"Religious freedom" hypothetical

[LuisDantas]

The baker is a whining snow flake trying to promote his version of political correctness. If you have a public business and you don't like who comes through your door then don't be in business.

It seems to me that a bakery is a private business (in most cases, anyway).

It just happens that there are often legal provisions to discourage the owners from refusing to sell arbitrarily. But the business is still private.

 

[dfnj]

It seems to me that a bakery is a private business (in most cases, anyway).

I meant in terms of open to the public for retail. Not in terms of ownership. If you are going to interact and sell the public you can't just not sell to someone because you don't like they way they look. If we are going to have a society with some shred of community there has to be some secular laws around human behavior. Otherwise, people will end up throwing bricks through windows and we will spend a lot of more money on policing the peace. If the baker is offended by the public he should be selling to them directly. He's not thick skinned enough.

 

[Jainarayan]

As I see it is that the baker is acknowledging the validity of the same sex wedding by refusing to bake a cake for it based on his religious principles. The irony is that the baker disapproves of and acknowledges something that according to his religion cannot exist... if marriage is instituted by God, and a marriage cannot be between two men or two women, he's not baking a cake for a same sex wedding. So what's his problem? He's being a hypocrite, wanting his cake and eating it too (I'm sorry, there was just no other way ).

 

[Jainarayan]

It seems to me that a bakery is a private business (in most cases, anyway).

Subject to public accommodation and non-discrimination laws. The couple would have won the case, and the baker lost, had the Colorado commission not worded their ruling to show an anti-religion bias. The commission was attempting to abide by state law, but shot itself in the foot. Wrong execution of the right idea.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd back up a step. Regardless of the actual results of the situation, I think people are trying to extend religious freedom past its intended boundaries. I don't believe anyone should be able to use the "religious freedom" argument as a way to override existing secular laws. So - for example - for many reasons I disagree with the Hobby Lobby decision from a few years back.

To me, religious freedom means you can practice your faith in private or in your place of worship, but you cannot inflict it on the public.

It isn't always possible to separate one's everyday life from practice. And I don't think it is proper for a secular state to make the attempt, either.

But it goes both ways. Religious freedoms are actually personal freedoms that some people choose to label as religious for what are ultimately arbitrary reasons. There is no good reason why other people should be expected to agree with such a personal understanding.

What the people actually do should stand on its own merits and legality, regardless of any claims of faith, and with no attempts at validating such faith claims with the power of state. Therefore, for instance, JWs should be allowed to avoid activities between the sunsets of Friday and Saturday. But it is for them to decide what they want to pursue and to make the necessary arrangements, and they should accept the consequences (such as missing certain events and opportunities). Governments have no more duty to protect religious people from the consequences of their own doctrinary choices than they have any rights to persecute them out of faith alone.

Designer cakes are not IMO part of the public interest. But neither is bigotry manifested as refusal of service. In truth, this is not a matter of law, but of social growth and mutual duty and responsibility.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It may not be a violation of religious freedom, but something has certainly been violated here. Underhanded workarounds that fundamentally disrespect the wishes of the artisan? Not cool.

Once it leaves the artist's hands, it's beyond the control of the artist to control how others use their art. And it's not like we have a culture of art appreciation anyways. And the Conservatives, it's not even about art because they'll censor art faster than anything when they don't like it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What the cake people are trying to argue would be like a Muslim working at Subway and refusing to serve ham sandwiches to anyone on Ramadan because it's their religious belief to not consume pork.

 

[Riders]

Shocking but I am siding with the Christian on this. Cake decorating is an art form, and art can be used to make political statements, you could say this cake would be making a statement. Its personal, he has the right to sell and create for whomever he wants too.

 

[stvdv]

If Law says "discrimination is not done" then that is the Law. Don't allow religious people to discriminate.
If Law says "religious people are allowed to discriminate" then that is the Law. Allow them to discriminate.
Law should be smart. Can't have it both ways. 1 should supersede the other.

 

[fantome profane]

Shocking but I am siding with the Christian on this. Cake decorating is an art form, and art can be used to make political statements, you could say this cake would be making a statement. Its personal, he has the right to sell and create for whomever he wants too.

I might agree with you if there was something on the cake that expressed an idea that the baker found objectionable. But if his/her objection is solely based on the people buying the cake I don’t think he has that right.

