Another "religious liberty" wedding cake conundrum

[Indy Texas]

The Christian baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding is often cited as an example of the tension between religious liberty and civil rights. To those on either side of the issue, what would you say is appropriate in these situations:

1) A gay person goes to the Christian baker to buy a wedding cake. However, the wedding cake is not going to be used in a wedding. Rather, this gay person simply happens to like wedding cake.

2) A gay person goes to the Christian baker to buy some cookies. The gay person intends to serve the cookies at his/her gay wedding.

Is the baker required to provide service in either of these situations? Both?

[LLR]

The baker always has to bake the damn cake. Now, if it's extremely decorated or something in a way that might piss him off, then I could see an argument that the bigot doesn't have to bake the cake, but in 96.72% of scenarios, the cake should be baked because f[inks] bigotry.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't understand why people so love to argue about this issue ad nauseam.

[afleitch]

I don't understand why people so love to argue about this issue ad nauseam.

It wouldn't come up if people just did their job. But there's an easy way to get free publicity and some free money from 'values voters', so it does.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

At this point, it's probably more worthwhile to debate trolley problems.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't understand why people so love to argue about this issue ad nauseam.

It wouldn't come up if people just did their job. But there's an easy way to get free publicity and some free money from 'values voters', so it does.

My point is that there's nothing much to say about this issue beyond "people should just do their job" vs "muh religious freedom". It really is that simple. What I don't understand is the need (on both sides) to construct all these weird hypotheticals and make contrived legalistic arguments when the bottom line always comes down to this.

[afleitch]

I don't understand why people so love to argue about this issue ad nauseam.

It wouldn't come up if people just did their job. But there's an easy way to get free publicity and some free money from 'values voters', so it does.

My point is that there's nothing much to say about this issue beyond "people should just do their job" vs "muh religious freedom". It really is that simple. What I don't understand is the need (on both sides) to construct all these weird hypotheticals and make contrived legalistic arguments when the bottom line always comes down to this.

Because the bottom line is the first line of defense. For those who are making 'wedding cakes' the hill to stand on in their personal battle against LGBT people, it's these little things that most inconvenience them. In the UK where equality law is much less generous to religious based discrimination than the First Amendment, the tests against the 2010 provisions protecting LGBT people have also been about things as simple as making cakes. And they keep losing. For some people base prejudice get's swaddled in the clothes of religious 'freedom' so much so that baking cakes, providing counselling  services and treating sore feet (seriously) are affronts to their right to practice the part of their religion that they have decided extends to not dealing with LGBT people fairly and decently at point of contact.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I get that. I get why people disagree on this. What I don't get is why they these arguments keep devolving into minutiae and technicalities such as the hypothetical in this thread when, at the end of the day, it's a simple either/or question. Either you believe religion gives you a right to discriminate, or you don't. There's nothing to say or consider beyond that.

There are many social issues that deserve a careful and nuanced consideration, but I really don't see how this one could.

[DC Al Fine]

I get that. I get why people disagree on this. What I don't get is why they these arguments keep devolving into minutiae and technicalities such as the hypothetical in this thread when, at the end of the day, it's a simple either/or question. Either you believe religion gives you a right to discriminate, or you don't. There's nothing to say or consider beyond that.

This is an internet forum dedicated to arguing minutiae Tony. What else would you expect

More seriously, we live in a pluralistic society where no 'side' of most issues is likely to achieve 'total' victory, so we'll have to reach some sort of muddled compromise. In that sense these issues are relevant insofar as they help us suss said compromise out.

My old debate coach used to always say that if we couldn't reasonably argue our opponent's point, we didn't really understand the issue. The gay wedding cake issue is a prime example of this.

The 'muh religious freedom' side often doesn't see where some are abusing religious freedom in the name of bigotry, or how we sometimes single out homosexuals out in a way that we don't other sexual or family issues like divorce. Likewise the 'muh equal rights' side does themselves a grave disservice when they immediately dismiss conscience concerns as bigotry and ignore how such attitudes would work when applied to other issues (e.g. the draft).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I might be wrong (and by all means correct me if I am), but I actually think I have a pretty good understanding of the other side's point. This is clearly not an issue where there's a "factually correct" or "rational" answer. It's a matter of values. If one accepts the basic moral and politico-philosophical premises on which the religious right is based, privileging "religious freedom" is the logical conclusion.

