anti-bigot.

[LostOne4Ever]

13. SCREW the court of public opinion

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Rights are not something that are voted on...that is why they are called rights.

This bigot's entire purpose is trying to undercut people's support for the other law suit; however, they are two very different cases.

THIS case is about trying to force a bakery to write a hateful message on a cake. Messages the bakery does not ordinarily do.

The OTHER case is about bigot bakers refusing to provide the exact same services that they offer to one group of people, but won't provide to another group.

To be analogous, the baker would have to refuse to serve the bigot a cake that they ordinarily bake for any other member of the public, because they were straight.

This bigot customer's case is bullshit. The other suit against the bigot bakers was based on solid legal ground.[/font]