• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Baker refused to make anti-gay cake, faces discrimination complaint

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
An anti-gay activist has filed a religious discrimination complaint against a bakery that refused to decorate a Bible-shaped cake with words describing homosexuals as 'detestable'.Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colorado, agreed to the order last March but said they would not inscribe the incendiary words.
They also refused the elderly man's request for a design featuring two men holding hands with an 'X' over them, followed by the words 'god hates homosexuality'.
Click to expand...


Azucar bakery that refused to ice cake with anti-gay slogans is slapped with 'religious discrimination complaint' | Daily Mail Online

So the question...will all those who opposed anti discrimination measures when the situation was reversed now come out in support of this elderly customer?
 
This is going to be a fun one to watch.
 
CriticalThought said:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Azucar bakery that refused to ice cake with anti-gay slogans is slapped with 'religious discrimination complaint' | Daily Mail Online

So the question...will all those who opposed anti discrimination measures when the situation was reversed now come out in support of this elderly customer?
Click to expand...

As someone who believed and stated that the previous bakers should be fined for discrimination in that they refused to provide a custom designed wedding cake for a gay wedding, based on religious beliefs, I believe that this baker is within his/her rights not to provide the cake with offensive, potentially illegal, messaging.

I'm a little confused, however, about the comments that they "agreed to the order" and then didn't fill the order. Seems to me you'd get all the information before you accept the contract. In that regard, I think the baker could be liable for some breach of contract penalty, but that's it.

Bottom line, this is not a discrimination case based on the facts as presented. Not acceding to a person's desire to use discriminatory language is not in itself discrimination. It's kind of a double negative.

Finally, I have to say that America is a pretty strange place where public policy seems to be fought on the surface of baked goods.
 
I fully support the right of old men to act like 13 year old drama queens.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As someone who believed and stated that the previous bakers should be fined for discrimination in that they refused to provide a custom designed wedding cake for a gay wedding, based on religious beliefs, I believe that this baker is within his/her rights not to provide the cake with offensive, potentially illegal, messaging.

I'm a little confused, however, about the comments that they "agreed to the order" and then didn't fill the order. Seems to me you'd get all the information before you accept the contract. In that regard, I think the baker could be liable for some breach of contract penalty, but that's it.

Bottom line, this is not a discrimination case based on the facts as presented. Not acceding to a person's desire to use discriminatory language is not in itself discrimination. It's kind of a double negative.

Finally, I have to say that America is a pretty strange place where public policy seems to be fought on the surface of baked goods.
Click to expand...

You are wrong because they also refused the design with the two men holding hands with an X over them which is not even remotely illegal messaging, neither is "God Hates Homosexuality" nor is "detestable". There is also no indication that this cake would be presented to a gay person. If religious discrimination falls within the scope of the Colorado law, the man should win.
 
Declan said:
You are wrong because they also refused the design with the two men holding hands with an X over them which is not even remotely illegal messaging, neither is "God Hates Homosexuality" nor is "detestable". There is also no indication that this cake would be presented to a gay person. If religious discrimination falls within the scope of the Colorado law, the man should win.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your view and I'm entitled to mine. I won't presume to dictate that yours is wrong - it's simply different from mine.

It's not a matter of religious discrimination at all. Neither was the other one. In addition, hate speech need not be directed at a particular party to be illegal.

I'm not aware of the baker in this case claiming religious privilege, so religious discrimination doesn't apply, period. In the previous case, the baker created and decorated wedding cakes for everyone but refused this one for the gay couple on religious grounds. That's why they lost. I'm not aware that in this case the baker creates and decorates "hate cakes" of all kinds but refused this one. I gather the baker is an equal opportunity opponent of hate.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're entitled to your view and I'm entitled to mine. I won't presume to dictate that yours is wrong - it's simply different from mine.

It's not a matter of religious discrimination at all. Neither was the other one. In addition, hate speech need not be directed at a particular party to be illegal.

I'm not aware of the baker in this case claiming religious privilege, so religious discrimination doesn't apply, period. In the previous case, the baker created and decorated wedding cakes for everyone but refused this one for the gay couple on religious grounds. That's why they lost. I'm not aware that in this case the baker creates and decorates "hate cakes" of all kinds but refused this one. I gather the baker is an equal opportunity opponent of hate.
Click to expand...

Discrimination does not require the person to say they are discriminating on any particular ground. A business that refuses to rent to blacks doesn't need a "No colored people allowed" sign on the front door to be sued for discrimination. Religious discrimination does apply in this case because they refused to put the "God hates homosexuals" message on the cake.
 
They didn't refuse to bake the cake in the shape of a Bible. They just refused to write words on it that they disagree with. I'm not sure it's legal to force someone to write something they don't want to write.
 
My advice to all those who wish to use cakes as a messaging tool would be to bake your own damn cakes rather than drag a baker through such an ordeal.
 
Declan said:
Discrimination does not require the person to say they are discriminating on any particular ground. A business that refuses to rent to blacks doesn't need a "No colored people allowed" sign on the front door to be sued for discrimination. Religious discrimination does apply in this case because they refused to put the "God hates homosexuals" message on the cake.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, that's nonsense. Refusing a hate message on a cake is not discrimination based on sexual orientation.
 
CriticalThought said:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Azucar bakery that refused to ice cake with anti-gay slogans is slapped with 'religious discrimination complaint' | Daily Mail Online

So the question...will all those who opposed anti discrimination measures when the situation was reversed now come out in support of this elderly customer?
Click to expand...

This is the one way street that they look to install. This refusal will be granted as fine, but the other will not be fine.

Most of the people crying about discrimination only cry for specific people, they are not looking for consistency under the law. Many of those who condemned the bakers for not making a same sex wedding cake will claim the baker in this case is justified. That's how One-Way-Think works.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As someone who believed and stated that the previous bakers should be fined for discrimination in that they refused to provide a custom designed wedding cake for a gay wedding, based on religious beliefs, I believe that this baker is within his/her rights not to provide the cake with offensive, potentially illegal, messaging.
Click to expand...
I don't think the messaging comes even close to being illegal.
 
CanadaJohn said:
As someone who believed and stated that the previous bakers should be fined for discrimination in that they refused to provide a custom designed wedding cake for a gay wedding, based on religious beliefs, I believe that this baker is within his/her rights not to provide the cake with offensive, potentially illegal, messaging.
Click to expand...

What's illegal about religious expression?
 
Arcana XV said:
They didn't refuse to bake the cake in the shape of a Bible. They just refused to write words on it that they disagree with. I'm not sure it's legal to force someone to write something they don't want to write.
Click to expand...
It's certainly not legal. Some would argue that protection applies more broadly insofar as cake decorating is a form of expression.
 
Taylor said:
It's certainly not legal. Some would argue that protection applies more broadly insofar as cake decorating is a form of expression.
Click to expand...

Right. The Westboro Baptist Church has been getting away with similar statements on their signs for years. No one can touch them. Not about the speech. Now, if they forced people to write their slogans, I'm pretty sure they would face a lawsuit.
 
CriticalThought said:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Azucar bakery that refused to ice cake with anti-gay slogans is slapped with 'religious discrimination complaint' | Daily Mail Online

So the question...will all those who opposed anti discrimination measures when the situation was reversed now come out in support of this elderly customer?
Click to expand...

Not me. The very same principle applies. It is a violation of the First Amendment to force any person to create an artistic expression of a message with which he disagrees, and a violation of broader moral principles to unjustifiably force someone to do something that violates his moral and ethical standards.

Just as a decent, moral person should not be forced to give support to an immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, a person who supports immoral perverts should not be forced to create a message condemning them.

My principles are consistent.

I should throw the same question back at you. Presuming that you believe that decent people should be subject to government force in order to compel them to provide products and services in support of an immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, will you be consistent and take the position that this baker should be forced to create a cake that condemns immoral perverts? The right of a customer to force an artist to create a message that that artist finds offensive or immoral, in the guise of prohibiting “discrimination”, do you support this principle as it applies in both directions, or only in the direction that favors your interests?
 
Declan said:
Discrimination does not require the person to say they are discriminating on any particular ground. A business that refuses to rent to blacks doesn't need a "No colored people allowed" sign on the front door to be sued for discrimination. Religious discrimination does apply in this case because they refused to put the "God hates homosexuals" message on the cake.
Click to expand...

you've got to be kidding us
that this baker's refusal to engage in hate speech is found to be religious discrimination
ridiculous to the nth degree
 
Ikari said:
What's illegal about religious expression?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could point out for me which religion claims "God hates homosexuality"?

I think we all can agree that there are many fanatics that bastardize the teachings of Mohammed in the name of Islam and we condemn them for doing so. Why so hard to condemn those who'd like to bastardize the teachings of Christianity as well?

As for the two cases, the former opposed a positive message that did nothing to abuse or harm another party - the latter does the opposite. That is why one can oppose one and favour the other.
 
Declan said:
Discrimination does not require the person to say they are discriminating on any particular ground. A business that refuses to rent to blacks doesn't need a "No colored people allowed" sign on the front door to be sued for discrimination. Religious discrimination does apply in this case because they refused to put the "God hates homosexuals" message on the cake.
Click to expand...


So you are saying an essential tenet of religious faith is "god hates homosexuals"? Wow, you have just damned religion.
 
Arcana XV said:
They didn't refuse to bake the cake in the shape of a Bible. They just refused to write words on it that they disagree with. I'm not sure it's legal to force someone to write something they don't want to write.
Click to expand...

It's legal to force people to make entire cakes for events they don't like, what's wrong with a few words?
 
Arcana XV said:
They didn't refuse to bake the cake in the shape of a Bible. They just refused to write words on it that they disagree with. I'm not sure it's legal to force someone to write something they don't want to write.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They even offered to give him icing so he could do the message himself. And from the article in the op:

Silva, who is filing a response, said: 'I would like to make it clear that we never refused service. We only refused to write and draw what we felt was discriminatory against gays.
'In the same manner we would not make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays.'
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom