Cake Wars Getting Stickier
Not since the line "Let them eat cake!" was supposedly uttered have delicious baked goods been so central to a political upheaval. Yes, we have entered what might be called the political era of "Cake Wars," it seems. Now, I don't mean to trivialize an important civil rights issue by relegating it to the dessert cart (as it were). But with all the political frenzy about both religious freedom and discrimination, the pundits always seem to come back to the same classic case: a baker contemplating whether to bake a cake for a gay wedding. It reduces the moral and legal arguments to a case that is both easy to understand and downright ordinary. What strikes me, though, while listening to the argument rage, is that most people on both sides of this argument haven't really come to grips with the larger implications of what they're advocating. To stretch the metaphor one last time, things could get a lot messier, as when a mischievous spouse mashes a slice of cake into their newly-wedded loved one's face at the reception (an admittedly bizarre ritual some couples feel honor-bound to perform, for the entertainment of their guests). That's right, folks -- the Cake Wars haven't actually gotten sticky enough, yet.
Because this Sunday was Easter, the political chat shows invited a number of Catholic bishops on, as they normally do. This time, however, the interviews couldn't remain focused on the Christian holiday but instead all were forced to venture into the political question of religious freedom versus civil rights -- a question that Indiana and Arkansas had just finished struggling over. The bishops all stood strongly for their right to their beliefs, of course, and many of them tried to thread the needle of: "We don't want to support discrimination, but we actually do think bakers should be able to discriminate when it comes to wedding cakes," to one degree or another. What it really all boiled down to was supporting the right of a business to discriminate against gay weddings, while simultaneously being horrified of the word "discrimination." They wanted the right to discriminate, but didn't want it to be called that, in essence.
That's all fine and good for them -- there's no law that says religious leaders aren't allowed to attempt their own political spin, after all. Because they found themselves not just giving their usual annual platitudes about the importance of Easter but instead having to comment on a current political issue, it's easy to give the bishops the same leeway every other political commentator gets.
But I was personally left wondering why a few other pertinent questions weren't asked of these religious leaders. Because the issue gets larger than just same-sex marriage when you look at its legal construction. So far, nobody has really brought any of this up, since the obvious intent of the current push for "religious freedom restoration" laws is to codify legal discrimination against gay weddings and other gay rights. The entire effort is what the military would call covering a tactical retreat, since the anti-marriage-equality forces almost all have come to realize that they're about to lose their cause forever at the Supreme Court (expected ruling: June). Because they won't have gay marriage to use politically anymore, they're opening a new front by attempting to give license to businesses to continue to discriminate against gay marriages.
However, realizing that public opinion is fast shifting away from them, the anti-marriage-equality folks also realized that they can't be as obvious as they once were. Passing "marriage is only between a woman and a man" ballot initiatives is no longer an option, to put this another way -- all such are about to be declared invalid by the Supreme Court, after all. Instead of plain language, then, they decided to tweak a law which was originally passed by Congress -- the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However, the recent attempts in Indiana and Arkansas tried to revise the R.F.R.A. language at the state level with changes to allow private businesses to use "religious freedom" as a defense against civil rights charges in court. But because the language is so all-inclusive (the words "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" or even "sexual orientation" never appeared in these measures), it raises several interesting questions that, so far, nobody seems to be asking.
What I wanted to see was one of the Sunday interviewers asking one of the bishops whether a Catholic baker should have to agree to serve a wedding cake at the wedding of a woman or man who has been divorced. After all, divorce is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church, therefore any wedding performed for a divorced person would be sinful -- in exactly the same manner that a same-sex marriage would be, for them. Their religion teaches it is wrong and against God's wishes, therefore participating in the event might cause a crisis of conscience for the baker. This begs the question of why has there been no such outcry -- where are the court cases and civil rights fines for Catholic bakers refusing to serve "second wedding" cakes? What does the Catholic Church have to say about a baker who would bake a cake for such a wedding? Why would they not be participating in just as much sin as they would if they baked a cake for a gay wedding? Would the Catholic Church stand firm against any legal effort to punish a baker who refused to serve a second wedding? How is this different than the proverbial gay wedding cake?
