Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Make them make cake, ANY cake?

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
28,175
Bakery refused to make a cake with the words, "Support Gay Marriage".

Of course I support equal rights for gays, but I'm a troubled about forcing companies to further a message that offends them.
What if a customer wanted a cake with the words, "Heil Hitler"?
What if they wanted the N-word, the F-word, or child pornography?
You don't have to be religious to not want to make THAT cake.

Yeah, I get it; gays are not the same as Nazis, racists or pedos.
But in the mind of many religious we ARE thought of that way; some intensely religious countries execute gays.

Slippery slope here as this could be seen as an attempt to legislate thought.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have lost their appeal against a ruling that their refusal to make a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs.
Two years ago, the family-run firm refused to make a cake iced with the slogan: "Support Gay Marriage".
The order was placed at its Belfast shop by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.

The firm argued that the cake's message was against the bakers' religious views.
Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".
"If equality law means people can be punished for politely refusing to support other people's causes then equality law needs to change," he said.

"We had served Mr Lee before and we would be happy to serve him again.
"The judges accepted that we did not know that Mr Lee was gay and that he was not the reason we declined the order.
"We have always said it was not about the customer, it was about the message."
Witches on Halloween cake
In court on Monday, three judges said it did not follow that icing a message meant you supported that message.

In their ruling, they said: "The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."
The judges also said that Ashers would not have objected to a cake carrying the message: "Support Heterosexual Marriage" or indeed "Support Marriage".
"We accept that it was the use of the word 'gay' in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled," they said.
"The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation.
"This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community.

"Accordingly this was direct discrimination."
The judges said that in the course of the hearing, concern was expressed about the role of the Equality Commission in the pursuit of the case.
They said that they had been assured that the commission was available to give advice and assistance to those such as the appellants "who may find themselves in difficulties as a result of their deeply held religious beliefs".
"The only correspondence to the appellants that we have seen, however, did not include any offer of such assistance and may have created the impression that the commission was not interested in assisting the faith community where issues of this sort arose," they added.
The judges said it "should not have been beyond the capacity of the commission to provide or arrange for the provision of advice to the appellants at an earlier stage and we would hope that such a course would be followed if a situation such as this were to arise in future".
Speaking publicly for the first time about the case, Mr Lee said he was both "relieved" and "grateful to the appeal court judges."

Michael Wardlow, from the Equality Commission, said the appeal court ruling against Ashers bakery was extremely significant and clarified the law.
"The judgement today was very clear. It said unequivocally, faith is important, but faith cannot set aside equality legislation that has been long fought," he said.
The appeal court upheld the original court's decision that Ashers in County Antrim discriminated against Mr Lee.
At that time, the judge said she accepted that Ashers had "genuine and deeply held" religious views, but said the business was not above the law.
The family's appeal was heard in May, but the judgement was reserved.
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,607
Hi,

This appears to me a beautifully reasoned case that is not going down a slippery slope. How ridiculous that someone could have the right to deny a customer the right to buy a cake because they owners didn't like the message. That's a slippery slope.

However, the US case was more interesting to me. In that case the owners just refused to make the cake at all because the couple was gay. For myself, I wondered why they just didn't go to another baker, which I would have done. I can't see suing over this. But, the couple won and effectively put the owners out of business. They won a financial settlement. In law you must mitigate damage, so I wonder why the court didn't ask if they went to find another baker. I suspect they had free legal representation.
Sure its wrong, but I wouldn't want their lousy cake. Just jerks.

Annette
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
My husband has his own business. He turns down work on a daily basis for a myriad of reasons, as is his right. As long as the business doesn't come out and say they won't accept the work because "insert discriminatory reason here", then I don't think it should be forced to do it or punished for said refusal.
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
smitcompton|1477329172|4090049 said:
Hi,

This appears to me a beautifully reasoned case that is not going down a slippery slope. How ridiculous that someone could have the right to deny a customer the right to buy a cake because they owners didn't like the message. That's a slippery slope.

