Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[ERayR]

I am shocked that so many Mormons have no problem with the old " we don't serve your kind" attitudes of years gone by before these accommodation laws went into effect. I thought this country was finished with racial, religious, and gender orientation discrimination. Who would have thought that followers of Christ would be demanding for the right to discriminate. And using religion of all things to justify that discrimination.

 

Maybe it is because so many of  ". . . your kind" have the attitude that they are entitled to my service.  If I provide a service to you it is because I want to serve you not because I have to.  I am more apt to refuse service because of attitude than for any other reason.

[CV75]

I am shocked that so many Mormons have no problem with the old " we don't serve your kind" attitudes of years gone by before these accommodation laws went into effect. I thought this country was finished with racial, religious, and gender orientation discrimination. Who would have thought that followers of Christ would be demanding for the right to discriminate. And using religion of all things to justify that discrimination.

Personally, I don’t see this sort of thing as discrimination against individuals for whom or what they are, but exercising the right to conscientiously withhold tacit support of or participation in religiously offensive practices.

 

It's not a matter of "we don't serve your kind" but a matter of "you are crossing a religious line I do not observe."

[Jacob]

Personally, I don’t see this sort of thing as discrimination against individuals for whom or what they are, but exercising the right to conscientiously withhold tacit support of or participation in religiously offensive practices.

 

It's not a matter of "we don't serve your kind" but a matter of "you are crossing a religious line I do not observe."

Wasn't that the argument of many people with regard to their attitude towards Mormons? That "[It was] not a matter of "we don't serve your kind" but a matter of "you are crossing a religious line I do not observe.""?

[Calm]

I think it is not that they are supporting discrimination as supporting the idea behind agency....our choices should be informing us what is and isn't important to us and helping us learn how to love and appreciate others more...but when behaviour is imposed on us, the choice switches to not whether one should love the other and how best to express that, but whether one should avoid the punishment associated with the specific discrimination (fines, etc).  Instead they believe that forcing someone to not discriminate does not help either the person who is doing the discrimination to change their heart or the person who is discriminated against in the sense that in the long run, the view of them is not changed and all they are doing is dealing with someone with a mask.

Edited July 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[Maestrophil]

This is exactly what happened here. No one asked to bakery to make a "gay wedding cake." The bakery makes wedding cakes. A person wanted to buy a wedding cake. They were denied this service based solely on their orientation. The couple buying the cake did not ask the owners to make a cake that said "Gays Rule" or "Christians Suck", they merely wanted to buy a wedding cake. 

 

Again there is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake."

 

I agree that if the only reason that the cake was refused was because the couple was gay, then that should not be allowed.  I think the fine to be a bit severe even so...

 

And having been in the weeding business for about a decade in years past, I can definitely say there is such a thing as a gay wedding cake...  people ask for words or symbols on the cake often - up to and including a groom and a groom on the top and rainbows.  

 

Here is another question just to stir the pot a little bit.  I am a musician and have played at hundreds of weddings.  I would feel uncomfortable if a gay couple asked me to play at their wedding while gay couples slow danced and celebrated.  I usually also MC-ed the events and would feel odd announcing and congratulating the couple.  Would I be required to perform at a gay wedding under those circumstances, since none of the songs I would sing would have to be "gay"?  I suppose many service and product providers will simply have to learn to say "oh my, our calendar is full and we are short handed... we can't fulfill your request...

 

Thoughts?

[Jacob]

Here is another question just to stir the pot a little bit.  I am a musician and have played at hundreds of weddings.  I would feel uncomfortable if a gay couple asked me to play at their wedding while gay couples slow danced and celebrated.  I usually also MC-ed the events and would feel odd announcing and congratulating the couple.  Would I be required to perform at a gay wedding under those circumstances, since none of the songs I would sing would have to be "gay"?  I suppose many service and product providers will simply have to learn to say "oh my, our calendar is full and we are short handed... we can't fulfill your request...

 

Thoughts?

I think that being uncomfortable in a setting is much different than baking a cake for someone else to take to that setting. I think it would hurt their feelings, but most LGBT that I interact with would be understanding. I do know that some other LGBT's would respond to that hurt negatively and inappropriately. I believe that people interact poorly on both sides of this issue often and in the media we only hear about the extremes and seldom the moderates that get along fine. The extreme is usually much more visible to people.

[Storm Rider]

I agree that if the only reason that the cake was refused was because the couple was gay, then that should not be allowed.  I think the fine to be a bit severe even so...

 

And having been in the weeding business for about a decade in years past, I can definitely say there is such a thing as a gay wedding cake...  people ask for words or symbols on the cake often - up to and including a groom and a groom on the top and rainbows.  

 

Here is another question just to stir the pot a little bit.  I am a musician and have played at hundreds of weddings.  I would feel uncomfortable if a gay couple asked me to play at their wedding while gay couples slow danced and celebrated.  I usually also MC-ed the events and would feel odd announcing and congratulating the couple.  Would I be required to perform at a gay wedding under those circumstances, since none of the songs I would sing would have to be "gay"?  I suppose many service and product providers will simply have to learn to say "oh my, our calendar is full and we are short handed... we can't fulfill your request...

 

Thoughts?

 

This is the part that is significant.  No gay couple would ask you to be their MC at a wedding.  Gay culture is so full of talented people that this whole issue is a bit stunning.  I don't think for a moment that these two, poor, bereaved women gave two hoots in heck to have this specific bakery make their cake.  I believe their sole objective was to find a bakery that was run by a Christian and force them to either shut down or make them a cake to celebrate their wedding.  I suspect they could have gone to dozens, in Portland, DOZENS of gay bakeries for their cake, but they would not provide the conflict this couple was seeking.  

 

I still remain convinced that no private business is forced to work when they do not want to.  The error this bakery make is providing a reason for not working.  The answer is "I am not interested in working"; thanking for coming in.  Refer them to the gay baker down the street, across the street, and the five across town.  Then move on with your life and business intact and the couple can find another business to target for their legal shenanigans.  

[ERayR]

I think that being uncomfortable in a setting is much different than baking a cake for someone else to take to that setting. I think it would hurt their feelings, but most LGBT that I interact with would be understanding. I do know that some other LGBT's would respond to that hurt negatively and inappropriately. I believe that people interact poorly on both sides of this issue often and in the media we only hear about the extremes and seldom the moderates that get along fine. The extreme is usually much more visible to people.

 

Most wedding cakes are taken by the baker to the wedding venue and assembled on site.  Especially by a small bakery.  Moving the multi-tier separate tier cakes are extremely difficult to safely move once assembled.  My Sis does wedding cakes for family and friends.  I don't know the whole process but know that most of the time she brings the finished layers and assembles them at the reception hall.

[Maestrophil]

Most wedding cakes are taken by the baker to the wedding venue and assembled on site.  Especially by a small bakery.  Moving the multi-tier separate tier cakes are extremely difficult to safely move once assembled.  My Sis does wedding cakes for family and friends.  I don't know the whole process but know that most of the time she brings the finished layers and assembles them at the reception hall.

I can verify this is the case almost always...

[Jacob]

Most wedding cakes are taken by the baker to the wedding venue and assembled on site.  Especially by a small bakery.  Moving the multi-tier separate tier cakes are extremely difficult to safely move once assembled.  My Sis does wedding cakes for family and friends.  I don't know the whole process but know that most of the time she brings the finished layers and assembles them at the reception hall.

But the assembly time would not be during the event. Not even close to the same thing as performing during the event.

[why me]

Seems like a coupke hundred dollars for a first offense would have been more than adequate.

