Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

originally posted by: jondoeuk
So a private company can't refuse people now?

They CAN ... but from the comfort of a residential zone! That is PRIVATE!

They CAN'T ... from the comfort of a commercial zone! That is PUBLIC!

Note the difference ok!

Just for those who are interested, I went and read the judgement out of general curiosity. Just grabbing various arguments the judge responded to.

* Free Speech: supporting examples were motorist forced to use a state license plate with the writing 'live free or die' and forcing students to salute a flag. Judge ruled that Phillips categorically refused to make any cake regardless of what it looked like by own volition, and the act of simply preparing a cake is not 'speech' warranting protection. It is implied that if the baker had been asked to write an offensive message on the cake he could have refused.

Interesting side note is that (of course) you can discriminate if your building is primarily used for religious purposes. Other exemptions include restrictions where the restrictions are part of the service such as a woman's health clinic.

* Opinion on Wedding: court ruled that discriminating against 'gay weddings' and not 'gay people' was a distinction without a difference on the grounds that only gay people have gay weddings. According to the ruling, a similar defence was given on the right to discriminate against interracial couples at a university and was rejected.

* Legality of Wedding: the respondent acknowledged that he would also refuse to sell a cake for a legal commitment ceremony or civil union, so this argument was not accepted although there is no indication it would not have been. The respondents refusal to make a cake for any same sex union is what broke the law in this case since the law requires them to provide the same service to all.

* Beliefs: the state has made exceptions for religions when activities are considered 'fundamental', do not adversely affect others, and are not outweighed by the states interest in safety and health etc ... Examples included Amish children being allowed to be educated within their own community and the Jewish right to unemployment benefits when refusing Saturday employment.

"To excuse all religiously motivated conduct ... would permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Examples include the upholding of laws vs religious freedom: prohibiting of religious-based polygamy, prohibiting child labor, a Sunday closing law which affected Jewish businesses, the right to collect social security taxes from an Amish employer, and denial of unemployment compensation for the religious use of peyote.

* Government Regulation: court finds that the type of conduct described has been repeatedly found to be subject to government regulation. Mentions that religious freedoms may be restricted when they collide with other's rights, or incidentally burden commercial activity which is suggested this does. Also the limits of a particular person's faith are not to be superimposed on the 'statutory schemes' which bind others within the free market.

The couple are considered to have the right to be free from discrimination in the marketplace. The law is not aimed at restricting religious practice but focuses on preventing marketplace discrimination. The restriction it causes is 'incidental' and upheld since the law is generally applicable.

Disclaimer: This is a massive Pinke summary and has skipped massive bits and pieces. Arguments belong to the court and are not Pinke's. The full document is here. No dogs were read about or harmed in the summarising of this document. Pinke is not an equal opportunities employer.

if the reason he wouldn't bake that cake is because he views homosexual marriage as a sin, he should also consider that every person, according to his own faith, is a sinner as well, and then refuse to make cakes for anyone. problem solved. if an obese person orders a gigantic cake that he intends to eat, the baker is taking part in the obese person disobeying religious dogma, like violating his own body (the body is the temple of god -- gluttony is a sin, doncha know).

he just needs to take off his dogma cap and put on his logic cap and the whole thing is solved in a heartbeat.

cake is full of bad for the body but tasty stuff. each time he makes a cake for anybody, he is participating in their violation of dogma regarding the treatment of the temple of god. his religion as a christian does not state that he shouldn't be kind to gay people or treat them differently than any other sinner (which is pretty much the whole dang planet, last i read)

he's just throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If the word 'gay' was exchanged with 'black', the nastiness on this thread would be much less. Somehow it is OK to hate gays and I still don't know why?
Should bakers refuse black people service?
Should public servants be allowed to refuse anyone depending on their own beliefs?
Should I refuse to serve single mums, because I believe that they are stupid?
Maybe people who vote for a certain party should be refused service?
If not, why should anyone refuse gay people in any way, shape or form?
Are they somehow not part of the human race?
Seriously, there is no rational logic to it.
None.

I would not bake a cake for a gay wedding either. That's right. It is against my personal religious beliefs. I will not contribute to, nor encourage a behavior or act that is against my belief system. This is America, and I have that right.

With that said, I have never mistreated anyone who is gay, or do I go out of my way to be cruel. I don't care what gay people want to do with their lives, live together, marry, or what have you, because it does not affect my life in any way. BUT, I do not have to participate, support, contribute or encourage gay marriage, and I won't.

a reply to: Hecate666

the whole point can be solved by just appealing to the sin concept in the situation. if all are sinners, no one deserves a wedding cake, which is a point he just skims over in favor of hammering on a particular type of sinner. sin is sin. he ain't no better. and THAT is the real crux of the issue. (from the perspective of a christian, anyway)

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Awesome - homophobic idiot.

Most people have already said why he was wrong but just to be sure that people get it.
The guy makes cakes, he makes wedding cakes for people and provides a service.
A couple asked him to make them a cake, he can't then say "well I do not make cakes for your kind"

Insert anything other than gay into the equation and there'd be outrage or more outrage than there was.

If we're going to start forcing business owners to cater to everyone, regardless of their personal beliefs, then is it okay for me to walk into a cafe run by Muslims in my area, and demand that they serve pork to me? Shall I request that they take sensitivity training? Shall I tell them that it doesn't matter what they believe, that I like eating pork and want them to serve me pork?

originally posted by: Aisling
If we're going to start forcing business owners to cater to everyone, regardless of their personal beliefs, then is it okay for me to walk into a cafe run by Muslims in my area, and demand that they serve pork to me?

I don't really want to get drawn into everything here, but just a legal correction:

If they were already selling pork, you could buy their pork.

If they were not selling pork, you could not make them give you pork. Mostly because that would be silly I imagine.

a reply to: Aisling

what part of the christian faith has a sin meter on it? some sins worse than others??? where is it listed ? where?

People who run a business who want to reject work based of some personal opinion - are idiots.

Money is money and people are people - just shut it and bake the damned cake.

If a skunk came in and want a cake for his skunk wife, as long as hes got the money - bake the damned cake.

the problem here is christians under the new covenant, are dragging old covenant stuff into the teachings of jesus. these are not the same banana. even thinking about committing adultery was considered the same as committing adultery, according to jesus. that means every man or woman who entertained having sex with someone who wasn't their spouse is an adulterer. forgiveness is the new covenant, nor more old testament stuff. so the baker is baking wedding cakes for adulterers, every day, and doesn't worry about it, why then is the homosexual thing any different??

he needs to get this straight in his head. jesus ain't teaching old covenant law there. he's warning people how bad it actually is, and if you try to live under it, it will getcha and your little dog too.

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Aisling
If we're going to start forcing business owners to cater to everyone, regardless of their personal beliefs, then is it okay for me to walk into a cafe run by Muslims in my area, and demand that they serve pork to me?

I don't really want to get drawn into everything here, but just a legal correction:

If they were already selling pork, you could buy their pork.

If they were not selling pork, you could not make them give you pork. Mostly because that would be silly I imagine.

But they (the bakers) weren't already selling wedding cakes for gay marriages.

a reply to: Metallicus

I did my post-secondary focusing on Business management and operations... and it's a well-known fact that if you provide a public service, it's mandatory to serve all of the public. Imagine if McD's only let over-weight body types eat at their restaurant because the owner was a chubby chaser? Just throwin' that out there.

Good, it's time for the intolerant to learn that hate is not what America is about.

a reply to: Metallicus

I hope the judge fines the gay couple for wasting the public's time. Any business has the right to deny you and tell you to GTFO if they want. THIS IS AMERICA. Ohhh they hurt my feelings...hows that saying go....oh yeah...GROW UP AND GET OVER IT!

"Im sorry little Suzie but we dont have anything to eat for dinner because mummy and daddy are christian homophobes and we wouldn't take all this extra business we desperately need".

No ones asking anyone to say anything is right or wrong, hold hands or skip merrily through green pastures. Its a shop that sells things. Could imagine a doctor with the same view?

I retort: Idiots.

As a fellow man with homosexual tendencies, I have to disagree with the state's ruling. I see no point in forcing your beliefs on anyone, particularly members of a group that we see as always forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

To the Christians, by all means, continue to believe as you believe. It is your right to stand by your convictions.

To the gays, don't react in anger to the beliefs of others -- and certainly don't try to change them. Show them the love and respect that you wish to be shown, politely leave, and go elsewhere.

(Side note: If you make these people do things against their beliefs, who's going to stop them from spitting in your food -- or simply not washing their hands before handling your food. J/S.)

originally posted by: beezzer
But they (the bakers) weren't already selling wedding cakes for gay marriages.

Sincerely Beez monster, let's address facts. We both know our rhetoric, we both know each other's positions, ATS doesn't need another performance of Shakespeare online. The audiences are getting smaller every time, and I'm putting up my rate for acting.

If you really believe religion should trump evenly applied statutes designed to keep your market place flowing, competitive and attractive to a diverse group of citizens and internationals then write to your local representative and tell them.

The ruling is in my other post for reference. Arguing with a German llama on a web board will not change your America.

P.S: do you Americans ever look at your own laws? Some of the THIS IS MERKA! posts kind of give me the impression they are randomly generated on a spinning wheel each summer and y'all only read them during an annual set of gay festivals.

It's not like this stuff snuck up on you.

a reply to: Metallicus

"sensitivity training" = the new reeducation camps for the new America.

originally posted by: scolai
As a fellow man with homosexual tendencies, I have to disagree with the state's ruling. I see no point in forcing your beliefs on anyone, particularly members of a group that we see as always forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

To the Christians, by all means, continue to believe as you believe. It is your right to stand by your convictions.

To the gays, don't react in anger to the beliefs of others -- and certainly don't try to change them. Show them the love and respect that you wish to be shown, politely leave, and go elsewhere.

(Side note: If you make these people do things against their beliefs, who's going to stop them from spitting in your food -- or simply not washing their hands before handling your food. J/S.)

Applause! Well reasoned and logical post. Well said.