Now, I don't mean to single the Catholic Church out, here, it's just that it was the only denomination represented on television yesterday (that I watched, at any rate). You could easily frame the question around any other devoutly religious baker. Should an Orthodox Jewish baker be penalized if he or she refuses to bake a cake for a wedding that will not feature a kosher meal at the reception? Should a Muslim baker be penalized for not baking a cake for a wedding which involved a Christian convert who was formerly Muslim? When you get right down to it, should any devoutly religious baker be forced to bake a cake for a "mixed marriage" (involving two religions, in other words), or even for any couple who didn't share the baker's faith? Would, under the religious freedom law proposed, a sign saying: "We only serve those of the XYZ religion" (fill in the blank for the "XYZ" however you want) be legal? Why or why not? By the language in the original Indiana law, this would seem to be a pertinent question for the law's supporters. How much discrimination should be allowed under the rubric of "religious freedom," after all?
There's an even harder question to ask, though. One with some pretty heavy historical baggage. Should any baker be allowed to refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple, because the baker's religion teaches racial purity? This sounds like some sort of far-fetched hypothetical case, but not so long ago it was indeed a reality. When the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia in 1967, public opinion was overwhelmingly against interracial marriage. And, yes, many people used the cloak of religion to justify their prejudice. There is no law against a religion being racist, remember. So what if a baker today still belonged to a sect which still fervently believed the mixing of the races was not part of God's plan? Why should they (or should they not) be treated in exactly the same fashion, under the law, as the baker who refuses service to a gay couple? It's not some far-fetched academic point -- there are indeed people who still believe this today. Some of them may own bakeries, in fact.
But the entire civil rights issue isn't as cut and dried from the other side as you might think, either. I just read today about what is at least the second instance of a backlash against the backlash -- a person ordering a cake from a baker with a message such as: "We do not support gay marriage" written on it. This is where the issue becomes a double-edged cake server, so to speak. If, after all, the government should be in the business of forcing bakers to make cakes they have moral objections to, then should the government also force a baker to write any message the customer wants on one of their cakes -- no matter how odious the baker thinks the message is? How is it different for one baker to refuse to provide a cake for a gay wedding than it is for another baker to deny the customer the right to whatever message written in icing that they wish? Would the situation change at all if the baker did agree to provide the cake, but just refused to either put two men or two women on the top of it, or (conversely) refused to write the message but provided separate icing for the customer to do so on their own? This way the baker is serving the public -- all the public -- but is drawing the line at the cake's message. Does that matter, when looking at the issue through the civil rights lens?
Just as it's easy to come up with questions about bakers refusing wedding cakes on moral grounds, it's also easy to come up with questions about how, exactly, should a baker be forced to decorate any cake. What should the law state happens when an African-American baker is contemplating whether to deny service to a man trying to order a Ku Klux Klan reunion message on a cake? Or how about a cake with an image of the Confederate battle flag? Would the African-American baker be legally justified in refusing such an order?
To take this to the extreme, should the law dictate that bakers have to provide cakes to all who want them, even if the message on the cake is morally or ethically reprehensible to the baker? What would you do if you were a bakery owner and someone tried to order a NAMBLA-themed cake, after all? How would you have legal justification to refuse the order? Why is that different than a Christian baker refusing a gay wedding cake? Is there any limit to what a customer can demand on a cake, citing his or her civil right to do so? How about a message of unbridled hate (imagine a cake the Westboro Baptist Church might order)?
