Can the government make me decorate a cake?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would never condone hatred or bigotry towards anyone

I think you already have. The problem here seems to be that you don't consider discrimination against loving, committed same sex couples bigotry, probably because you've draped the practice in words like conscience , faith, and religious conviction. That doesn't make it not bigotry. It also doesn't make it illegal.

Those "Christians" who walk around with placards, verbally attacking gays and calling them horrible names, did not get that instruction from Jesus

How would that matter? Christianity is barely related to the Bible. You've been asked repeatedly to show where Jesus said to discriminate against same sex couples because we know that you can't, and sure enough, you haven't. You do that out of choice, not based on any biblical commandment.

But when it is convenient, you distance yourself from other Christians with the comment you just made. You imply that they are not Christians. Of course they are, just like you are despite your nonbiblical positions.

Mr Phillips is not a bigot.

Mr. Phillips is a bigot.

If you watch the videos posted on this thread, you will see that he is a reasonable and fair man who serves gay people in his shop.

If he discriminates against same sex couples, he is not a reasonable or fair man. There is no reason to do that,and it is a gross violation of the Golden Rule. Yet he chooses to do so anyway.

The "couple" involved obviously wanted to make an issue of this rather than to just take their business elsewhere.

The couple involved obviously wanted a wedding cake and chose to fight back when unlawfully discriminated against.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I see it, there are those being equally bigoted in targeting Christians for their scriptural position on SSM.

As you have tacitly conceded by your silence when asked, there is no scriptural position on same sex marriage. And even if there were, secular society does not need to respect irrational and destructive religious beliefs.

You write about compromise and reasonableness, but apparently what you mean is giving the religious whatever they demand when they call it a religious belief. I haven't seen you compromise a scintilla on that position.

Here;s the compromise: Christians have the right to consider homosexuality a sin, and to not marry people of their own gender. They do not have the right to impose their bigotry on others, or to arbitrarily declare that baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple constitutes endorsement of homosexuality or that being compelled to do so in America is a violation of their religious beliefs and that therefore their refusal must be accepted, although that may change soon. I understand that one of these cases is headed for the Supreme Court: Supreme Court will take case on baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to gay couple

Sorry, but "faking it" is the same as lying. It is also being hypocritical which we know Christ condemned.

Once again, what Jesus said is irrelevant outside of Christianity, and seems pretty irrelevant to those within it. Christian apologetics is pretty much nonstop lying.

You think you can flog the conscience out of people by punishing them?

I think that the law will shape the national conscience. If the baker is supported by the Court, it will embolden others to express their hatreds and bigotries and call it a religious belief. If the law is upheld, eventually, the practice will disappear from the national consciousness just as slavery has. It was on this thread that I described the likely pathway: "The religious community will adapt. Those unwilling to will be selected against and fall out of the business, those that do will prosper, and Christians considering going into the baking business will be the ones willing to not discriminate illegally."

You think prosecution will make someone submit to something that they find completely offensive?

Some will. We can conclude that they weren't really committed to their bigoted position. Some not. They will drop out of the business or be forced out by public disdain. Of course, this assumes that the practice remains illegal.

my right to be offended by you is equally as important as your right to be offended by me. Why is your offense more important than mine?

Exactly.

• “No, you can’t deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your ‘religious freedom’. If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.” - President Barack Obama

Maybe it's time for a quiz on religious liberties to see where you stand on the matter:

Spoiler: religious liberties quiz

How To Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened In Just 8 Quick Questions
Adapted from How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | HuffPost

Pick "A" or "B" for each question..

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not legally allowed to marry the person I love because of somebody else's religious preferences.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public schools won't permit my faith to inject its creation myths into science classes.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not approve of.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources to promote itself

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little constitutional concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Can't we agree to disagree?

Sure.

The "adult" thing to do is to live and let live...which should apply equally to both parties. What's it going to take for you guys to understand this?

What's it going to take for you to understand that?

 

[Notanumber]

The moral of the story is, he is a bigot because he is a Christian but if he were Islamic, he would be being true to his faith.

 

[chickenranch]

On Thursday the DOJ told the Supreme court that forcing the baker to make the gay marriage cake would violate his 1st amendment rights. The plot thickens...

Trump DOJ To Supreme Court: Making Gay Wedding Cake Would Violate Baker's Rights

From this article "DOJ’s filing raises the possibility that if the Masterpiece Cakeshop can’t refuse to bake a cake for the marriage of a same-sex couple, then a freelance graphic designer who designs flyers for Jewish affinity groups might also be forced to do so “for a neo-Nazi group or the Westboro Baptist Church.”

This is what made me ask the question originally - wondering where the requirement to oblige a customer stops. I think, though, that something @Nous said disagrees with this, at least some. This is from post #90:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation . . . .

Is my interpretation correct, then?

• Neo-Nazis are not a protected group - therefore, as long as I wait to see the design they propose, I can say I don't want to do the design once I see it. Correct?
  
• Westboro Baptist Church, I'm not sure about - they are protected by creed, so if the message is "Happy Birthday, Pastor!" I think I'm obligated, and really, there should be no reason for me not to decorate this cake this way other than pettiness. I can't say "I'm not going to do business with you because you go to this church."
  
• But if the message is WBC's standard "God hates ****," then I can object and I should be protected because this message would be hate speech (?) against a protected group. In any case, at least I waited to see the message before I objected. I would object to that. I might sell them a blank cake and some decorative icing for a DIY job, or suggest another baker, but I can't see myself writing "God hates ****" across the top of a cake.
  
• If someone comes in and says, hey, we want you to make one of those 3D cakes of a woman giving birth, with a giant penis next to it. (both of these types of cakes exist, no I'm not against genitalia, trying to pick something graphic and visual). I can say, "No - that's just not the sort of custom art I want to create." As long as I wouldn't do it for anyone, I can object legally, correct?

Is the real litmus test that
a) I don't deny business to anyone in a protected group just because of the customer's membership in that group and
b) If there is a reason I object to making a piece of custom art, I have to at least wait until the customer describes it, and it can't be something I'd do for another person or group
c) If the person in "b" then makes an art suggestion that I don't object to, I should agree to make the art

If a AND b, then c, I've done my part in being a fair business person.
It could be that the public won't like whatever my decision is, and it could be that my business would suffer because I chose not to do some "art" - but there's not likely to be a legal consequence.

 

[chickenranch]

You cannot force someone to go against their conscience or religious convictions....even legally.

There might be penalties imposed, but that is why Christians chose martyrdom over compromise. It takes courage to have convictions.

I'm aware of the Bartleby tactic.
I can assure you that courage and convictions are not only possessed by Christian martyrs.
Anyone who has tried to make me do something against my will is also sure of that.

My original question isn't about courage and convictions, though - it's about the law - and I think it's been answered.

 

[Nous]

From this article "DOJ’s filing raises the possibility that if the Masterpiece Cakeshop can’t refuse to bake a cake for the marriage of a same-sex couple, then a freelance graphic designer who designs flyers for Jewish affinity groups might also be forced to do so “for a neo-Nazi group or the Westboro Baptist Church.”

This is what made me ask the question originally - wondering where the requirement to oblige a customer stops. I think, though, that something @Nous said disagrees with this, at least some. This is from post #90:



Is my interpretation correct, then?

• Neo-Nazis are not a protected group - therefore, as long as I wait to see the design they propose, I can say I don't want to do the design once I see it. Correct?
  
• Westboro Baptist Church, I'm not sure about - they are protected by creed, so if the message is "Happy Birthday, Pastor!" I think I'm obligated, and really, there should be no reason for me not to decorate this cake this way other than pettiness. I can't say "I'm not going to do business with you because you go to this church."
  
• But if the message is WBC's standard "God hates ****," then I can object and I should be protected because this message would be hate speech (?) against a protected group. In any case, at least I waited to see the message before I objected. I would object to that. I might sell them a blank cake and some decorative icing for a DIY job, or suggest another baker, but I can't see myself writing "God hates ****" across the top of a cake.
  
• If someone comes in and says, hey, we want you to make one of those 3D cakes of a woman giving birth, with a giant penis next to it. (both of these types of cakes exist, no I'm not against genitalia, trying to pick something graphic and visual). I can say, "No - that's just not the sort of custom art I want to create." As long as I wouldn't do it for anyone, I can object legally, correct?

You are correct on all counts insofar as the case law and the stated purpose of public accommodations laws go. Neo-nazi is, if anything, a political party or philosophy. No public accommodations law prohibits discrimination on the basis of political party affiliation. If someone came into the bakery of a staunch Republican and asked for a cake with a celebratory message for the DNC or a Democrat elected official, I can't imagine how the baker's refusal would be held illegal.

Bakers have refused to put offensive and hateful messages on baked goods, and such refusals have been upheld as legal.

The ultimately determinative fact in Masterpiece is that Phillips didn't even want to know whether or what sort of message Craig and Mullins were seeking. Phillips refused them service not because of any message the couple wanted on the cake but because they are a same-sex couple getting married.

 

[Nous]

A question for those who think that decorating a cake is speech: should the recipient of this cake be able to sue the baker for libel (assuming the allegation on the cake is false)?

That is an excellent point that has been discussed at length in legal forums. If Phillips had actually been asked to write "Congratulations!" on Craig's and Mullins' cake, whose message is that?

Who has ever gone to a wedding and seen a message on a cake and understood it as a message from the baker? Messages expressed on cakes are the messages of the person who purchased the cake. No?

 

[Nous]

Your record is broken......your views are hateful, divisive and non-constructive.

False. Unlike your posts, I do not advocate that people be illegally discriminated against. Just the contrary. I have merely explained how and why Phillips has no First Amendment right to discriminate against people.

 

[Nous]

The moral of the story is, he is a bigot because he is a Christian but if he were Islamic, he would be being true to his faith.

Prove it. Prove the evidence that Muslims are exempt from public accommodations laws.

I'm sure it's comforting to you to believe that, but it has not connection to reality.

 

[Nous]

I wouldn't want something as as personal as a wedding cake crafted by someone forced at lawsuit point to do it.

That isn't the issue in this case, given that Phillips didn't bother to find out whether the cake Craig and Mullins desired was to be too "personal" for him.

Moreover, who considers a message on a wedding cake--if Craig and Mullins had wanted a message--to be an expression of the baker? When I read "Happy Birthday!" on a cake, I don't interpret it as a message from the baker. Do you?

Moreover, it would quite difficult to consider that Phillips has a Free Speech or Free Exercise right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation if restaurant-owners, venue-owners, interstate motel owners, and doctors don't have the same right to refuse service. How would one distinguish those cases?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is an excellent point that has been discussed at length in legal forums. If Phillips had actually been asked to write "Congratulations!" on Craig's and Mullins' cake, whose message is that?

Who has ever gone to a wedding and seen a message on a cake and understood it as a message from the baker? Messages expressed on cakes are the messages of the person who purchased the cake. No?

I would think so. If the message on the cake was specified by the customer, then the baker's contribution to the cake's message is akin to that of a printer's contribution to the message of the book they're printing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That isn't the issue in this case, given that Phillips didn't bother to find out whether the cake Craig and Mullins desired was to be too "personal" for him.

Moreover, who considers a message on a wedding cake--if Craig and Mullins had wanted a message--to be an expression of the baker? When I read "Happy Birthday!" on a cake, I don't interpret it as a message from the baker. Do you?

Something to consider here: AFAIK, they didn't even get as far as discussing the design of the cake before the couple was refused, but plenty of wedding cakes have no text on them at all.

Presumably, the baker could have put restrictions on the cake design and only agreed to make the sort of cake that would be appropriate at an opposite-sex wedding. He could have even insisted that it have one of those "bride and groom" cake toppers on it.

He could have made the cake as "straight" as he wanted (by whatever criteria he has for that) as long as he still sold it to the gay couple. And once they paid their money and left the store, the couple would have been able to remove the "bride/groom" topper and replace it with a "groom/groom" one they bought someplace else.

 

[columbus]

I do not advocate that people be illegally discriminated against.

This is mainly where we differ.
I understand that the law requires Phillips to make the cake, more or less at gun point.
It's the law itself I think is wrong. Just as the Jim Crow laws of the olden days were wrong. Laws can be wrong.

50 years ago, casual bigotry was broad and pervasive. It was almost universally accepted as "Just how things are." Stepping on people's freedom and rights, to combat that, was the best thing to do. But that was then and this is now.
I think such laws now mainly serve to support and monetize the culture of victimhood and entitlement. I see this case as a way to get paid and gain notoriety by cashing in on victimhood, because we have bad laws intended to encourage it.

I think it's time to get rid of those laws. Past time really.
Tom

 

[Nous]

Something to consider here: AFAIK, they didn't even get as far as discussing the design of the cake before the couple was refused, but plenty of wedding cakes have no text on them at all.

Presumably, the baker could have put restrictions on the cake design and only agreed to make the sort of cake that would be appropriate at an opposite-sex wedding. He could have even insisted that it have one of those "bride and groom" cake toppers on it.

He could have made the cake as "straight" as he wanted (by whatever criteria he has for that) as long as he still sold it to the gay couple. And once they paid their money and left the store, the couple would have been able to remove the "bride/groom" topper and replace it with a "groom/groom" one they bought someplace else.

If he puts white cake-toppers on cakes for a white couple, then non-discrimination for Black or interracial couples should include the appropriate toppers that they ask for. So, no, putting a male-and-female cake-topper on a cake for a same-sex couple is still discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation--he isn't offering the same services to same-sex couples as he offers to different-sex couples.

 

[Nous]

This is mainly where we differ.
I understand that the law requires Phillips to make the cake, more or less at gun point.

Nonsense. The law requires Phillips to not discriminate.

It's the law itself I think is wrong.

The Court has upheld public accommodations laws as necessary to achieve a compelling governmental objective. After all, one can kill off a despised race of people in a country by refusing medical services and food to them.

Just as the Jim Crow laws of the olden days were wrong.

The discrimination expressed by Jim Crow laws is exactly what public accommodations laws are intended to prohibit. Get real.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If he puts white cake-toppers on cakes for a white couple, then non-discrimination for Black or interracial couples should include the appropriate toppers that they ask for. So, no, putting a male-and-female cake-topper on a cake for a same-sex couple is still discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation--he isn't offering the same services to same-sex couples as he offers to different-sex couples.

No cake toppers, then. Regardless, my point is that whatever counts as the baker's expression is limited to the cake itself, not to the use of the cake. Whatever "speech" of the baker's is reflected in the cake, it's fixed once the cake goes through the door of the shop. Whether the customer uses that cake in an opposite-sex wedding, a same-sex wedding, or launches it in a catapult, none of this changes the baker's expression.

 

[Nous]

Regardless, my point is that whatever counts as the baker's expression is limited to the cake itself, not to the use of the cake.

I agree that the customer's use of the cake cannot be considered as the baker's expressive activity protected for him by the First Amendment.

I'm not sure, however, that even a custom cake whose design the customer selects and agrees to is the baker's expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. The Court has never held such a thing. And if a custom cake that the customer had selected were a constitutionally protected creative expression of the baker, then it seems the baker could argue that he has the right not to sell the cake.

We don't want a court holding that a physician's diagnosis and prescription is the doctor's expressive activity for which the doctor owns the right to dispense or not.

The non-verbal activities that the Court has held to be protected by the First Amendment still carry and disseminate the creator's message in some way--parades, demonstrations, flag-burning, artwork. A baked good or plate of food that is indistinguishable from another baked good or plate of food, or a baked good where the customer had dictated the design are difficult for me to see as the creative expression of the baker or chef.

 

[Nous]

It only now occurs to me that some people here apparently have not understood that public accommodations laws do not require business-owners to provide any particular product. In answer to the thread's title question, public accommodations laws do not force anyone to bake or decorate a cake or do anything else.

In the Masterpiece case, the cease and desist order the CRC sent to Phillips after determining that he had violated the law required him to merely cease and desist from discriminating in the basis of sexual orientation. It did not require him to bake or sell any particular cake. It did not require him to bake or sell a cake to Craig and Mullins (by that time, they had probably already bought a cake from someone who isn't a homophobic bigot).

All Phillips had to do was agree to cease discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Instead of doing that, he chose to appeal the decision,then appeal that decision, then appeal that decision, then appeal that decision. In the process he has apparently lost the major portion of his business. That's fine--the law doesn't require a business-owner to not be an idiot.

 

[metis]

I have merely explained how and why Phillips has no First Amendment right to discriminate against people.

Exactly, as we fought this battle back in the '60's and '70's when many restaurants in the South especially would not serve blacks.

Maybe Deeje's position can be explained because Australia has been rather late in making the changes we did here in the States, as discrimination against aborigines persisted a lot longer "down under".

BTW, anyone see the movie "Rabbit-Proof Fence", which is based on a true story that relates to the above?

 

[Nous]

Exactly, as we fought this battle back in the '60's and '70's when many restaurants in the South especially would not serve blacks.

Maybe Deeje's position can be explained because Australia has been rather late in making the changes we did here in the States, as discrimination against aborigines persisted a lot longer "down under".

Actually my impression is that there is generally less homophobic bigotry among Australians than there is among Americans. I think it's just a fluke that Australia didn't recognize equal marriage rights years ago, like, e.g., New Zealand did.

BTW, anyone see the movie "Rabbit-Proof Fence", which is based on a true story that relates to the above?

I haven't. Perhaps I will watch it.