Of course, I think my values are morally right and those of the conservatives are morally bankrupt, but I can't see how any argument on the specifics of this issue could convince people who think the opposite. The only arguments that could have any effect would be more abstract ones, attacking the philosophical foundations of this worldview, but worldviews are generally too entrenched to be vulnerable to these arguments.

What I'd like to see is for my "side" to eventually achieve cultural hegemony, through a combination of public discourse and interpersonal socialization. And this is one of the few issues I'm pretty optimistic about.

[Kingpoleon]

Um, no. A photographer should not be forced to take pictures at a kids' birthday party if he doesn't like children. A Jew should not have to bake a cake for a white supremacist.

I'm perfectly fine with people protesting businesses or advertising discrimination. Ideally that's what would happen.

(Also, my final argument is this: as a gay person, do I really want to eat food made by someone forced to bake it for profit?)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If someone actually likes wedding cake so much that they want to buy one for themselves without having a wedding it is for, they truly need to seek professional help.  I mean really!  Have you ever actually savored the cake at a wedding?  At best they're edible, but between the excess of decorative frosting, that sturdiness rather than taste is the prime need of a wedding cake, and the strong likelihood that the cake itself is a minimum of two days old, if not older, means that therr is no such thing as good wedding cake.

[LLR]

Um, no. A photographer should not be forced to take pictures at a kids' birthday party if he doesn't like children.

That's being hired, that's different

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How would he know that, though? If the guy comes in and shouts racial slurs, he can kick him out of the shop.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Find me a different kind of food, smart one.

[nicholas.slaydon]

They should be required to sell their products regardless of circumstance. If we allow people to stop selling their products to others because of sexual orientation then we begin down the slippery slope to allowing people to discriminate against someone else because of their race, ethnicity or religious beliefs. They should be required to sell their products, because if we allow them to discriminate we might as well repeal the Civil Rights Act right now.

[RI]

The best solution is probably for the Christian-baker-who-opposes-gay-marriage to not make wedding cakes anymore, period.

[Kingpoleon]

Um, no. A photographer should not be forced to take pictures at a kids' birthday party if he doesn't like children.

That's being hired, that's different

This was your only point I understood.

So, hiring someone to photograph something is different than hiring someone to bake something?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, hiring someone to photograph something is different than hiring someone to bake something?

Purchasing a commodity =/= hiring someone for a service.

(not that discrimination should be given free rein in the latter case either, but there's a bit more nuance there)

[Indy Texas]

I get that. I get why people disagree on this. What I don't get is why they these arguments keep devolving into minutiae and technicalities such as the hypothetical in this thread when, at the end of the day, it's a simple either/or question. Either you believe religion gives you a right to discriminate, or you don't. There's nothing to say or consider beyond that.

This is an internet forum dedicated to arguing minutiae Tony. What else would you expect

More seriously, we live in a pluralistic society where no 'side' of most issues is likely to achieve 'total' victory, so we'll have to reach some sort of muddled compromise. In that sense these issues are relevant insofar as they help us suss said compromise out.

My old debate coach used to always say that if we couldn't reasonably argue our opponent's point, we didn't really understand the issue. The gay wedding cake issue is a prime example of this.

The 'muh religious freedom' side often doesn't see where some are abusing religious freedom in the name of bigotry, or how we sometimes single out homosexuals out in a way that we don't other sexual or family issues like divorce. Likewise the 'muh equal rights' side does themselves a grave disservice when they immediately dismiss conscience concerns as bigotry and ignore how such attitudes would work when applied to other issues (e.g. the draft).

The point of the question was to point out how ludicrous the whole thing is.

A wedding cake is not a part of a civil marriage ceremony or of a Christian marriage ceremony. Baking someone a cake that will be served after a wedding isn't "participating" in the wedding or somehow "aiding and abetting" the wedding.

If the Christian bake shop had a couple of routine customers who would stop in evenings for coffee and pastries and it eventually became known that this couple were having an affair and cheating on their respective spouses, could the baker throw them out of the shop and refuse to sell them any more pastries because he didn't want his special cupcakes to be their adulterous post-coital treat?

[Kingpoleon]

So, hiring someone to photograph something is different than hiring someone to bake something?

Purchasing a commodity =/= hiring someone for a service.

(not that discrimination should be given free rein in the latter case either, but there's a bit more nuance there)

When one is buying a cake, you are both purchasing the commodity of the cake and the service of making the cake.

When one is buying photographs, you are both purchasing the commodity of the cake and the service of taking the photographs.

They're not completely similar, but at least to me there's not much nuance there.

TL;DR: I would rather be discriminated against than have someone do something for me he doesn't want to do.

[Slander and/or Libel]

TL;DR: I would rather be discriminated against than have someone do something for me he doesn't want to do.

Stated by somebody who likely doesn't have to worry about either.

[Kingpoleon]

TL;DR: I would rather be discriminated against than have someone do something for me he doesn't want to do.

Stated by somebody who likely doesn't have to worry about either.

I didn't realize people don't discriminate against multiracial gay people.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Apologies for making assumptions.

But I really don't understand the logic behind wishing, for instance, that gay people would suffer discrimination rather than that one person who doesn't like gay people should have to set that aside and sell them a cake.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How would he know that, though? If the guy comes in and shouts racial slurs, he can kick him out of the shop.

     Suppose someone comes in and asks the Jewish baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it. I think the baker might get the hint from that.

[mencken]

I get that. I get why people disagree on this. What I don't get is why they these arguments keep devolving into minutiae and technicalities such as the hypothetical in this thread when, at the end of the day, it's a simple either/or question. Either you believe religion gives you a right to discriminate, or you don't. There's nothing to say or consider beyond that.

This is an internet forum dedicated to arguing minutiae Tony. What else would you expect

More seriously, we live in a pluralistic society where no 'side' of most issues is likely to achieve 'total' victory, so we'll have to reach some sort of muddled compromise. In that sense these issues are relevant insofar as they help us suss said compromise out.

My old debate coach used to always say that if we couldn't reasonably argue our opponent's point, we didn't really understand the issue. The gay wedding cake issue is a prime example of this.

The 'muh religious freedom' side often doesn't see where some are abusing religious freedom in the name of bigotry, or how we sometimes single out homosexuals out in a way that we don't other sexual or family issues like divorce. Likewise the 'muh equal rights' side does themselves a grave disservice when they immediately dismiss conscience concerns as bigotry and ignore how such attitudes would work when applied to other issues (e.g. the draft).

The point of the question was to point out how ludicrous the whole thing is.

A wedding cake is not a part of a civil marriage ceremony or of a Christian marriage ceremony. Baking someone a cake that will be served after a wedding isn't "participating" in the wedding or somehow "aiding and abetting" the wedding.

If the Christian bake shop had a couple of routine customers who would stop in evenings for coffee and pastries and it eventually became known that this couple were having an affair and cheating on their respective spouses, could the baker throw them out of the shop and refuse to sell them any more pastries because he didn't want his special cupcakes to be their adulterous post-coital treat?

Is this supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum, because I do not see a problem with the baker in either scenario?

[muon2]

If the Christian bake shop had a couple of routine customers who would stop in evenings for coffee and pastries and it eventually became known that this couple were having an affair and cheating on their respective spouses, could the baker throw them out of the shop and refuse to sell them any more pastries because he didn't want his special cupcakes to be their adulterous post-coital treat?

I think this is an interesting hypothetical. The couple is presumably not in a protected class like race, and let me presume that other customers of the baker also know and are offended. If the couple's behavior was bringing negative publicity that cost the baker business, then perhaps the baker could ask them to leave. It seems to me that if a customer is insulting other customers the owner could ask that offending customer to leave due to the negative impact on business. This might be similar.