The problem with drawing this line acceptably is that it's not as easy to do as you might initially think. Many of the examples I've cited here for both sides would indeed be a violation of existing civil rights laws on the books. Even if a state doesn't have "sexual orientation" written into their civil rights law, all cite "religion" and "race" as protected classes. So a bakery would indeed fall afoul the law (no matter what the owner's personal religious beliefs) if they refuse to provide a cake to an interracial couple, or a couple not of the baker's religion. Refusing to provide a cake at all is also different legally than offering to provide a cake but refusing to write a message on it (or put two women or two men atop it). But even doing so -- providing the cake but refusing the message -- is also discriminatory. If the baker professionally writes all other messages ("Happy Birthday!" or "Bon Voyage" or whatever) but balks at certain political messages they personally disagree with, then they are by definition discriminating in the services they provide the public.
Consider the most recent instance. "We do not support gay marriage" is not actually a message of outright hatred. It is a political stance, whether you agree with it or not. It was, in fact, the same stance that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took when running for president in 2008. Before they evolved their positions, could anyone honestly say Hillary and Barack "hated" gays? You may infer that there is some degree of hatred in the thinking behind the message, in other words, but that is little more than an attempt at mind-reading. The message itself doesn't state: "We hate all married gays," or even: "We hate the idea of gay marriage." Motivations aside, the message itself is fairly neutral and politically-based. So, should bakers be allowed to refuse to write political thoughts on their cakes when they don't agree with them? It'd be easy to come up with even more extreme examples on this front, as well.
It strikes me that people on both sides of this issue haven't fully thought through the consequences of their relative positions quite yet. After all, we are talking about using the power of government (fines, shutting down a business, etc.) to compel bakers to bake cakes they don't want to bake (or decorate). The government already does this, to a certain extent, since a baker would face the same fines for refusing to bake a cake for someone of a different race or religion, on the grounds that their religion would consider doing so a sin. Religious beliefs that are deemed detrimental to society's well-being are already constrained, in other words. What we're arguing over is merely another extension of granting such civil rights.
When someone on your own side of the political divide is the one getting their ox gored, it's easy to call up the righteous indignation. But when the issue cuts back a different way, it's also easy to get squeamish about supporting the full range of what you're advocating. Many who agree that bakers should be able to refuse gay weddings would be horrified to learn that this also might eventually encompass the right to refuse to bake a cake for a divorced person's wedding. Many who agree that bakers should be forced legally to cater to gay weddings would likewise be horrified that this might eventually force a baker in Harlem to cater to a K.K.K. reunion party. The dodge of "here's the icing, you write it yourself" is likely not going to stand up legally, if all bakery customers must be served equally (unless the baker forces everyone to write their own messages, that is). There are passionate arguments on both sides of this divide, but many have the flavor of simple rationalization. One outcome is desired, and all the possible complications are conveniently ignored or dismissed out of hand.
These are all weighty issues, far outweighing a fluffy confectionary concoction. The Cake Wars might seem fairly simple at the moment -- centered as they are around the baker and the gay wedding -- but there are larger issues to contemplate, legally. These not only encompass the freedom of religion, but also the freedom of speech and the freedom of association -- all guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights. At its heart (aptly, since we're arguing about cake, after all), the issue is one of how to legislate good taste. Which cakes are in such poor taste that the order can be legally refused? Which cakes will be deemed in good enough taste to legally force all bakers to bake and decorate them? Either way, the issue is a lot stickier than just the question of marriage equality.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hi Chris:
Curious if you have reached any conclusions yourself on the questions you raise, or are you just starting to grapple with them?
It seems somewhat similar to the situations some places have found themselves in, when, after passing laws intended to "guarantee religious freedom" they find themselves having to deal with Satanists.
I'm curious as to why is this issue only being addressed with Christian leaders. I never hear of a panel of Jewish, Muslim, or other leaders getting drilled by the media regarding this whole controversy and I want to hear what they would say. Do they also have issues with this topic or are they completely onboard with the LGBT perspective.
Christians are cherry-picking hypocrites. The Big Book of Multiple Choice doesn't say anything about cakes or flowers or photographs (or lesbians even). There is some gibberish about "man lying with man" being an abomination, so they probably shouldn't do that. On the other hand, they are supposed to be spreading the "good news". What better chance would there be to minister to a bunch of lost souls? They could wear their God Hates Fags T-shirts when they deliver the cake.
The easy fix would be to pass a gay rights bill with carve-outs for insane religious pizza makers, but that would require the haters to grant that gay people are equal American citizens. Don't hold your breath waiting. That's not what they want. They want to execute gay people because their violent, X-rated source document tells them to. God is love.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomite_Suppression_Act
God believes it's important for the righteous to judge the wicked.
I could see fallout from the disastrously broad (and discriminatory) Indiana RFRA leading to abolition of RFRAs in general. As a member of a traditionally pacifist church, that worries me -- our young men have enough trouble dealing with Selective Service issues as it is (and if the draft is ever reinstituted, it may be our young women, as well).
This issue can get complex when the only thing at issue is a cake. Imagine how difficult it gets when health and well-being, and sometimes life itself are involved, as in my field. As a young resident, at the age of 24, with no real guidance, I had to decide my moral beliefs regarding performing elective terminations. Later, in practice, I had to balance what the hospital was willing to allow (out of concern for public opinion, not morality), the needs of my patient, and what I felt my faith required. These don't have easy answers, and people can die if you make wrong choices!
Excellent commentary, CW...
It mirrors everything I have been saying regarding the issue... To which, I might add, I have never gotten a satisfactory response with the exception of JM, of course. :D
What needs to be kept in mind is that the entire IDEA of the RFRA started with Democrats. The law was championed by today's Democrat leaders, passed nearly unanimously by Democrats and Republicans in Congress and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
The Federal RFRA was a PERFECT example of Congress working together and passing a completely bi-partisan law...
And NOW the Hysterical Left is pointing to the law and saying how bigoted, how discriminatory it is... :^/
I am also constrained to point out that we don't HAVE to imagine hypotheticals in order to show how such a sword cuts both ways..
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/23/10488531-stylist-to-anti-gay-marriage-governor-no-haircut-for-you
The hairdresser in question was quoted as saying, "I have every right to deny service"
As pure a case of discrimination as there is possible to be...
Yet, this hairdresser was APPLAUDED for his moral stand in the comments on HuffPoo..
I have to wonder if the denizens of Weigantia would also applaud the discrimination and bigotry committed by this hairdresser..
So, you see.. We don't have to turn to hypotheticals..
Great commentary, CW..
But then again, the ones that make my points for me usually are.. :D heh
Michale
The solution is really easy..
Let people follow their conscience and their morals..
All things being equal, there are a plethora of services out there that people can choose from..
I mean why would ANYONE want to go to a place where they are not wanted??
The ONLY reason to do so is to make a political statement in furtherance of a partisan agenda...
Seems a pretty piss poor reason to destroy someone's life and lively-hood, eh??
Michale
DD,
Well said....
The problem here is that people on both the Left *AND* the Right are looking at the issue thru the very narrow prism of their own ideological beliefs..
If people would just take a step back and calmly, rationally take a look at the issue from the other person's perspective, it would go a LONG way towards a mutually beneficial decision..
If the Right gets their way, then the Left may experience discrimination.
IF the Left gets their way, then those on the Right may experience discrimination...
And battle lines are drawn and the hysteria begins...
Michale
In answer to your question "...should the government also force a baker to write any message the customer wants on one of their cakes -- no matter how odious the baker thinks the message is?" the Colorado Civil Rights division declared a Denver baker, who refused to make anti-gay bible cakes, cleared of discrimination.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake
As for the Florida baker who also refused to write an anti-gay message on a cake, she initially thought the call she received was an April Fool's joke in bad taste which is why she was so quick to turn the caller down. Shortly after that call, the hate messages began - by phone and on their facebook page. The FBI are now involved because of the multiple death threats she's received. Before anyone asks, I checked - she did not set up a GoFundMe campaign.
