Gay Wedding Cakes

[jwhitlock]

How would the baker know that you followed through with that unless she was there the whole time. 

 

She wouldn't be.

 

Let me expand on this a little bit. 

 

If the baker in our case has the right to ask how the cake will be used, and then refuse to make the cake if we don't comply with her conditions, how does that differ from a baker who tells a gay couple that he doesn't allow his cakes to be used in gay weddings and won't bake the cake for them?

[Brian 2.0]

She wouldn't be.

 

Let me expand on this a little bit. 

 

If the baker in our case has the right to ask how the cake will be used, and then refuse to make the cake if we don't comply with her conditions, how does that differ from a baker who tells a gay couple that he doesn't allow his cakes to be used in gay weddings and won't bake the cake for them?

 

If it is legal, which i don't know if it is, I'm no lawyer... my assumption would be that the refusal has nothing to do with any "protected class" (it's not because of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc) so it doesn't fall under the discrimination laws.

[jwhitlock]

If it is legal, which i don't know if it is, I'm no lawyer... my assumption would be that the refusal has nothing to do with any "protected class" (it's not because of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc) so it doesn't fall under the discrimination laws.

 

IIRC, the baker indicated that he would bake a cake for gays; he just wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding. In our situation, she would bake us a cake; she just wouldn't do it for us if we had another cake at the reception.

 

My example and the gay wedding example are both situation oriented - the cake may not be used for certain purposes. I'm just curious on how a judge could rule that a baker would be allowed to deny my situation, but not the situation of a gay couple - if that is indeed the case.

[Brian 2.0]

IIRC, the baker indicated that he would bake a cake for gays; he just wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding. In our situation, she would bake us a cake; she just wouldn't do it for us if we had another cake at the reception.

My example and the gay wedding example are both situation oriented - the cake may not be used for certain purposes. I'm just curious on how a judge could rule that a baker would be allowed to deny my situation, but not the situation of a gay couple - if that is indeed the case.

I think if the reason for the situation is associated with a "protected class" then you can't discriminate.

Your situation delt with protecting the business' reputation and the situation/event had zero to do with race, sex, or sexual orientation so the law doesn't apply.

The situation of a gay wedding does. Hence the application of the law.

If the situation was a female's birthday party and the baker said he won't sell cakes to be used in female birthday parties the law would apply.

Can't discrimiate on sex.

If the situation was a Korean birthday party and the baker said he won't sell cakes to be used in Korean birthday parties the law would apply.

Can't discriminate on race.

If the situation was a Nascar celebration and the baker said he won't sell cakes to be used for any Nascar related activities the law would NOT apply and that refusal is ok.

This is my understanding, but I could very easily be wrong.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

IIRC, the baker indicated that he would bake a cake for gays; he just wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding. In our situation, she would bake us a cake; she just wouldn't do it for us if we had another cake at the reception.

 

My example and the gay wedding example are both situation oriented - the cake may not be used for certain purposes. I'm just curious on how a judge could rule that a baker would be allowed to deny my situation, but not the situation of a gay couple - if that is indeed the case.

 

Here's something on "protected classes" which is why the judge would rule differently.  This deals with appearance which is interesting...

 

Well-groomed people have an advantage in job interviews. At the other end of the spectrum, it’s not against federal law for employers to refuse to hire people with a less-attractive appearance. Under the law, grooming is considered a personal choice, not a “protected” characteristic. Companies can base employment on physical characteristics. They can even treat workers differently based on their physical attributes.

 

Appearance Is Not a Protected Class

It’s against federal law for an employer to discriminate against you because of your age, gender, religion, color, race, nationality, or disability. These are “protected” groups or classes of people, not personal choices.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission doesn’t protect people when their employers treat them unfairly simply because of the way they look.

 

However, the federal government offers a loophole if you can prove that your appearance is tied to one of the protected classes.For example, there’s some debate as to whether obesity qualifies as a disability, which would be protected. There are times when appearance is closely linked to religion, which is protected.

 

source: http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/your-appearance-in-the-workplace.html

 

 

The big question being asked now is should "sexual orientation" be a protected class?  In a lot of states it is becoming so.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[jwhitlock]

Here's something on "protected classes" which is why the judge would rule differently.  This deals with appearance which is interesting...

 

source: http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/your-appearance-in-the-workplace.html

 

 

The big question being asked now is should "sexual orientation" be a protected class?  In a lot of states it is becoming so.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Perhaps the real question is, why do we have protected classes at all? Such may cause more problems than they solve, as evidenced by legal rulings and rationalizations that end up being inconsistent.

 

For instance, programs designed to give preference to certain racial groups could be a violation of other races' rights based on the protected class of race. Yet that has been upheld.

 

Or, the baker makes a religious case for declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding. When does one protected class get to trump the rights of another protected class?

 

I believe it used to be that hardship had to be shown for legal relief in cases like this, but that seems to increasingly not be true anymore. That could affect protected class rulings, but doesn't appear to be taken into consideration. This leads to what I believe to be inconsistency in how decisions are made by judges.

[Mormonmaniac]

Just to be clear on where you are coming from...