If there is nothing about the cake itself that is different from a cake made for a heterosexual couple then the baker has no more right to refuse to sell a wedding cake then he would to refuse to sell a donut, or a cup of coffee.

 

[tytlyf]

Shocking but I am siding with the Christian on this. Cake decorating is an art form, and art can be used to make political statements, you could say this cake would be making a statement. Its personal, he has the right to sell and create for whomever he wants too.

A public business has to follow laws to operate. One of those being anti-discrimination law. See the difference yet?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I might agree with you if there was something on the cake that expressed an idea that the baker found objectionable. But if his/her objection is solely based on the people buying the cake I don’t think he has that right.

If there is nothing about the cake itself that is different from a cake made for a heterosexual couple then the baker has no more right to refuse to sell a wedding cake then he would to refuse to sell a donut, or a cup of coffee.

Adding another hypothetical:

My wife wanted flowers - actual flowers - on our wedding cake as decorations. We worked with our baker to make sure this worked with the design.

... but say we didn't. Say we added flowers to the cake after the fact without consulting with the baker. Would this be inappropriately messing with the baker's expression?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A public business has to follow laws to operate. One of those being anti-discrimination law. See the difference yet?

I deliberately avoided making this about the law and instead tried to make it about how people felt.

 

[stvdv]

Adding another hypothetical:
My wife wanted flowers - actual flowers - on our wedding cake as decorations. We worked with our baker to make sure this worked with the design.
... but say we didn't. Say we added flowers to the cake after the fact without consulting with the baker. Would this be inappropriately messing with the baker's expression?

I remember black and white movies where they were throwing cakes in each others face.

It's like using the baker's expression in their movie expression. If the movie becomes a hit, the baker might be proud telling "look my cake is used"

And when you look at it from Tibetan view "Creating a nice mandala and destroying it when it's ready"

Goal of life is to "get rid of ego". So it all comes down from your own viewpoint. Negative can be seen positive with a little creative mind IMO.

 

[fantome profane]

Adding another hypothetical:

My wife wanted flowers - actual flowers - on our wedding cake as decorations. We worked with our baker to make sure this worked with the design.

... but say we didn't. Say we added flowers to the cake after the fact without consulting with the baker. Would this be inappropriately messing with the baker's expression?

That kind of depends on the baker, and the cake and if you are publicly declaring “this cake was made by Mr. —-‘s bakery”.

At most under certain circumstances it might be considered gauche.

But if it is your cake, you can do what you want with it, put flowers on top, put sliced bananas on top, cover it with hot sauce if that makes you happy.

Flush it down the toilet if you so desire.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hypothetical situation:

A wedding cake baker is known to refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings on religious grounds.

A same-sex couple wants a cake for their wedding. One member of the couple and a friend of the opposite sex pose as an opposite-sex couple and order a cake from the baker. The baker's cake is displayed and served at the wedding, though the couple doesn't tell the guests where they got it.

In your understanding of "religious freedom," has the religious freedom of the baker been violated?

Feel free to expand on your survey response below.

I vote no, because I don't believe religious freedom includes a right to discriminate like that. That said, the couple is being duplicitous, and I don't think the described situation justifies the dishonesty, but at no point was anyone's "religious freedom" violated.

 

[Jainarayan]

Say we added flowers to the cake after the fact without consulting with the baker. Would this be inappropriately messing with the baker's expression?

My opinion is no. You paid for the cake, the deal is closed. The baker no longer has a claim on the item. I can pay $100 million for a painting and pour tar on it if I want. The artist can shriek, wail and gnash his teeth, but it's not his painting anymore.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

These people need to stop whining about the damn cakes. Their tender sensibilities of "religious freedom" are not being infringed upon by baking a cake. If they're really so concerned about the type of wedding that's going to be happening, then they need to stop making cakes period because chances are they're going to disagree with something from someone who they bake a cake for.

Cakes aren't religious.

Not to mention that these cases are invariably shown to have blatant double standards, with the baker prepared to provide cakes for any number of events frowned on by religion.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

As a non-sequitor, there are many Muslims here in California that work and own liquor stores and have no problem selling liquor to other Muslims and alcoholics. Money talks!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

As a non-sequitor, there are many Muslims here in California that work and own liquor stores and have no problem selling liquor to other Muslims and alcoholics. Money talks!

That seems... incongruous? But hey, more power to 'em, I guess.