In answer to your question "...should the government also force a baker to write any message the customer wants on one of their cakes -- no matter how odious the baker thinks the message is?" the Colorado Civil Rights division declared a Denver baker, who refused to make anti-gay bible cakes, cleared of discrimination.
Interesting, iddn't it..
The Left is free to discriminate against christians...
Gays want a cake that celebrates their beliefs.. If a christian doesn't make it for them, they are harrassed and attacked and threatened...
But if, gods forbid, a christian wants a cake that celebrates THEIR beliefs???
They are told to go pound sand...
Hypocrite much???
Before anyone asks, I checked - she did not set up a GoFundMe campaign.
Neither did the pizzeria owner in Indiana...
What's the point??
Michale
Speaking of hypocrites and discrimination??
“Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.
…This is about how we treat each other as human beings… Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.”
-APPLE CEO Tim Cook
So, this Cook guy talks about being courageous and standing up against discrimination...
So, of course, Tim Cook will pull out all the stops and completely pull his business ventures out of Nigeria, Qatar and Saudi Arabia..
Come on, Mr Cook....
Show some courage!!
Or is it more likely that you just pay lip service to the concern over gay people and yer REAL interests begin and end at the bottom line...
This is why it's impossible to take activists like Cook seriously.. They talk about "courage" and "dignity" but they are only talking out their asses...
Michale
I mean, honestly.. Someone please explain the logic to me..
"I am not going to do business in Indiana because some pizzeria owner, in a hypothetical, stated she won't cater a gay wedding.....
But I WILL do business with countries that execute gay people, simply for their lifestyle choices.."
Liberal "logic"...
It knows no bounds of ludicrousness and ridiculousness...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Gays want a cake that celebrates their beliefs.. If a christian doesn't make it for them, they are harrassed and attacked and threatened...
But if, gods forbid, a christian wants a cake that celebrates THEIR beliefs???"
I think there is a very fine distinction here that you and everyone else is ignoring.
I don't think a gay baker or an atheist one would have any problem whatsoever making a cake for Christians that celebrates their religion. Making and decorating a cake for them that says "Jesus Saves" for instance on it.
So why shouldn't the Christian baker also have no problem making a cake for a gay couple with two men as a wedding topper on it?
The point would be in their refusal to even make a cake in the first place.
Are you really being forced to participate in the gay wedding simply by making a cake for it as they contend? Would that mean that every time I sell something to someone as a cashier at Walmart, for instance, that I am actually participating in whatever event they are having? Is that true of all retail transactions???
Here's another one for you Michale:
As Deanna Troi said, "Sometimes Data, a cake is just a cake."
I don't think a gay baker or an atheist one would have any problem whatsoever making a cake for Christians that celebrates their religion. Making and decorating a cake for them that says "Jesus Saves" for instance on it.
So, as long as it's an APPROVED message, then everything is OK...
Constitutional protections are NOT in place to protect "approved" messages and speech and such..
Constitutional protections are in place to protect the UN-APPROVED messages, the controversial messages...
We don't need the constitution to protect "SEE SPOT. SEE SPOT RUN".... We need the constitution to protect "GAY PEOPLE SUCK!!!" and "REPUBLICANS ARE TERRORISTS!!!" and stuff like that..
Would that mean that every time I sell something to someone as a cashier at Walmart, for instance, that I am actually participating in whatever event they are having? Is that true of all retail transactions???
But it's NOT just a retail transaction..
It's art... It's a piece of the artist and represents their beliefs..
That's the distinction that ya'all are missing...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/04/03/ftp340/#comment-58444
As Deanna Troi said, "Sometimes Data, a cake is just a cake."
Exactly..
So, since it is JUST a cake, why can't a gay couple just go somewhere else to have it made?? Why does a gay couple have to destroy a person's life and lively-hood??
Michale
OK, just getting ready to post today's article...