 

Would support a law making it illegal for the baker to refuse baking a plain cake that would be used for a gay person's birthday or graduation?

Why must there even be a law? Common sense is what we lack. We got along just fine for thousands of years without a law for gay wedding cakes, so why do we even need such laws?

[Mormonmaniac]

You seriously believe that EVERY cake, cupcake, cookie, loaf of bread etc. sold means the baker supports each and every event the baked goods are purchased for?????

Why should a baker or any business for that matter be forced to perform a service for any cause?

[Analytics]

Why should a baker or any business for that matter be forced to perform a service for any cause?

 

It sounds like you are asking why we have anti-discrimination laws at all--if somebody doesn't want to serve blacks or Mormons or gays, that should be their prerogative, right?

[smac97]

Fascism.  It's in the air these days (emphases added):

 

Gay NY Times Columnist Wants Christians To Be Forced To “Embrace” Homosexuality…
 
Via NY Times:
 

THE drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision.
 
They’re not — at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree, of what people can and cannot divine in regard to God’s will.
 
And homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere.
 
That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.
 
But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.
 
It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.[…]
 
So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
 
“Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time,” said David Gushee, an evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University. He openly challenges his faith’s censure of same-sex relationships, to which he no longer subscribes.
 
For a very long time, he noted, “Many Christians thought slavery wasn’t sinful, until we finally concluded that it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed, and now very few Protestants and not that many Catholics would say that.” They hold an evolved sense of right and wrong, even though, he added, “You could find scriptural support for the idea that all sex should be procreative.”
 
Christians have also moved far beyond Scripture when it comes to gender roles.
 
“In the United States, we have abandoned the idea that women are second-class, inferior and subordinate to men, but the Bible clearly teaches that,” said Jimmy Creech, a former United Methodist pastor who was removed from ministry in the church after he performed a same-sex marriage ceremony in 1999. “We have said: That’s a part of the culture and history of the Bible. That is not appropriate for us today.”
 
And we could say the same about the idea that men and women in loving same-sex relationships are doing something wrong.
 
...
 
Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to L.G.B.T. people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.”
 
Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”
 
His commandment is worthy — and warranted. All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them.

 

Again, for emphasis: The New York Times just published an article stating that "church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list,'" and that this "commandment" is "worthy" and "warranted."  A few thoughts here:
 
1. I am beginning to see the wisdom of LDS church leaders who have distinguished "homosexuality" (same-sex attraction) from homosexual/same-sex behavior, with only the latter being on - as the article puts it - "the sin list."  I concur with the second-to-last quoted sentence above about people with SSA being told that "they're an offense."  These folks are the children of God.  They are sinners, as are we all, but they are still the children of God.  They have tremendous worth.  But I reject the last quoted sentence which equates declining to participate in celebrating a same-sex marriage with categorical hatred of gay people.  I think this cartoon is apt:
 

 
 
2. I do not think the people quoted in the article would concur with the distinction described above.  That is, I think the call that "church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list'" pertains to both same-sex attraction and same-sex behavior.
 
3. Let us all step back and consider, for a few moments, the implications of a secular news media giant, The New York Times, advocating compulsory changes in the religious doctrines of religious groups in America.  "Church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list.'"  
 
"Must be made?"  Who will "make" church leaders do this?  Is it fair to surmise that this "worthy" and "warranted" "commandment" published by a secular newspaper is a call for the secular government to compel / coerce / force / punish religious groups into capitulating on their beliefs about what conduct is or is not sinful?
 
We have all recently seen various governmental actions punishing religious opposition to being compelled to endorse/embrace same-sex marriage.  To decline is now a crime.  To recoil against compelled speech which violates religious belief is now a crime.  This is the coercive power of government being brought to bear against religious people with reasoned, principled beliefs about a controversial topic.  And the New York Times appears to be calling for secular government to step in and "make" religions, their leaders, and their adherents capitulate on those reasoned, principled beliefs.
 
"Church leaders must be made..."  Yep.  Fascism is in the air...
 
 

 


 


 
 

 
Thanks,
 
-Smac

[JAHS]

  

[smac97]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2015 by smac97

[tonie]

 

 We have all recently seen various governmental actions punishing religious opposition to being compelled to endorse/embrace same-sex marriage.  To decline is now a crime.  To recoil against compelled speech which violates religious belief is now a crime.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

As you are once advocated profiling using the law to justify such profiling, surely you could do better.

 

No, we have not seen governmental actions compell endorsement or embracement of ssm. Your, repeating dittohead talking points (empty inflammatory rhetoric; you expose you lack of reasoned response when you have to resort to "liberal" and other useless inflammatory ternsm) is dispointing. 

 

Perhaps you could address the baker case from Colorado, wherein it was held that baking and frosting a cake (no message, no groom/groom figures on top) IS NOT protected speech, but writting a message could be.  And in the same case the rulling official used the Smith test for the religious freedom defense. 

 

To date (I am unaware of any case), we have not seen a ssm case wherein the accused relied on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (strict scrutiny). The case so far seem to have relied solely on the Smith test.

 

Empty rhetoric debases us all. Surely you could provide a legal analysis (legal precedent) on how/why goverments have compelled endorsement of ssm.

 

I have a challenge for, show legal precedent that would compell a muslim to write an offensive message on a cake.

Edited April 9, 2015 by tonie

[Analytics]

Smac97,

 

This thread is clearly and explicitly limited in scope to discussing the legal reasoning used by judges in actual court cases involving "gay wedding cakes."  Many of the cartoons you shared have absolutely no bearing on the actual way nondiscrimination laws are applied, and seem to be created by people who either don't understand the law or are trying to score cheap points in the culture wars.  

 

If you think judges have misapplied the law in these cases, I'd be very interested in the specifics of how their reasoning was flawed.  Likewise, if a judge has ever ruled on whether churches should be compelled to take homosexuality off of the sin list, I'd be interested in your analysis of his decision.  But if all you want to do is drum up heat and smoke in the culture wars, please do so in another thread.

 

Thanks,

 

Analytics

[smac97]

No, we have not seen governmental actions compell endorsement or embracement of ssm.

Yes, we have.

 

Your, repeating dittohead talking points (empty inflammatory rhetoric; you expose you lack of reasoned response when you have to resort to "liberal" and other useless inflammatory ternsm) is dispointing.

I don't think anyone can accuse me of lacking reasoned responses on issues in which I have an interest. To the contrary, on this board I am sometimes accused of being excessively analytical.

As for the images, I admit they frame the current topic in a political ("conservative v. liberal") context. But these positions also have moral/religious facets. In fact, the moral/religious facets can be seen as predominating over the political ones. My moral/religious views inform and dictate my political views, not vice versa. In any event, the images raise important points, in addition to the substantive comments I have already posted (see here).

 

Perhaps you could address the baker case from Colorado, wherein it was held that baking and frosting a cake (no message, no groom/groom figures on top) IS NOT protected speech, but writting a message could be.  And in the same case the rulling official used the Smith test for the religious freedom defense. 

 

To date (I am unaware of any case), we have not seen a ssm case wherein the accused relied on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (strict scrutiny). The case so far seem to have relied solely on the Smith test.

I'll see if I can get to it. I would also like you to address a few cases I have found problematic. Are you game?

 

Empty rhetoric debases us all.

My rhetoric is not empty. I generally mean what I say. And what I say is seldom "empty."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Smac97,

 

This thread is clearly and explicitly limited in scope to discussing the legal reasoning used by judges in actual court cases involving "gay wedding cakes."  Many of the cartoons you shared have absolutely no bearing on the actual way nondiscrimination laws are applied, and seem to be created by people who either don't understand the law or are trying to score cheap points in the culture wars.  

 

If you think judges have misapplied the law in these cases, I'd be very interested in the specifics of how their reasoning was flawed.  Likewise, if a judge has ever ruled on whether churches should be compelled to take homosexuality off of the sin list, I'd be interested in your analysis of his decision.  But if all you want to do is drum up heat and smoke in the culture wars, please do so in another thread.

 

Thanks,

 

Analytics

I apologize. I did not read the OP. I will withdraw.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

Why must there even be a law? Common sense is what we lack. We got along just fine for thousands of years without a law for gay wedding cakes, so why do we even need such laws?

 

The simple answer is that we didn't get along just fine for thousands of years without laws protecting people from discrimination. IOW If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

[Analytics]

I apologize. I did not read the OP. I will withdraw.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Accepted; thanks.  I do hope you participate in the thread on topic.

[tonie]

Yes, we have.

 

CFR that US governmental entities have compelled religious individuals to endorse/embrace ssm. And to save time, do you view non-discrimination laws as compelling racist religious individuals to endorse/embrace the interracial marriage?

 

 

 

I don't think anyone can accuse me of lacking reasoned responses on issues in which I have an interest. To the contrary, on this board I am sometimes accused of being excessively analytical.

Nice deflection and strawman. If anything, my comment to which you responded could read as an endorsement that you are capable of reasoned responses; which is why I brought your paper on profiling.

 

 

My moral/religious views inform and dictate my political views, not vice versa. In any event, the images raise important points, in addition to the substantive comments I have already posted (see here).

Another deflection.  As you and I both are part of the same religion. I have difficulty believing that anything in the LDS Church teachings advocates half-truths, or repeat statements that have no legitimate basis.

 

 

My rhetoric is not empty. I generally mean what I say. And what I say is seldom "empty."

It is empty because it is baseless. It makes for nice soundsbites for the ill-informed, but leaves the discussion devoid of substance.

 

 

 

I'll see if I can get to it. I would also like you to address a few cases I have found problematic. Are you game?

 

I am interested in what cases you have in mind and the legal reasoning from the presiding official that you find problematic.

Edited April 9, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

"The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. ... Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious. The act of preparing a cake is simply not “speech” warranting First Amendment protection,"

 

There is an important distinction the Court was alluding too. To provide a blank canvas is not speech, but to punished for not writting a offensive message would likely be a violation of the a person free speech and free exercise of religion.   In the above case the Court also address Bob Jones University prohibition agaisnt interracial marriage; which Bob Jones university claimed was religious based discrimination.