However, the US case was more interesting to me. In that case the owners just refused to make the cake at all because the couple was gay. For myself, I wondered why they just didn't go to another baker, which I would have done. I can't see suing over this. But, the couple won and effectively put the owners out of business. They won a financial settlement. In law you must mitigate damage, so I wonder why the court didn't ask if they went to find another baker. I suspect they had free legal representation.
Sure its wrong, but I wouldn't want their lousy cake. Just jerks.

Annette
This was SO. WRONG. They didn't find another baker because they didn't want a cake. They wanted money. Period. If they were interested in a cake, they would've found another bakery.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
6,859
msop04|1477334428|4090088 said:
smitcompton|1477329172|4090049 said:
Hi,

This appears to me a beautifully reasoned case that is not going down a slippery slope. How ridiculous that someone could have the right to deny a customer the right to buy a cake because they owners didn't like the message. That's a slippery slope.

However, the US case was more interesting to me. In that case the owners just refused to make the cake at all because the couple was gay. For myself, I wondered why they just didn't go to another baker, which I would have done. I can't see suing over this. But, the couple won and effectively put the owners out of business. They won a financial settlement. In law you must mitigate damage, so I wonder why the court didn't ask if they went to find another baker. I suspect they had free legal representation.
Sure its wrong, but I wouldn't want their lousy cake. Just jerks.

Annette
This was SO. WRONG. They didn't find another baker because they didn't want a cake. They wanted money. Period. If they were interested in a cake, they would've found another bakery.
There's no reason anyone should have to shop around for any service due to a vendor discriminating against a potential client/customer. In the Oregon case, the state in which I live, it is against the law to discriminate based on sex/gender and that's what the owners of Sweet Cakes did so they paid a fine. And they have been selling cakes online since the brick and mortar shop closed, not doubt funded by the more than half million dollars raised by supporters in a crowd fund account. The couple who sued have yet to receive any money and won't until the end of appeals. At this point in time, the people who benefitted financially are the ones who broke the law, not the couple who wanted a cake.
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
Matata|1477335174|4090096 said:
msop04|1477334428|4090088 said:
smitcompton|1477329172|4090049 said:
Hi,

This appears to me a beautifully reasoned case that is not going down a slippery slope. How ridiculous that someone could have the right to deny a customer the right to buy a cake because they owners didn't like the message. That's a slippery slope.

However, the US case was more interesting to me. In that case the owners just refused to make the cake at all because the couple was gay. For myself, I wondered why they just didn't go to another baker, which I would have done. I can't see suing over this. But, the couple won and effectively put the owners out of business. They won a financial settlement. In law you must mitigate damage, so I wonder why the court didn't ask if they went to find another baker. I suspect they had free legal representation.
Sure its wrong, but I wouldn't want their lousy cake. Just jerks.

Annette
This was SO. WRONG. They didn't find another baker because they didn't want a cake. They wanted money. Period. If they were interested in a cake, they would've found another bakery.
There's no reason anyone should have to shop around for any service due to a vendor discriminating against a potential client/customer. In the Oregon case, the state in which I live, it is against the law to discriminate based on sex/gender and that's what the owners of Sweet Cakes did so they paid a fine. And they have been selling cakes online since the brick and mortar shop closed, not doubt funded by the more than half million dollars raised by supporters in a crowd fund account. The couple who sued have yet to receive any money and won't until the end of appeals. At this point in time, the people who benefitted financially are the ones who broke the law, not the couple who wanted a cake.
I'm glad Sweet Cakes wasn't entirely ruined by this ruling. The couple can wait on their money for however long it takes the system to award it to them, because they wouldn't have gotten anything but a cake if the bakery had made it to begin with... but I'm thinking that wasn't really all they wanted in the first place. So if they have to wait on their settlement, then that's okay too, as anyone else would have to wait as well.
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
Matata|1477335827|4090100 said:
msop, here's the consequences lived by the women who wanted the cake. You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment of them.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/07/sweet_cakes_lesbians.html

It's very sad that they are experiencing the hateful backlash...

I found this part confusing.

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money...
Someone wanted money, and they obviously agreed to it. The attorney requested compensation, and they agreed to accept it. If they truly didn't want the money, then maybe they will see fit to donate to a charity/cause they are passionate about... or put it in a trust fund for their daughter to use one day.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
28,175
I have no idea what's the case here, but sometimes a large financial penalty is considered the only way to make a point that registers with with the person/company that has done wrong.

The wealthier that naughty entity is the larger the penalty must be to 'teach them a lesson'.
A half-million dollar penalty would not even feel like a mosquito bite to WalMart.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,112
Matata|1477335827|4090100 said:
msop, here's the consequences lived by the women who wanted the cake. You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment of them.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/07/sweet_cakes_lesbians.html
Thank you for the link, Matata. i can't even focus on the supposed legal "issue" here. I am blinded by the hatred this couple and their children are facing. They seem like really nice, loving women and the hate directed at them is like a blast from hell itself. It completely overwhelmed me.

Deb
 

sstephensid

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
243
msop04|1477338481|4090116 said:
Matata|1477335827|4090100 said:
msop, here's the consequences lived by the women who wanted the cake. You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment of them.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/07/sweet_cakes_lesbians.html

It's very sad that they are experiencing the hateful backlash...

I found this part confusing.

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money...
Someone wanted money, and they obviously agreed to it. The attorney requested compensation, and they agreed to accept it. If they truly didn't want the money, then maybe they will see fit to donate to a charity/cause they are passionate about... or put it in a trust fund for their daughter to use one day.

I bet it is pretty rare for someone to be awarded money, and then say "oh no thanks. After the years of stress, time off of work, and threats, nah we are good."
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
sstephensid|1477340292|4090132 said:
msop04|1477338481|4090116 said:
Matata|1477335827|4090100 said:
msop, here's the consequences lived by the women who wanted the cake. You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment of them.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/07/sweet_cakes_lesbians.html

It's very sad that they are experiencing the hateful backlash...

I found this part confusing.

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money...
Someone wanted money, and they obviously agreed to it. The attorney requested compensation, and they agreed to accept it. If they truly didn't want the money, then maybe they will see fit to donate to a charity/cause they are passionate about... or put it in a trust fund for their daughter to use one day.

I bet it is pretty rare for someone to be awarded money, and then say "oh no thanks. After the years of stress, time off of work, and threats, nah we are good."
I agree... rare. But they agreed to have their attorney fight for it in a court of law, so I'm not quite buying them saying they didn't want money out of all this.
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,607
Hi,

After reading the full account I again state my position, and I think what Kenny was writing, that the whole hurtful incident could have been avoided by finding a different bakery. What made one of the women check the bakers facebook page where she saw ugly comments? I'm not saying the baker was right, but you should have judgement when you take on a lawsuit. I would not put myself or my family through this. Both parties had their lives changed.--for what, a cake.

I am not sure, but I think you must ask for an amount in damage when you file a lawsuit, although it is referred to as a fine?

I'll throw this in here as well. Donald Trump has included in his first 100 days in office that he will sue the 11 women who have come forward. Last night I learned that Lawrence Tribe (Harvard) and others of his ilk have volunteered to represent those women.
Lawsuits are difficult at any time, but Trump does it for intimidation. He got the challenge back.

Annette
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,350
I think there are two issues. Right to refuse service to people or groups of people, and right to refuse to make a particular product.

It is illegal to discriminate against certain groups of people. Right now there is no national law that prevents discrimination of someone based on sexual preference, but there are states with this law, and I hope at some point this is included in national anti-discrimination laws because it is the right thing to do.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

As far as refusing to make a cake with a certain slogan, that is a more gray area. If you have a private business, and have a sign stating will not make certain types of cakes, I don't know. I do not find gay rights slogans offensive, but some very conservative Christians, right or wrong, are offended by it. That is a gray area. There are some examples we would all agree to, for example a bakery may refuse to make a cake in the shape of a giant penis. The people who ordered the cake would not win in court stating that they are being discriminated against, because the bakery owner would state, I don't make penis cakes for anyone. Another example would be someone requesting a cake with anchovy paste icing. The bakery doesn't want to make the cake, because they think it would taste bad and they don't want their business to be associated with a bad tasting cake. Again I feel it is within the bakery's right to refuse some jobs.
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
part gypsy|1477411482|4090426 said:
I think there are two issues. Right to refuse service to people or groups of people, and right to refuse to make a particular product.

It is illegal to discriminate against certain groups of people. Right now there is no national law that prevents discrimination of someone based on sexual preference, but there are states with this law, and I hope at some point this is included in national anti-discrimination laws because it is the right thing to do.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

As far as refusing to make a cake with a certain slogan, that is a more gray area. If you have a private business, and have a sign stating will not make certain types of cakes, I don't know. I do not find gay rights slogans offensive, but some very conservative Christians, right or wrong, are offended by it. That is a gray area. There are some examples we would all agree to, for example a bakery may refuse to make a cake in the shape of a giant penis. The people who ordered the cake would not win in court stating that they are being discriminated against, because the bakery owner would state, I don't make penis cakes for anyone. Another example would be someone requesting a cake with anchovy paste icing. The bakery doesn't want to make the cake, because they think it would taste bad and they don't want their business to be associated with a bad tasting cake. Again I feel it is within the bakery's right to refuse some jobs.
This is an interesting take on it... Just for argument's sake, what if the bakery in question would have simply claimed that they do not write any politically charged phrases on cakes for anyone (minus the back-and-forth verbiage to the customers)? I'm very curious to know from a legal standpoint.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
It mught have been easier and legal to just say I cannot make a cake at this time giving no reason. Thereby neither having a soapbox to stand on.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,816
msop04|1477592559|4091242 said:
This is an interesting take on it... Just for argument's sake, what if the bakery in question would have simply claimed that they do not write any politically charged phrases on cakes for anyone (minus the back-and-forth verbiage to the customers)? I'm very curious to know from a legal standpoint.
If they've made anything in the past (which can probably be proven with pics right off their own social media), that contradicts that, it wouldn't fly. Lying in a lawsuit would also open themselves up to a whole nother shit show.

For the topic, I am often conflicted on both sides.
From the employer standpoint, I can understand refusing business. No one should be forced to take business they don't want to. But in something like this, that is literally harmless (ie a child p*rn argument doesn't work), I don't get the bakery putting up a fuss. I also don't understand a religious freedom in a business sense. Your business isn't religious, it should not have religious rights. So while I fully believe a PERSON should have religious rights, a business should not. I think the whole hobby lobby thing is also bullshit.

They may not have wanted cash, they did want to punish someone who broke the law.
The BEST way to punish a business is financially - especially a small business. If you have a drunk driver, you take their car. If you have a murderer, you take away their freedom. Punishment comes in different forms.
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
redwood66|1477593604|4091253 said:
It mught have been easier and legal to just say I cannot make a cake at this time giving no reason. Thereby neither having a soapbox to stand on.
Exactly... They should have just said no.
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,776
telephone89|1477594428|4091259 said:
msop04|1477592559|4091242 said:
This is an interesting take on it... Just for argument's sake, what if the bakery in question would have simply claimed that they do not write any politically charged phrases on cakes for anyone (minus the back-and-forth verbiage to the customers)? I'm very curious to know from a legal standpoint.
If they've made anything in the past (which can probably be proven with pics right off their own social media), that contradicts that, it wouldn't fly. Lying in a lawsuit would also open themselves up to a whole nother shit show.

For the topic, I am often conflicted on both sides.
From the employer standpoint, I can understand refusing business. No one should be forced to take business they don't want to. But in something like this, that is literally harmless (ie a child p*rn argument doesn't work), I don't get the bakery putting up a fuss. I also don't understand a religious freedom in a business sense. Your business isn't religious, it should not have religious rights. So while I fully believe a PERSON should have religious rights, a business should not. I think the whole hobby lobby thing is also bullshit.

They may not have wanted cash, they did want to punish someone who broke the law.
The BEST way to punish a business is financially - especially a small business. If you have a drunk driver, you take their car. If you have a murderer, you take away their freedom. Punishment comes in different forms.
Even if they'd done something like that in the past, it's the business's right to change what services they offer and what types of products they provide at any given time as well... without giving a reason (i.e. "I'm sorry, we no longer make cakes with politically charged themes..."). This way, it's not a lie. The bakery should've just said that they couldn't make the cake and not made a fuss as to why...
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top