I have to say, I was pretty worried about this article and the reactions it would provoke. I thought about it while reading other articles and their comment threads, and saw some real viciousness from both sides, so I wasn't sure what to expect.
I have to say I am pretty happy with the conversations it has provoked, both here and on HuffPost. Don't agree with everything, but for the most part people "got" what I was saying. I guess I was happiest about the fact that most understood I wrote it without taking a stand -- sometimes I write pure analysis pieces like this and everyone assumes I'm supporting one position or another. This time, nobody really did, I think.
In any case, I'll come back and answer some of these comments later, just wanted to pass that on.
-CW
pmason1100 -
(comment [2])
Welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you'll be able to post comments and see them appear instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as those will be automatically held for moderation (which can sometimes take awhile, my apologies for the delay).
In any case, welcome to the site!
-CW
pmason1100,
As I am wont to do...
"Welcome To The Party, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
I'm curious as to why is this issue only being addressed with Christian leaders. I never hear of a panel of Jewish, Muslim, or other leaders getting drilled by the media regarding this whole controversy and I want to hear what they would say. Do they also have issues with this topic or are they completely onboard with the LGBT perspective.
That's a very good point...
And the answer goes to what I was saying before. It's because the Left targets christians for their discrimination claims..
We know for a fact that muslim bakers and such don't get the same sort of discrimination attention that christian bakers get from the Left...
If your a christian, the Left targets you...
All other religions appear to be safe from these vicious attacks..
At least, that's what the facts show...
Michale
I have to say, I was pretty worried about this article and the reactions it would provoke. I thought about it while reading other articles and their comment threads, and saw some real viciousness from both sides, so I wasn't sure what to expect.
Why do I feel like the Eye Of Sauron swiveled in my direction?? :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"So, since it is JUST a cake, why can't a gay couple just go somewhere else to have it made?? Why does a gay couple have to destroy a person's life and lively-hood??"
If they are the only provider of the product or service in a small rural town, what then? What is the couple to do if there is no other place to go?
Michale wrote:
"So, as long as it's an APPROVED message, then everything is OK...
Constitutional protections are NOT in place to protect "approved" messages and speech and such..
Constitutional protections are in place to protect the UN-APPROVED messages, the controversial messages..."
Ok, you have me confused. Are you arguing the point that the baker has a religious liberty right in not baking a cake, or that they have a free speech right because the cake decorating is art, which is it?
You might be able to say that cake decorating is art. But what about a plain undecorated cake??? Does the person who makes the canvas for an artist to paint upon, have the same claim to an artistic exemption as the artist himself???
If I can claim I don't have to sell a cake to a gay couple because I would be forced to make the cake, then what about a supplier of liquor to a gay wedding reception? Do I get the same claim even though I did not make the alcohol myself???
If they are the only provider of the product or service in a small rural town, what then? What is the couple to do if there is no other place to go?
But they weren't...
And, if it's something so superfluous as a wedding cake, they can travel...
Look at the greater evil..
Someone whose life and lively hood is destroyed....
vs
Someone having to drive an extra half hour somewhere...
You might be able to say that cake decorating is art.
My daughter does cake decorating. I can assure you with complete and utter certainty that cake decorating is art...
If I can claim I don't have to sell a cake to a gay couple because I would be forced to make the cake, then what about a supplier of liquor to a gay wedding reception? Do I get the same claim even though I did not make the alcohol myself???
It's a straight retail transaction...
While someone could CLAIM they don't want to sell licquor to a gay couple, it would not have the same strength of claim that an artist's claim would have...
Michale
It goes back to a photographer refusing to photograph a group orgy because it violates their christian beliefs...
Nobody would say "BOO" about something like that, would they??
As an artist, there is a LOT more leeway in what someone will and won't do..
I sell and repair computers and TVs.. I don't have much leeway in saying what I will and won't do...