Not if the law wishes to make an example and this is what it did. Of course, there will be hypocrisy. For example, if someone wants to have a conferderate flag on a birthday cake, that can be refused. Or a a jewish bakery receives an order for a swastika cake. That can be refused. Or if a muslim bakery receives a SSM order, that can be refused too. No way does oregon wish to annoy the muslims. And besides, the muslims are part of pluralism. But lets hope that all cakes can be baked.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/walmart-refused-to-make-a-confederate-flag-cake-instead-made-isis-cake-10353937.html

Edited July 7, 2015 by why me

[Jacob]

This is the part that is significant.  No gay couple would ask you to be their MC at a wedding.  Gay culture is so full of talented people that this whole issue is a bit stunning.  I don't think for a moment that these two, poor, bereaved women gave two hoots in heck to have this specific bakery make their cake.  I believe their sole objective was to find a bakery that was run by a Christian and force them to either shut down or make them a cake to celebrate their wedding.  I suspect they could have gone to dozens, in Portland, DOZENS of gay bakeries for their cake, but they would not provide the conflict this couple was seeking.  

 

I still remain convinced that no private business is forced to work when they do not want to.  The error this bakery make is providing a reason for not working.  The answer is "I am not interested in working"; thanking for coming in.  Refer them to the gay baker down the street, across the street, and the five across town.  Then move on with your life and business intact and the couple can find another business to target for their legal shenanigans.  

It may have been chosen as an impetus for a legal precedent. All the same, I think people are generally in error in assuming the worst of others. In general people have good intentions.

 

I agree with you. The error on the bakery's part was how they refused, not necessarily that they refused.

[ERayR]

But the assembly time would not be during the event. Not even close to the same thing as performing during the event.

 

Haven't planned and put on many weddings have you?  My experience:  It is still being assembled when the organist is getting ready to play the wedding march.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Oh, you mean if it came out that a CEO was a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon?  Or maybe if the company was in the south that it was found out she was Catholic?  Or that a manager at a Mormon bookstore contributed to a Catholic school?  Any problems there or is it just when one of these individuals would have the temerity to contribute $100 to support traditional marriage all heck should hit the fan?  This is hypocrisy in action and it always amazes me that it is so hard to see for some. 

 

No, nice try though. An employer does not have the right to fire someone because they happen to be Mormon, Black, or white, though in many states they can fire someone for being gay. Try these examples for something more relevant: How about a CEO that donated $1,000 to the KKK, or an anti-catholic society. Or a manager of a Mormon Bookstore that was publicly donating $1,000 to CARM or publishing anti-mormon material. I'd say that in each instance the employer has the right to fire high profile employees on the basis of publicly taking stands that the company disagrees with. 

 

I also believe that businesses that serve the public should also serve people without respect to whether they are Mormon or Catholic, Mexican or Canadian, White or Black, etc. A member of the Westboro Baptist church should not be refused services based on her religious beliefs. 

 

To be consistent, is it your view that favoring public accommodation laws requires shareholders to allow their CEO to publicly support whatever cause they choose?

[Mystery Meat]

I am shocked that so many Mormons have no problem with the old " we don't serve your kind" attitudes of years gone by before these accommodation laws went into effect. I thought this country was finished with racial, religious, and gender orientation discrimination. Who would have thought that followers of Christ would be demanding for the right to discriminate. And using religion of all things to justify that discrimination.

 

I am shocked that so many Mormons and former Mormons here have adopted Satans plan of forcing people into a decision and taking away agency.

 

I don't actually think my hyperbolic statement is any more accurate than your gross mischaracterization of what anyone on this thread is saying. It is becoming (if it hasn't always been) impossible to have a discussion with you on any topic related to SSA/SSM. You often/always mischaratcerize what people say or willfully misunderstand. You also ignore people's questions, points and refuse and choose to not respond. It's just a bit frustrating.

 

ETA: I know these are difficult issues. We are all trying to sort through them. Do you find it even a bit hypocritical of society to celebrate the firing of a CEO who was not in favor of SSM while simultaneously condemning a couple who was not allowed to object to participating in a service they felt like violated their deeply held religious beliefs? Even a little?

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Jacob]

Haven't planned and put on many weddings have you?  My experience:  It is still being assembled when the organist is getting ready to play the wedding march.

I've never been to a wedding where the cake wasn't assembled before the guests had arrived. All the same, I still don't believe that the experience of putting the cake together would compare with performing at the event. A performance is an interactive experience with the audience.

[Mystery Meat]

I assume you recognize that the two are not equivalent under the law, and that you are arguing for how the law should be, correct?

