Sullivan makes good points about how gay community is blowing it

[GliderPoss]

I'm curious are we assuming "Discrimination" (defined as: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex) is the SAME as "Offence" (defined as: annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself) ?

With such a diverse world of religions/cultures/sexual preferences it is highly likely that everyone at some point in their life will be offended in some way. Will being offended kill you? Are we stifling freedom of speech or debate by shutting down all differences between us? Are we trying so hard to live in a politically correct society that we’re creating a sterile environment where no one is allowed to have their own beliefs, let alone speak them publicly? I think Kenny's idea of identifying businesses with personal beliefs is actually rather horrifying. Whilst there will always be some obvious exceptions (eg. kosher deli as was mentioned earlier) we are meant to be bringing modern society TOGETHER not dividing it further.

In this particular case it appears the gay couple were offended by the baker who refuse to decorate that particular type of cake but he did offer alternatives. Whilst they were legitimately offended, they could have simply chosen to go to another baker instead - giving their money & business to those who accept/support their preferences. Forcing the baker to go against his own beliefs could also be considered discrimination in a way... Hence my encouragement for all to "Live and let live"...

 

[AGBF]

I think Kenny's idea of identifying businesses with personal beliefs is actually rather horrifying.

kenny wrote:
"Each city needs several bakeries.
Each should be run by one group and serve only that group.
Better yet, walls around exclusive communities would prevent members from having to even see the heathens."


If you are referring to the above posting of kenny's, I agree with you that it is horrifying. I have gotten into trouble attempting to interpret what kenny means when he posts, but I will post what I understood to be his meaning and then let him and other people give their opinions. Because I can only tell you what I think when I read something.

When I read these words, I thought that kenny was giving an example of the natural conclusion to allowing discrimination against gays to continue.

AGBF

 

[missy]

Maria D I cannot get past what you wrote here.

Not that *I* believe the ceremony/institution of marriage is only for straights, but that is what our Colorado baker believes

Here's the thing. It doesn't matter what that Colorado baker believes when it comes to him operating within the law. The law allows this couple to legally get married. He is a baker who bakes and decorates wedding cakes. He decided it goes against his personal belief system to do so for this gay couple because he is personally against 2 people of the same gender getting married to each other. But here's what matters. The law says it is legal for them to marry. So it doesn't matter what this baker believes. Not when it comes to him operating his business. He is in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, refuses to provide to a gay couple a service he provides to everyone else.

Like people of color, the disabled and other minorities before them, L.G.B.T. citizens seek to be accorded the same public dignity available to everyone else.
If this baker also refused to bake cakes for couples living together before marriage, or divorcés getting remarried — biblical sins — perhaps I would buy the baker’s religious argument. But he sets this “sin” above all others and seeks not “religious freedom” but permission to discriminate.

IOW this baker's behavior is not only discriminatory but hypocritical as well. As sexist, racist, misogynistic, bigoted behavior often is.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@missy, you know I love you and I hope friends can get through discussions like this and remain so. I already said I'd personally make the wedding cake, but I am concerned about the broader implications. There are some cakes I would not make, however.

Did you see the anti-Jewish cake I think Maria posted a couple of pages back? Would you willingly make and sell that cake? And do you think the orthodox Jewish bakeries should be forced to bake the cakes for the remarriages that they believe are invalid? We have to go beyond this one baker. He is not the only baker with religious beliefs whose conscience will not allow him to sell certain cakes. And I am betting those without religious beliefs would have some cakes they would refuse to make, too, based on their core beliefs.

 

[missy]

@missy, you know I love you and I hope friends can get through discussions like this and remain so. I already said I'd personally make the wedding cake, but I am concerned about the broader implications.

Did you see the anti-Jewish cake I think Maria posted a couple of pages back? Would you willingly make and sell that cake? And do you think the orthodox Jewish bakeries should be forced to bake the cakes for the remarriages that they believe are invalid? We have to go beyond this one baker. He is not the only baker with religious beliefs whose conscience will not allow him to sell certain cakes. And I am betting those without religious beliefs would have some cakes they would refuse to make, too, based on their core beliefs.

I love you too ds and I’m happy to discuss and agree to disagree without anything changing with regards to our friendship. I know you’re a lovely person and kind hearted. Nothing here changes my view of that. It’s ok to disagree and still care about each other.

