Cake is Sacred
Everyone knows cake is a sacred confectionery treat intended for one man and one woman.
A state that discriminates against gay people enforcing anti-discrimination of gay people? Hmm.
I think he should appeal on the grounds that he's not discriminating against gay customers. I'm sure he's perfectly willing to serve gay customers. He just won't sell gay wedding cakes. If a straight dude wanted to buy a gay wedding cake he presumably wouldn't sell one then either. That may sound like a petty distinction but give it a little more thought. You wouldn't force a shopkeeper to stock an item he didn't want to stock. This is basically that. He shouldn't be forced to make a cake he doesn't want to make. I'm overwhelmed by the absurdity of that statement and the necessity of making it.
Please be aware this doesn't mean I support his views. I'm solidly pro-gay and pro-cake. I'm only supporting his right to not make certain cakes, not his stupid beliefs. The best solution here is to allow him the freedom to only make the cakes his imaginary friend approves of and those of us who think his views are dumb can just get diabetes elsewhere.
Leave it to a couple friggin gay ass queers to make waves and sue over a god damn cake. I mean they actually took time to sue. Don't make your own cake, sue. They're gay, they should be good doing shit like baking and blowing each other. Christ, you'll lick each others balls but won't bake a cake. Real caring....real caring. Plus, Colorado is such a shit hole state. Doesn't recognize these nut sack chomping love birds legally, but a business has to.
Lolz. As someone whose career centers around confectionery perfection, Moto, I find that I am mildly offended that you would trivialize such a hard-earned skill. Just because they are gay, that doesn't mean they can bake. :rolleyes: My mom was a stay-at-home mom for a large chunk of my childhood, but i generally avoid her cooking/baking. My dad, however, makes excellent cake.
As far as the cake shop is concerned, the wording is important. While I typically agree that a business has a right to refuse business for most reasons of their choosing, discrimination is different. If they were total d-bags, I'd be like, "Yeah, fuck 'em! Be nicer next time, d-bags." But they weren't. PiB, would you say the same thing, if he were refusing to make the cake for a black couple instead?
Yes, unless he lets a white man buy a cake for a black wedding, then he is a hypocrite.
Nah, but seriously, what it boils down to is this; he isn't refusing service to someone because they are a menace or a danger to his business, but based solely on discrimination and that is illegal in the states. I got in a lot of arguments about a similar case because people seem to think you can just refuse service to anyone on any grounds, you can fucking not, it's illegal.
Also, Richard what makes you think he would sell his pastries to a gay man or woman if he knew? It doesn't really come up in most conversations, but if some man said 'I'm buying 30 cupcakes for our gay ball', I'm not certain the guy would comply.
They penalize people like this and make rulings against it because what happens if the next baker doesn't want to do it? Then you suddenly have half a city full of bakers that won't make cakes for gay couples. You can't let one business discriminate against protected classes, because then you have to give candy to all the other kids in the class too.
Colorado doesn't recognize there was even a wedding between these two pipefitters. So as far as it is concerned legally, there is no wedding to celebrate, no cake to make for them to celebrate something that doesn't exist. The baker did nothing wrong. Business s/b be allowed to say, nope, don't want to. Anyway, they probably wanted a vanilla pudding filled cake anyway. Pain in the ass to make.
I don't approve of suing over this, but I basically agree with Pilz.
My argument was that he was not refusing to serve a gay couple, he was refusing to cater for a particular event, specifically a gay wedding. So no, if he just straight up refused to serve a black couple I would of course not be saying the same thing.
Originally Posted by _Lost_
I don't really believe that. I have no way of knowing such a thing. But if I were in his place that is the argument I would base my appeal on and I wanted to see what kind of arguments could be made against it. Essentially I find this case very interesting and I'm struggling to decide exactly what my opinion is. When I'm unsure how to feel about something I often find the bbs is very helpful. For example, I was unsure how I felt about certain Subway restaurants carrying only halal meats. It was tempting to just go with the knee-jerk reaction but I don't want to be that guy so I brought it here. Moto and Thibault soon made it very clear for me where I needed to stand on that.
Originally Posted by WebDudette
So anyway, I know I don't agree with this guy's beliefs but I still can't decide how I feel about the ruling. I'm leaning in favour of the ruling now but I was hoping someone would post something that would really sway me.
Of course. Much like firing someone due to discrimination you have to at least pretend that's not why you're doing it.
Originally Posted by WebDudette
Why not? I totally approve of suing. The system needs to be tested. Either this was illegal discrimination or it wasn't and the system needed to give a ruling on that. I'm not entirely sure yet that I agree with the ruling (I want to, I just haven't been convinced) but I'm glad there has been a ruling.
Originally Posted by Llamas
His refusing to cater a particular event only matters, because of his stated reason. It was specifically their orientation that caused his denial of service. He could refuse to cater an event on soooo many other grounds. He could have said it was any other reason, but he didn't. By refusing to serve gay weddings, he was refusing to serve them, because of their sexuality. You can't separate the person from the event they are hosting like that. A planned event is a representation of either the people planning it or the people intended to attend it.
Once again, I bring the point of replacing "gay" with any other identifier that is protected by anti-discrimination laws. If he refused to do cakes for Muslim weddings, because their religion violates his, it is the same type of discrimination.
Would I have sued? Probably not, too lazy for that shit. I approve of the suing though, because that shit has to get hammered out one way or another.
Richard, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss, like Lost said this is a cut and dry case of discrimination. He's not making them a cake because they are gay, that is illegal. The ruling is right anyway you look at it, whether or not the law is ethical or correct is a different discussion, but the dude broke the law.
If people want to make up reasons to deny people service, whatever. Nothing we can do about that without some thoughtcrime shit, but this guy gave his reasons pretty clearly.
As for the law, I'm glad we have laws in place like this because it'd be a pretty fucked up country if everyone could just deny service for whatever prejudice they choose, so the line clearly has to be drawn somewhere. I feel homosexuals are equal to me, so I'd prefer if that line was drawn sometime after gay people, but before horses because I don't like horses.