 

Can you not see a distinction between denying services to a class of people (based on religion, race, national origin, or increasing sexual orientation) and not wanting your highest profile company officer bring negative attention to your company? I work in a position such that I represent my company to both private and governmental groups. If I came out and publicly supported things that opposed my company's message, I would expect to be fired. 

 

I can certainly see why a company would not want to have a controversial figure as its CEO. I can also understand why a company wouldn't want to take controversial positions or refuse service to just about any one for the sake of its bottom line. But just like I think Mozilla should have the right to fire someone over their position on SSM, I think a company, especially one that is family owned and operated, should have the ability to refuse service based on their position on SSM. I think allowing one company such an ability while refusing the other is hypocrisy of the worst kind. 

 

Now I think it says a lot about how childish individuals in our country are that entitled elites and social policeman forced Mozilla to fire a man who by all accounts was capable of performing his job and that some service providers feel the need to deny services to people based on their understanding of the bible, an understanding I think is flawed. But I think in America we should have that right to refuse service or to fire someone for any reason whatsoever, even if those reasons are unchristian, evil, or plain bigoted, racist, sexist, stupid, mean, etc. 

[Zakuska]

I can certainly see why a company would not want to have a controversial figure as its CEO. I can also understand why a company wouldn't want to take controversial positions or refuse service to just about any one for the sake of its bottom line. But just like I think Mozilla should have the right to fire someone over their position on SSM, I think a company, especially one that is family owned and operated, should have the ability to refuse service based on their position on SSM. I think allowing one company such an ability while refusing the other is hypocrisy of the worst kind. 

 

Now I think it says a lot about how childish individuals in our country are that entitled elites and social policeman forced Mozilla to fire a man who by all accounts was capable of performing his job and that some service providers feel the need to deny services to people based on their understanding of the bible, an understanding I think is flawed. But I think in America we should have that right to refuse service or to fire someone for any reason whatsoever, even if those reasons are unchristian, evil, or plain bigoted, racist, sexist, stupid, mean, etc. 

 

Is this the beginning to "work at will" laws being re written?

 

When ever I find a Job I have to sign a waver that says they can fire me for any reason or no reason at all and vice versa, I can leave any time I want with no reason at all.

 

Apparently "work at will" is now unconstitutional. 

Edited July 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[Storm Rider]

No, nice try though. An employer does not have the right to fire someone because they happen to be Mormon, Black, or white, though in many states they can fire someone for being gay. Try these examples for something more relevant: How about a CEO that donated $1,000 to the KKK, or an anti-catholic society. Or a manager of a Mormon Bookstore that was publicly donating $1,000 to CARM or publishing anti-mormon material. I'd say that in each instance the employer has the right to fire high profile employees on the basis of publicly taking stands that the company disagrees with. 

 

I also believe that businesses that serve the public should also serve people without respect to whether they are Mormon or Catholic, Mexican or Canadian, White or Black, etc. A member of the Westboro Baptist church should not be refused services based on her religious beliefs. 

 

To be consistent, is it your view that favoring public accommodation laws requires shareholders to allow their CEO to publicly support whatever cause they choose?

 

This is apples and oranges, but a nice try.  An software company that has an executive that promotes SSM or traditional families, either one, should be acceptable in a civil society.  The problem is that we have created a special, protected class.  Those poor defenseless gay people should be protected from all those evil, terrible, hating, religious fanatics that support traditional marriage.  Trying to compare a citizen's support for SSM or traditional marriage to a manager in a Deseret Book store that is supporting anti-Mormon movements is not in the same universe.  A D- for effort and an F for thinking that type of logic would work here.  Stay after school in detention and write 2,000 times, "I will not use silly logic with adults". 

[Mystery Meat]

Is this the beginning to "work at will" laws being re written?

 

When ever I find a Job I have to sign a waver that says they can fire me for any reason or no reason at all and vice versa, I can leave any time I want with no reason at all.

 

Apparently "work at will" is now unconstitutional. 

 

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at...