Where I draw the line at expressing “free”speech? The anti Jewish cake is hateful and IMO one can’t draw an analogous comparison. Just like IMO the comparison a poster illustrated between KKK and the Nazi party and being a homosexual and part of a loving committed relationship. Not the same thing. Those first 2are groups and examples of hateful violent behavior. Whereas gay marriage is a symbol of 2 individual’s love and commitment to each other. Different as night and day IMO.

Sorry but I’m always going to support loving relationships because IMO this is what makes the world a kinder gentler lore loving place to be. And I am supporting the law here as well.

I’m traveling right now and having difficulty getting on and posting on PS but just want you to know I’m not ignoring you. And hope this gets posted. (((Hugs))).

 

[AGBF]

Where I draw the line at expressing “free”speech? The anti Jewish cake is hateful and IMO one can’t draw an analogous comparison. Just like IMO the comparison a poster illustrated between KKK and the Nazi party and being a homosexual and part of a loving committed relationship. Not the same thing. Those first 2are groups and examples of hateful violent behavior. Whereas gay marriage is a symbol of 2 individual’s love and commitment to each other. Different as night and day IMO.

I agree with what missy wrote about this.

When I posted above that if I were on The Supreme Court I would treat the baker like an operator of a printing press and expect him only to reproduce the words of their author, I also added an addendum below that. I said that in this case I wished that no one had brought suit against this lone Christian baker because he had not sought to harm anyone.

Had the baker tried to engage in hate speech, or had the person buying the cake, a crime would have been being perpetrated. That would have changed the entire case radically. Hate speech is criminal. Attempting to force a Jewish baker to produce a pro-Nazi cake would be harassment and intimidation or an even more serious crime. It would indicate that a Nazi group was trying to intimidate someone in a minority group they hated. That is different from asking for the same goods and services a vendor supplies to everyone else.

So I guess the small baker is not the same as the owner of a big printing press in my eyes, because I believe that people should be able to publish trash. I belong to the ACLU! Maybe I need to go to law school or study philosophy so that I can decide what I actually believe.

AGBF

 

[Calliecake]

@AGBF. I don't see a difference between the large business and the small business. It's a business. The same rules should apply. Discrimination should not be tolerated. We live in a country where we all have religious freedoms, that being said no one should be able to impose their religious views on others.

What angered me about a posters comments in this thread was they immediately equated hate groups (KKK and Nazi's) with gay people. Doing so showed me more about this persons character than about their religion. As @StephanieLynn stated in this thread, people are not sheep, they make choices. The poster chose to make that comment and it was an awful comment to make. It was mean spirited and the person had to have known this would hurt and anger@Kenny. The poster responded with an eye roll and not an apology. I'm sincerely sorry for not speaking up Kenny when the post was posted.

Gay people were treated terribly when I was a young person. Obviously there are still people who feel it's fine to treat a gay person as less than. We have seen many groups of people being treated this way in the past year. It is WRONG and should not be tolerated. Bigotry is bigotry.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I hear you Missy and Deb. It's way to complex for me. And no wonder, even the Supreme Court justices are having to delve deeply to make the right decision. My personal philosophy is to try to treat everyone as I'd want to be treated. As I have repeatedly said, I would have made the cake and I am of the same faith as the baker. It's not my place to judge what people do after they buy the cake, nor am I responsible for what they do after they leave my store.

@Calliecake Your comment above certainly is hurtful to me, because my illustration was to ONLY to point out that there are limits every one of us would have in regards to making a cake. I am very sorry I used the wrong example, but I also do not appreciate being judged as mean-spirited because those who know me know that is not the case. I can think of other examples, but I am not going to prolong the discussion to try to make a point some here already understood. The example of the orthodox Jewish baker and the wedding cakes is a much better example and parallells this one. If I were Jewish and in that situation, I'd respect the baker's beliefs and use one of the vast number of bakers who could care less about my situation rather than try to force them to do what is against their conscience just to get my way.

 

[jaaron]

To me, the crux of this (and I suspect the legal arguments will hinge on it) is the distinction between discriminating against someone based on inherent traits vs. discriminating against them based on acquired traits.

Race, ethnicity and gender (to some extent) are inherent. The desires to murder jews or burn crosses or redistribute wealth are acquired- people choose what they do and don't want to believe and support. If you don't want to bake a KKK cake or a 'redistribute Steve Mnuchin's estate' cake, that's legit - the person buying the cake has made a choice to support those things and could choose to make different choices. If you don't want to bake a wedding cake for a non-white couple, because you believe non-whites are inferior and shouldn't reproduce, not legit, because the person buying the cake has no choice about their race.

And your religion might say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the law says otherwise, and while we're a nation with a wide and varied mix of religions, we generally all abide under the same laws.

I think some of the arguments for why the baker should be allowed to refuse the cake sound an awful lot like some of the arguments for why black people should stay in the back of the bus... *By which I mean, arguments put forth at the time, not that anyone here is currently making that argument.

 

[pearlsngems]

...
Had the baker tried to engage in hate speech, or had the person buying the cake, a crime would have been being perpetrated. That would have changed the entire case radically. Hate speech is criminal. ...

AGBF

Hate speech is actually not criminal-- it is protected speech under the First Amendment according to the U. S. Supreme Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.0c6fae977159

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

Please note that I am not defending hate speech nor do I support discrimination. I just think it's important to keep facts straight for the sake of the discussion.

 

[telephone89]

I'm so tired of people still thinking this is about cakes. It's not about cakes. It's about a business deciding who they can discriminate based on their PERSONAL BELIEFS. There are certain aspects of a person that are protected by the law, and IDGAF what your religion/belief is, if you discriminate based on those, you are a hateful person.

People are still saying that this gay couple should have just gone to another bakery - should a black person have to choose another car dealership because XYZ Cars wont serve black people? Should a single female be able to be evicted from her rented home because she brought home a male friend and her landlord doesn't 'believe' in that? Heck, should a christian be fired from a job because their employer saw them wearing a cross and is of a different religion?

Please, stop thinking this is about a fucking cake.

they could have simply chosen to go to another baker instead

the community is going to flip them the bird and go elsewhere with their money

There are lots of bakers. … I'd just go to another baker

I think they should have found another baker.

Putting someone out of business when you can go to another bakery is pretty poor.

 

[pearlsngems]

When this case first came up, I was 100% in support of the Supreme Court finding for the gay couple. Then my daughter -- who, though straight herself, was president of the Gay-Straight Alliance in high school and highly supportive of all rights for LGBTQ folks-- came home from college and we talked about it. She disagreed with me! She is very concerned about the loss of First Amendment rights that could come from this decision.

It is complicated! It is not a straightforward issue, at all. I think neither side can entirely dismiss the concerns of the other side.

 

[telephone89]

Oh another note, the group defending the baker is known as a hate group by the SPLC.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom

"Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion."

 

[AGBF]

@AGBF. I don't see a huge difference between the large business and the small business. It's a business. The same rules should apply. Discrimination should not be tolerated.

I agree with you that discrimination should not be tolerated in large or small businesses, Calliecake. Besides belonging to the ACLU (which fights to allow even hateful speech, not action), I belong to The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and fights discrimination. I have been giving a ton of money to both these groups since Trump's election.

My point, however, was not whether discrimination should be tolerated. That would be a no. It was whether a small baker should be treated as an artist entitled to the right of free speech or whether he was not the speaker, but merely the means of producing the speech of the person dictating the writing on the cake.

The reason I was interested in whether the baker was the speaker was because the Supreme Court was deciding whether the baker had a right of free speech.

Initially I argues that the baker was only the one who produced a cake the way an owner of a printing press produced a book, and thus should not have "artistic control" over the contents of the book or cake.

Then it occurred to me as I read this thought-provoking thread that a small-time baker belonging to a minority (be it the gay community, the Muslim community, the black community, or some other minority group) could actually be harassed by others who deliberately demanded custom cakes that would be offensive to him or even threatening. What if a black baker moved into a neighborhood where he was not wanted and then was besieged with demands for cakes depicting scenes of the slavery during the Confederacy? What if a Muslim baker were asked to make cakes depicted the prophet Mohammed? These would be deliberate attempts to bully the small-time, minority bakers and would be criminal.

So in these cases I would not view the bakers in the same way that I would view the owners of a large printing press. I would expect the owners of a large printing press to print Mein Kampf. I would not expect the small mom and pop African-American bakery to make cakes depicting scenes of slavery for an anti-black hate group.

AGBF

 

[Matata]

Did you see the anti-Jewish cake I think Maria posted a couple of pages back? Would you willingly make and sell that cake?

Are you referring to this cake? It's not anti-Jewish. It's satanic -- pentagram on top, upside down crosses, black icing. I would hazard a guess from the two coffins on top that it's a wedding cake for a couple who are members of a satanic group/church or because of the gourds in the background -- a Halloween cake.

 

[pearlsngems]

There is no way I would make that cake.

 

[Matata]

What if a black baker moved into a neighborhood where he was not wanted and then was besieged with demands for cakes depicting scenes of the slavery during the Confederacy? What if a Muslim baker were asked to make cakes depicted the prophet Mohammed? These would be deliberate attempts to bully the small-time, minority bakers and would be criminal.

So in these cases I would not view the bakers in the same way that I would view the owners of a large printing press. I would expect the owners of a large printing press to print Mein Kampf. I would not expect the small mom and pop African-American bakery to make cakes depicting scenes of slavery for an anti-black hate group.

Some posters here expressed worry that if the SC voted against the baker there would be an erosion of everyone's rights but did not specifically explain how that would occur. This particular case is about what should happen when one's religious beliefs conflict with law. The law exists to ensure that everyone, regardless of their personal beliefs, are afforded equal treatment. If the baker wins, then the scenarios you describe will surely happen and under the precedent set by the ruling, discrimination will continue rise in very public and ugly ways, just as it has since chump's election, and our marginalized and minority groups will have no recourse in the courts. If the baker loses, those scenarios may still happen but there will be precedent upon which justice can occur. The cases should be settled in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion.

If those Jewish and Muslim bakers had to throw up a bit in their mouths to bake cakes or print books they find offensive, they should still bake those cakes and print those books. If it were me, I'd bake the damn cake and print the book, make them beautiful, and include a small "artistic" element of protest that would not be identifiable to the customer. I'd follow the law and still soothe my soul.

 

[TooPatient]

I love this discussion. It is bringing up many points that I had not considered from lots of different views.

I don't know the answer. I feel strongly that all people deserve to be respected wether I agree with them or not. I hope that as the court and people around the country and the world discuss this, we can learn from each other's thoughts and become more aware of each other. I also hope whatever the decision is leads to more respect for all people. Until we can all respect each other, there will be intolerance and hate in the world.

Kenny -- I hope you are able to see through discussions that it is not religions that hold beliefs -- it is individuals. People can and do choose what they agree or disagree with even within the religion they choose. (As a side note, the synagogue we attend waited excitedly for same sex marriage in our state and celebrated with a beautiful couple as soon as it was in place. The community tends to be very much in favor of equal rights.)

 

[Maria D]

To me, the crux of this (and I suspect the legal arguments will hinge on it) is the distinction between discriminating against someone based on inherent traits vs. discriminating against them based on acquired traits.

*snipped the rest*

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this is accurate. I think it's going to be about the distinction of whether or not a wedding cake baker can/should be considered an artist and if his products are an expression of speech.

 

[Maria D]

I love this discussion. It is bringing up many points that I had not considered from lots of different views.

I don't know the answer. I feel strongly that all people deserve to be respected wether I agree with them or not. I hope that as the court and people around the country and the world discuss this, we can learn from each other's thoughts and become more aware of each other. I also hope whatever the decision is leads to more respect for all people. Until we can all respect each other, there will be intolerance and hate in the world.

Kenny -- I hope you are able to see through discussions that it is not religions that hold beliefs -- it is individuals. People can and do choose what they agree or disagree with even within the religion they choose. (As a side note, the synagogue we attend waited excitedly for same sex marriage in our state and celebrated with a beautiful couple as soon as it was in place. The community tends to be very much in favor of equal rights.)

What a wonderful post TooPatient. I too am enjoying the discussion, even though I'm not too wound up about what the ultimate SC decision will be. I can empathize with both sides.

 

[monarch64]

Kenny, your idea of having businesses denote their stance on whom to serve is interesting. I live in Indiana, formerly governed by the lovely Mike Pence, in which RFRA was passed recently. MANY small business owners here, as a direct result of the law, posted stickers in their front windows (right next to which credit cards they accept) saying "THIS BUSINESS SERVES ALL."

That said, I see both sides of the issue. I have actually been refused service by a small business before, based solely on race. I also grew up in a family of small business owners, going back generations. And having gone through every facet of this debate already by virtue of where I live, I can solidly say I think it's up to the SC to handle it. I also think that just because a business has the tools for the job, it isn't necessarily the right business to do the work.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

My perspective has changed upon learning that while the gay couple complained about the bakers refusal to make the cake, they were not the ones to pursue the case to the SC. So, I take it that the baker has already lost, and has taken the case to the SC on the basis of free speech as Maria D has reported.

Since my commentary was based on the Andrew Sullivan article, which seemed to be asking if this course of action by the gay couple would be looked upon as going too far for the "gay community" and causing backlash, I want to now say, I have no comment and look forward to the decision of the SC.

Deb, I enjoyed your logic. Telephone 89, thanks for the info on who brought the case. I could live with either outcome. I won't say, "its just a cake again"

Annette

 

[House Cat]

Are you referring to this cake? It's not anti-Jewish. It's satanic -- pentagram on top, upside down crosses, black icing. I would hazard a guess from the two coffins on top that it's a wedding cake for a couple who are members of a satanic group/church or because of the gourds in the background -- a Halloween cake.

Dear Matata,

Gourds are a lesser known sign of the beast. After viewing gourds, one must sacrifice two goats in order to be considered clean again. Since you aren’t a believer, I will sacrifice four goats, two for me and two in your honor.

Love,
HC

 

[telephone89]

Hi,

My perspective has changed upon learning that while the gay couple complained about the bakers refusal to make the cake, they were not the ones to pursue the case to the SC. So, I take it that the baker has already lost, and has taken the case to the SC on the basis of free speech as Maria D has reported.

Since my commentary was based on the Andrew Sullivan article, which seemed to be asking if this course of action by the gay couple would be looked upon as going too far for the "gay community" and causing backlash, I want to now say, I have no comment and look forward to the decision of the SC.

Deb, I enjoyed your logic. Telephone 89, thanks for the info on who brought the case. I could live with either outcome. I won't say, "its just a cake again"

Annette

No problem! I actually thought that was an important point that was getting glossed over. I know a lot of people were assuming it was the other way around. Not that it would change too much either way, some people just made it sound like a "Gay-crusade" to shut down the bakery which isn't true

 

[Matata]

Dear Matata,

Gourds are a lesser known sign of the beast. After viewing gourds, one must sacrifice two goats in order to be considered clean again. Since you aren’t a believer, I will sacrifice four goats, two for me and two in your honor.

Love,
HC

Can't we just wash out our eyes and sacrifice some olives by drowning them in a sacred crystal cocktail glass filled with vodka, vermouth, & bitters?

 

[Calliecake]

LOL House Cat and Matata

 

[rainwood]

A cake may be art or speech if it's something you make to express your own views. The baker would be free to make a cake that expresses a love of Jesus, a love of pandas, a hatred toward gays, a desire to be on 'The Voice,' whatever. That's what art and free speech are about (assuming the message doesn't fall into one of the exceptions to free speech).

Selling wedding cakes to the public is a SERVICE and you're not allowed to discriminate in providing a service to anyone who is in a protected class of people. So the 'art' and speech arguments are legal nonsense. Or at least they should be.

 

[Maria D]

A cake may be art or speech if it's something you make to express your own views. The baker would be free to make a cake that expresses a love of Jesus, a love of pandas, a hatred toward gays, a desire to be on 'The Voice,' whatever. That's what art and free speech are about (assuming the message doesn't fall into one of the exceptions to free speech).

Selling wedding cakes to the public is a SERVICE and you're not allowed to discriminate in providing a service to anyone who is in a protected class of people. So the 'art' and speech arguments are legal nonsense. Or at least they should be.

Is the service selling wedding cakes or creating wedding cakes? The baker claims he would sell the couple a cake. He refused to accept the commission to create a wedding cake. I think many would agree that an artist has the right of refusal to commissioned artwork.

Is a baker an artist? Is a wedding cake art? That's for the SC to decide, and I doubt the decision will be unanimous. The transcript of the oral arguments is quite interesting. Has anyone read any of it?

 

[AGBF]

So the 'art' and speech arguments are legal nonsense. Or at least they should be.

I know from my brother's experience (he just retired from his last job working as an attorney) that he was ready to drop out of law school after the first year. With the attitude you express above toward the law, I think you would be, too, if you ever went to law school. My impression is that in law school all that is done is splitting hairs about nonsense!

 

[AGBF]

The baker claims he would sell the couple a cake. He refused to accept the commission to create a wedding cake. I think many would agree that an artist has the right of refusal to commissioned artwork.

Maybe there was no artist, just a printer and the printer refused a print job. Maybe it wasn't commissioned. Maybe the author just wanted his book printed not someone else's. No difference in the cake or icing. Where's the art? As telephone said, it's not a cake. It's a book with frosting and filling .

Deb/AGBF