Well, I don't have much of a morality center either, so there is that.. :D
I have one simple philosophy in my business...
http://sjfm.us/temp/mfccfl.jpg
The short version is if you are polite and friendly, you will find no more faithful a worker than I...
If yer an asshole?? Well, I can be faithful to that as well. :D
Seems to work out OK because I am kept pretty busy... :D
Michale
Here's a few interesting legal cites stemming from these cases (gotta admit, the title of the article caught my eye...):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/cake-wars-the-sequel_b_7020676.html
Interesting.
-CW
Here's a few interesting legal cites stemming from these cases (gotta admit, the title of the article caught my eye...):
No baker can be compelled to add a message, and both Azucar and Masterpiece were held to the same standard there as well.
What's wrong with this guy's analysis is that he doesn't get that, for an artist, the act *IS* the message...
This guy also fails on the most basic point...
The Pro Gay person is allowed to run their business in accordance with their beliefs..
The Pro Christian person is not..
THERE is the inconsistency in the rulings...
Michale
Sean Stephane Martin's comment is dead on ballz accurate...
Speaking as a Canadian, I trust all of you realize how silly this sounds from our side of the border. When did the collective IQ in the "Leader of the Free World" drop by about 14 points? People getting upset about CAKE? I mean, seriously?? Then initiating lawsuits over... CAKE? SERIOUSLY??? Are there no grown ups left in your country? Are all the GMO chemicals affecting everyone's brains? And I say that with a certain degree of seriousness, because yours is about the only country that allows them and in tandem with that, you're quickly becoming the most absurd place on the planet.
Cake.
Honestly.
Priceless......
CW if it's not allowed to re-post comments from HuffPoo, please delete this...
Michale
No baker can be compelled to add a message, and both Azucar and Masterpiece were held to the same standard there as well.
If I recall correctly, the christian bakers in question would have been happy to make the gay couples any kind of cake, except a WEDDING cake... They would have been happy to make them muffins or cupcakes or cookies or anything else...
But not a WEDDING cake...
A WEDDING cake is nothing more than an added message to a regular cake..
Therefore, the rulings ARE inconsistent and unfairly favored the pro-gay baker and unfairly penalized the pro-christian baker...
In short, the HuffPoo author is talking out his arse with his claims..
Michale
What it all boils down to is this..
Do business owners have the right, all things being equal, to run their businesses as they see fit and in accordance with their morals and values..
As is evidenced by the Santa Fe HairDresser and the Colorado Pro-Gay baker, the Left says YES...
As is evidenced by the Indiana Pizzeria and the Colorado Pro-Christian baker, the Left says NO....
And therein lies the hypocrisy of the Left...
The Left is totally against discrimination and bigotry... Unless, of course, the proper people/groups are discriminated against... Then the Left is all for it, as evidenced by the hero worship of the Santa Fe hairdresser on HuffPoo...
Michale
Paula [1] -
Good question. Initially, I was of the knee-jerk reaction that the gay wedding cakes should be mandatory, but then had to stop and think when the backlash-to-the-backlash cake stories started appearing.
I wanted to write this without drawing conclusions, but since I've read the comments and other articles, have come to a few:
(1) refusing to bake a cake is a different thing than refusing to write a message.
(2) refusing a message -- whether it's toy couples on a cake or written icing -- should be consistent. If the bakery refuses to do it for one customer, they should refuse it for all. So if anyone wants a political or religious message on a cake, icing should be provided for the customer to write it -- no matter whether the baker agrees or not. Consistency, in this regard = non-discrimination. Providing the service for some but not all is discriminatory.
As with the Satanist example you bring up, the best thing is for government to treat all religions equally. This means "all or nothing" -- either all religions are welcome (including a Festivus pole next to the manger display), or none are. Anything other than all or nothinig is discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
pmason1100 [2] -
You bring up a good point. Either other religious bakers are more ready to accomodate those of other beliefs (they'd almost have to be, considering the religious makeup of America and their own minority status), or the media just never got around to investigating this aspect. Don't really know which it is, but like I say you raise an interesting point.
John From Censornati [4,5] -
Um... Matthew 7:1?
Heh.
DisabledDoc [6] -
You are right. On the grand spectrum of ethical and moral choices, cake ranks pretty low.
Michale [7] -
If it was totally bipartisan, how can it be the Democrats fault? Heh.
Just kidding... I almost went into the history of the federal RFRA, which was created (believe it or not) to give rights back to American Indians to religiously take peyote. No foolin', you can't make this stuff up. But didn't want to distract from the issues at hand.
Although I still think the American Indian Church is a completely unconstitutional problem on its own -- what other church is limited, by law, to certain ethnicities? Why can't ANY American citizen join this church, instead of having to prove their ancestry to the federal government? Talk about infringing on religious liberties! Don't get me started on THAT one...
As for the hairdresser, it is an expansion of the cake conundrum. Are business owners actually free to make good on those "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs, or not? It pains me to say it, but you raise a good example for discussion.
But, in your [8] comment, you discount a very real possibility here in the West. If there's only one baker or photographer or florist in a radius of, say, 200 miles, and that business owner had a policy of, say, not serving bald white men, how would you feel about driving an extra 8 hour round trip to find another? Be honest. Would you feel pissed off? Would you feel "there ought to be a law!"?
Just a question to get you thinking...
Mopshell [10] -
OK, good point, and futher legal data for the conversation. But was the court's decision the right one, in your opinion?
Michale [12] -
This is a red herring. Should the US government, after all, refuse to do any business with Saudi Arabia? There's a difference in what happens here at home -- in the country we call home -- and foreign lands. The difference? When you're a citizen, you have a very vested interest in influencing the government with your views. In foreign lands, not so much.
Or, to put it another way, what do you think of the BDS movement for Palestine?
Or even, how many conservatives who scream "We can't do business with CUBA, human rights! Freedom! Etc! Etc!" but then don't have any problem with doing business in Vietnam... or China.
In other words, conservatives aren't the most pure when it comes to what countries to do business with...
Conservative "logic" is just as silly, in other words...
John M [15] -
Oh, snap! THAT's the way to get Michale's attention! Well done!
:-)
Michale [16] -
Try this, just for a minute: when you talk of "destroying someone's livelihood," substitute "interracial couple" for "gay couple." Does it seem as reasonable with that substitution, or not?
Just food for thought.
[19] -
And the answer goes to what I was saying before. It's because the Left targets christians for their discrimination claims..
Or, maybe, it's because Christians are the only ones discriminating? Maybe there are no examples of other religions because they don't actually exist?
[20] -
No, no, wasn't implying that -- was more worried about the HuffPost comments, to tell you the truth...
:-)
JohnM [21] -
Exactly!
Michale [23] -
OK, I have to agree with you on this point -- cake decorating is an artform. I would argue that one strenuously, actually. Which brings up a whole different Bill of Rights thing, actually. But just wanted to agree with you momentarily, as it were. Done bad or done brilliantly, cake decoration is indeed an art.
[24] -
This was a point made on a HuffPost comment, actually: a photographer can refuse to do nude photos, as long as they refuse to do it for everyone. That is not discriminatory, it is merely a business policy. That way, no matter who comes in and asks for a nude photo, it will be refused equally.
As long as the policy is neutral, and doesn't mean a baker cheerfully makes a cake with a political message they agree with, but refuses for a message they don't -- then it's a neutral business policy.
[27] -
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
-Ellen Ripley, Aliens
Couldn't resist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPa5oVG-nII
OK, that's enough for now...
-CW
As for the hairdresser, it is an expansion of the cake conundrum. Are business owners actually free to make good on those "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs, or not? It pains me to say it, but you raise a good example for discussion.
Thank you. :D
It means a LOT to see that.. I mean that sincerely...
Michale