Another "religious liberty" wedding cake conundrum
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:41:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Another "religious liberty" wedding cake conundrum
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Another "religious liberty" wedding cake conundrum  (Read 1928 times)
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2016, 04:46:31 PM »

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 Wink

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?

Sure, why would that be an issue?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2016, 05:14:59 PM »

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.

I'd say it comes down to whether or not discrimination or forcing someone to make something they don't want to is worse. Sure, there are two or three more nuanced parts to it, but it really boils down to this: is discrimination or forced work worse?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2016, 12:12:07 AM »

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.

No one is compelled by the law to have a cake at their wedding celebration.  It certainly is customary, but it is not a legal requirement.  Nor does its lack imperil anyone's inherent rights.  (I don't consider freedom form being insulted an inherent right.)  Impaired access to wedding cakes is not in any way as serious a concern as impaired access to work, lodging, or freedom to travel which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers.

Conversely, you seek to compel specific performance, in this case the provision of a custom-made wedding cake, from someone who does not wish to provide it to that person.  Compelling specific performance is an example of a remedy in equity and said remedies are generally reserved for when remedies at law, such as the payment of monetary damages, are insufficient to resolve the situation.  Yet the person deprived of the wedding cake has not suffered economic harm and as I said before, I don't see the courts as being the place where we should deal with people being insulted.

That said, I do find a difference between a case where the baker refuses to take the order and where the baker tries to cancel the order when ey discovers that it is for a non-traditional marriage.  In the latter case, the baker is seeking an equitable remedy (rescission of a contract) and it can be fairly argued that eir laxity in finding out who is being wed before accepting the order is an example of laches that makes the desired remedy unavailable to the baker.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2016, 05:06:32 AM »

What makes this different from, say, lunch counters that were famously protested in the Civil Rights era?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2016, 09:57:32 AM »

What makes this different from, say, lunch counters that were famously protested in the Civil Rights era?

There's a difference between discriminating against a class of people and denying an individual based on offensive acts specific to that individual. For instance, a business could ask a patron to leave who flips the bird at every customer who enters.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2016, 12:31:58 PM »

But those are acts committed in there at the establishment. Being gay in public isn't comparable to flipping off everyone you see.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2016, 11:21:49 PM »

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.

No one is compelled by the law to have a cake at their wedding celebration.  It certainly is customary, but it is not a legal requirement.  Nor does its lack imperil anyone's inherent rights.  (I don't consider freedom form being insulted an inherent right.)  Impaired access to wedding cakes is not in any way as serious a concern as impaired access to work, lodging, or freedom to travel which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers.

Conversely, you seek to compel specific performance, in this case the provision of a custom-made wedding cake, from someone who does not wish to provide it to that person.  Compelling specific performance is an example of a remedy in equity and said remedies are generally reserved for when remedies at law, such as the payment of monetary damages, are insufficient to resolve the situation.  Yet the person deprived of the wedding cake has not suffered economic harm and as I said before, I don't see the courts as being the place where we should deal with people being insulted.

That said, I do find a difference between a case where the baker refuses to take the order and where the baker tries to cancel the order when ey discovers that it is for a non-traditional marriage.  In the latter case, the baker is seeking an equitable remedy (rescission of a contract) and it can be fairly argued that eir laxity in finding out who is being wed before accepting the order is an example of laches that makes the desired remedy unavailable to the baker.

My point is, why should the baker care if they're selling a wedding cake to a gay person if they wouldn't care if they were selling a "regular" cake to a gay person?

We've already established that a fancy white cake is completely divorced from both the Christian sacrament of marriage and the civil contract that underlies secular marriage.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2016, 12:02:25 AM »

My point is, why should the baker care if they're selling a wedding cake to a gay person if they wouldn't care if they were selling a "regular" cake to a gay person?

We've already established that a fancy white cake is completely divorced from both the Christian sacrament of marriage and the civil contract that underlies secular marriage.

Depends on how involved the baker is with the happy couple's preparations.  Some wedding cakes are indeed rather generic affairs that could be seen as a commodity good rather than a bespoke good.  But it's not uncommon for the baker to be a bit more involved with that.  Matching the chosen color palette of the wedding. or its decorative motifs is reasonably common and thus involve the baker in more than simply providing a commodity good.

Indeed, the very reason those who seek to compel the production of wedding cakes is specifically that they are not merely interchangeable commodity goods, but rather highly personalized expressions of the wedding couple's tastes and interest for which buying one or more sheet cakes from the local supermarket simply won't do.

To me the main point is not whether the reason for not providing the cake is sensible or not.  It's whether compelling the cake to be made is being done for reasons serious enuf to warrant the use of a remedy in equity.  Wedding cake denial simply isn't at anywhere close to same level of concern as those covered by traditional civil rights legislation.

Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2016, 08:12:00 AM »

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

I don't think any baker should be forced to provide service to anyone as a matter of civil law.

But you say that this is a Christian baker.  What kind of Christian would refuse a customer's business just because the customer is gay?  The central tenets of Christianity are about mercy and love (see for example Matthew chapter 22, verses starting at 36).  If the baker in question is an observant Christian, he or she would probably be happy to bake the cake, so the question is a paradox.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2016, 09:11:44 AM »

But those are acts committed in there at the establishment. Being gay in public isn't comparable to flipping off everyone you see.

What made the hypothetical interesting here was that the customers were not gay, but overtly cheating on their spouses and flaunting it with a celebratory cupcake in the store.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,612


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2016, 08:32:14 PM »

Okay, but what if a gay pastry enthusiast runs the "Down With Str8s Bake Shop" and refuses to serve a straight couple that wants him to make them a wedding cake? Then what?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2016, 11:03:29 AM »

Okay, but what if a gay pastry enthusiast runs the "Down With Str8s Bake Shop" and refuses to serve a straight couple that wants him to make them a wedding cake? Then what?

same answer.   No baker should be forced to bake anything for anyone.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,661


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2016, 09:48:25 PM »

Any private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.  If discrimination occurs, advertise it and let the free market take care of it.  It's for that reason that I oppose anti-discrimination legislation on principle.

And, before you call me a privileged, rich, white, straight man, businesses should have the right to refuse service to rich white straight men as well.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2016, 10:18:36 PM »

Any private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.  If discrimination occurs, advertise it and let the free market take care of it.  It's for that reason that I oppose anti-discrimination legislation on principle.

And, before you call me a privileged, rich, white, straight man, businesses should have the right to refuse service to rich white straight men as well.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Logged
Mercenary
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,575


Political Matrix
E: -3.94, S: -2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2016, 11:45:52 PM »

I'm curious as to why a gay person needs to inform the baker that they are gay to begin with.
I mean unless the baker actually has to go serve it at the ceremony and all.

And in that case I wonder why the gay person would want a baker who has a problem with them being gay or opposes their wedding making their cake. Sure if they are the only baker in town, it is sort of like a no other choice thing, but has that been the case in any of these ridiculous stories are is it just people being social justice warriors wanting to advance their cause through sensationalistic nonsense.

Anyway to answer the question, I say the baker should be able to refuse service for any reason unless he happens to hold a monopoly in the area and his refusal would create an undue burden on the customer. But if it is some big city with multiple bakeries, then let him lose the sale if he wants.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 13 queries.