[Jacob]

This is apples and oranges, but a nice try.  An software company that has an executive that promotes SSM or traditional families, either one, should be acceptable in a civil society.  The problem is that we have created a special, protected class.  Those poor defenseless gay people should be protected from all those evil, terrible, hating, religious fanatics that support traditional marriage.  Trying to compare a citizen's support for SSM or traditional marriage to a manager in a Deseret Book store that is supporting anti-Mormon movements is not in the same universe.  A D- for effort and an F for thinking that type of logic would work here.  Stay after school in detention and write 2,000 times, "I will not use silly logic with adults". 

There are still violent actions against LGBT individuals. They still get turned away from housing. There are severe actions being taken against them. Your statement here is not an accurate comparison either. They do, currently, need protection.

[Zakuska]

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at...

 

Im agreeing with you. Utah is what is known as a "work at will" state.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

which means...

 

 

 

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."^[5] In an October 2000 decision largely reaffirming employers' rights under the at-will doctrine, the Supreme Court of California explained: “ [A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.^[6] ”

At-will employment disclaimers are a staple of employee handbooks in the United States. It is common for employers to define what at-will employment means, explain that an employee’s at-will status cannot be changed except in a writing signed by the company president (or chief executive), and require that an employee sign an acknowledgment of his or her at-will status.^[7] However, the National Labor Relations Board has opposed as unlawful the practice of including in such disclaimers language declaring that the at-will nature of the employment cannot be changed without the written consent of senior management.^{[note 1][8]}

 

But now there are  exceptions.  eg. You cant be fired (or not hired) for being gay. So these laws now have exceptions.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[Mystery Meat]

Im agreeing with you. Utah is what is known as a "work at will" state.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

which means...

 

 

 

But now there are  exceptions.  eg. You cant be fired for being gay. So these laws now have exceptions.

 

Thanks, but I think there have always been exceptions (race being the first that comes to mind). Again, I don't think there should be any exceptions.

[Zakuska]

Thanks, but I think there have always been exceptions (race being the first that comes to mind). Again, I don't think there should be any exceptions.

And I agree. there shouldn't be any exceptions in a free market.

 

People should be able to run their business as they see fit without the Government dictating social correctness.  And the right Divsersity mix.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This is apples and oranges, but a nice try.  An software company that has an executive that promotes SSM or traditional families, either one, should be acceptable in a civil society.

So if in the 1970's a software executive came out in favor of segregation, should that have been acceptable in a civil society? How about today? If a software executive's publicly expressed personal views are hurting a company's bottom line, the company can't take action?

 

The problem is that we have created a special, protected class.  Those poor defenseless gay people should be protected from all those evil, terrible, hating, religious fanatics that support traditional marriage.

You are confusing two separate issues. Public accommodation laws which protect certain classes of people that have been discriminated against historically (gays, blacks, Mexicans, Irish, Catholics, Mormons), and free speech. The Oregon bakery is not being fined (again the fine was horribly excessive IMO) because the owners are against Same Sex Marriage. The owners are being fined because they refused to bake a wedding cake (a service that they provide) based on someone's sexual orientation. If they refused to bake a wedding cake because someone was Mormon or black, they would be in the same predicament. The Oregon bakery can post their pro traditional marriage views all over their shop. They can hang Nazi paraphernalia. They can't refuse service to gays and they can't refuse service to jews based on their orientation / religion respectively. 

 

 Trying to compare a citizen's support for SSM or traditional marriage to a manager in a Deseret Book store that is supporting anti-Mormon movements is not in the same universe.  A D- for effort and an F for thinking that type of logic would work here.  Stay after school in detention and write 2,000 times, "I will not use silly logic with adults".

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Mozilla obviously felt that the CEO's support was not in line with its corporate principles. As for silly logic, you went from Mozilla firing someone for publicly supporting Prop 8 to Mozilla firing someone because they were Catholic. Pot meet kettle. How about this. I'll retract the Deseret book analogy how about using this instead:

 

In the early 1970's Acme Motor company fired its CEO after he publicly supported pro-segregation legislation. Okay or not? How about Acme Motor company firing its CEO in the 1950's after he supported the KKK rally. Okay or not?

Edited July 7, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding