Bakery under investigation after refusing to bake anti-gay cake

[Nah]

So I stumbled across this article, where it seems that a Colorado bakery is being investigated for religious discrimination because they refused to bake cakes with anti-gay phrases written on them when requested to do so.

wut ~_~

also I think this is the 1st D&D thread I've made woo

 

[Chikara]

how very westboro baptist churchy

Good on them, though. Not sure why an "investigation" should even take place. Okay, religious discrimination? How about the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason- which is a right that private business owners posses. How about discrimination in general? What's wrong with the world, hot dang.

 

[Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer]

Meanwhile in the UK!!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...y-wedding-cake-northern-ireland-ashers-bakery

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

In America, no one is obligated to take your money. They could have refused to bake the cake because Thursday Night Football is coming on 466 days from the next winter solstice and it would have made no fucking difference.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

This is ridiculous. They're basically saying "help! I'm being discriminated by a service that won't carry out a discriminatory request!"

What a waste of the owner's time tbh.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I really ought to stress that the discrimination isn't key at all to the event. The gay/anti-gay siding that went on is simply excuse-throwing to me. As a baker I don't have to bake you a cake - personally, were it me I would probably haggle to see how much more money they'd pay above price and profit off of it through the argument of 'discrimination' or whatever.

By the way, discrimination happens all the time, every day. In the abstract, it's not a negative thing - it's just humans making sense of the world around them. It's judgement, that's what! Sure, it can be bad, but because a few bad apples make it so doesn't ruin the whole idea of it. Judgement is critical to survival and everything thereafter, no? I have a near-complete indifference to the social politics behind it, I really do. It's about on par with baking a dick cake or tit cake. It's confusing, but the logistics are workable.

If you honestly said you don't judge, you'd be dead. I may not personally approve of an anti-gay cake! But my professional life is entirely separate from my personal life, no? As a boss I'd say "just do it," and as an employee I'd be a bit bugged out. It's not all that.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

By the way, discrimination happens all the time, every day. In the abstract, it's not a negative thing - it's just humans making sense of the world around them. It's judgement, that's what! Sure, it can be bad, but because a few bad apples make it so doesn't ruin the whole idea of it. Judgement is critical to survival and everything thereafter, no? I have a near-complete indifference to the social politics behind it, I really do. It's about on par with baking a dick cake or tit cake. It's confusing, but the logistics are workable

Fair point! However, as you said, there are bad judgments, and people should be mindful of such. Of course, you cannot rationally expect yourself or anyone for that matter to prioritize or constantly keep a close watch on how they perceive and respond to everything. Business should be business, I agree, and therefore should leave out whatever personal opinions one may have, but there are certain points in which one is prompted to either grudgingly go against their principles, or stand for them, which the baker obviously did.

But I think it should be noted that creating a product that uses a large religion - such as Christianity - to write a message that condemns an entire population of people shouldn't be blown off. It's disgustingly in attempt to further an individual's hateful views and should, as such, be rationally and reasonably handled. Which, thankfully, it is.

Frankly, regardless of whether or not this whole fiasco is to garner attention or not, it's absurd that this is an "investigation" or news worthy at all - a customer sincerely thought they'd be able to buy a product that would send a message of perpetuated hate to a large population, and they paid the price for it.

 

[Chikara]

I really ought to stress that the discrimination isn't key at all to the event. The gay/anti-gay siding that went on is simply excuse-throwing to me. As a baker I don't have to bake you a cake - personally, were it me I would probably haggle to see how much more money they'd pay above price and profit off of it through the argument of 'discrimination' or whatever.

I used to be a cake decorator, so I understand your sentiment here. Though being in a corporate setting, things like copyright and derogatory terms and words weren't allowed. Thought I would always try to work with the customer, so we could agree on a design that wouldn't get my company sued.

Though I don't agree that you would make a cake that celebrates something so hateful. Price means nothing if you're doing it to support hate.

By the way, discrimination happens all the time, every day. In the abstract, it's not a negative thing - it's just humans making sense of the world around them. It's judgement, that's what! Sure, it can be bad, but because a few bad apples make it so doesn't ruin the whole idea of it. Judgement is critical to survival and everything thereafter, no? I have a near-complete indifference to the social politics behind it, I really do. It's about on par with baking a dick cake or tit cake. It's confusing, but the logistics are workable.

Yes, but a cake in the shape of a bible that says "God hates fags" is hateful, not just discriminatory- it crosses the line. As a business owner, you would think to know that supporting and providing service to such an awful, judgmental point of view is not only hurtful to society, but also possibly your business venture as well.

If you honestly said you don't judge, you'd be dead. I may not personally approve of an anti-gay cake! But my professional life is entirely separate from my personal life, no? As a boss I'd say "just do it," and as an employee I'd be a bit bugged out. It's not all that.

It's interesting that people think that being professional means that they have to ignore their morals. Especially if you're making money off of people celebrating their hatred of homosexuality.



Again, I bring up morals. You can tell a customer "NO" any time you feel is necessary. Let them complain, they can't make you do anything you don't personally believe in, or believe you're allowed/obligated to do. Using professionalism as an excuse for making money off of hated is unacceptable.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I used to be a cake decorator, so I understand your sentiment here. Though being in a corporate setting, things like copyright and derogatory terms and words weren't allowed. Thought I would always try to work with the customer, so we could agree on a design that wouldn't get my company sued.

Though I don't agree that you would make a cake that celebrates something so hateful. Price means nothing if you're doing it to support hate.



Yes, but a cake in the shape of a bible that says "God hates fags" is hateful, not just discriminatory- it crosses the line. As a business owner, you would think to know that supporting and providing service to such an awful, judgmental point of view is not only hurtful to society, but also possibly your business venture as well.



It's interesting that people think that being professional means that they have to ignore their morals. Especially if you've making money off of people celebrating their hatred of homosexuality.



Again, I bring up morals. You can tell a customer "NO" any time you feel is necessary. Let them complain, they can't make you do anything you don't personally believe in, or believe you're allowed/obligated to do. Using professionalism as an excuse for making money off of hated is unacceptable.

Business image, you mentioned, turned my argument upside down. That won't fly then, my bad.

I don't think there's any notion of requirement to do with professionalism and morals. Ergo, I never said people have to do jack professionally - you can go crazy and destroy your office as an intern like in Avicii's Levels M/V. It's not profitable to do that, though, is it? In cases it can be in your best interest to forego your morals for other more pertinent personal aspects of yourself. Morals are extremely fragile and subjective so it's best to sort them as clearly as possible.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Really? Investigation for religious discrimination? Oh sure, you won't pay taxes because it's a church and on holy ground, but you sure come running to the government when someone doesn't like you, huh? This is stupid. I think the courts should nail this Bill character to the wall for wasting their freaking time. This is the conversion that I wished happened:

"Sure, let's use our valuable resources to go after a cake factory for not being rude and printing more dumb garbage on cakes. Not like we have enough on our plate already with protecting the stupid skinheads that schedule rallies and that can't even spell a four letter word correctly because they never finished middle school. And managing the KKK groups from being slaughtered by our own police forces and the crowds, or the numerous other hateful church members that hate us for protecting them as much as everyone else they hate and having to deal with all the 'infidel' and numerous other religious sects that hate everyone's guts because some old dudes in a cave that believed wearing polyester, eating fish on Tuesdays and chopping off parts of their penis totally got it right. Sure, we'll investigate your cake for you. We'll get right on that. We'll leave no crumb unturned, no frosting un-licked, and definitely leave no room for suspicious cupcakes to squeeze by. In other words: I hope my door grows legs and kicks you so hard in your ass on your way out of my office that you'll be shitting splinters for eight weeks."

 

[twocows]

The business should have the right to refuse to make that particular cake but not to refuse service to the customers at all unless they were disrupting business. As long as the business offers the same services (and same restrictions) to all customers, I see no problem. This applies generally to all businesses.

 

[GhostTrainer]

If I'm not mistaken, the baker didn't refuse to make the cake, but just refused to write the anti-gay message on the cake. She even offered to give the customer the icing so he could write it himself.

Honestly though, if it goes against your morals then you shouldn't be forced to do it and you shouldn't be demonized for not doing it

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

A few of the posters ITT have got me laughing a little at their avid stance against hate speech.

"The cake's intended message was hateful, and therefore shouldn't have been allowed!"

Speech is speech, hello!? That's freedom of expression. Any American (especially in the South) would tell you "I can say whatever the hell I want and no one can do a god damn thing about it," and that in particular is for good reason. What is and isn't "hateful" speech is entirely too subjective to be a stable basis of judgement; business policy should really be the only consideration here, which is the owner's/manager's decision on things and their commercial image at hand. That's it.

 

[maccrash]

A few of the posters ITT have got me laughing a little at their avid stance against hate speech.

"The cake's intended message was hateful, and therefore shouldn't have been allowed!"

Speech is speech, hello!? That's freedom of expression. Any American (especially in the South) would tell you "I can say whatever the hell I want and no one can do a god damn thing about it," and that in particular is for good reason. What is and isn't "hateful" speech is entirely too subjective to be a stable basis of judgement; business policy should really be the only consideration here, which is the owner's/manager's decision on things and their commercial image at hand. That's it.

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone here really said it shouldn't be allowed -- just that the baker has the right to refuse to make it, which is totally sensible, and I agree with that. I think it's kind of clear that this is hateful, too, I wouldn't pull the "well what constitutes hateful speech is subjective" card, especially because one of the phrases was literally, word for word, "God hates gays." like, the word "hate" is right there. and as I've said a lot in the past, just because we have "freedom of expression" doesn't mean that we can go around spouting hateful, discriminatory and, frankly, misinformed and idiotic bullshit everywhere we go and expect people to grin and bear it: that's just not how it works.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone here really said it shouldn't be allowed -- just that the baker has the right to refuse to make it, which is totally sensible, and I agree with that. I think it's kind of clear that this is hateful, too, I wouldn't pull the "well what constitutes hateful speech is subjective" card, especially because one of the phrases was literally, word for word, "God hates gays." like, the word "hate" is right there.

Like I was saying before, the hatefulness of it is irrelevant. What was hateful a thousand years ago is vastly different from what is now, so it's not reliable to draw from. The owner has their rights to do whatever they please as much as anyone else, but I wouldn't say the grounds of it being "hateful" are anything to be given special attention for. That's a good personal reason to tag along with the professional reason they don't have to give.

and as I've said a lot in the past, just because we have "freedom of expression" doesn't mean that we can go around spouting hateful, discriminatory and, frankly, misinformed and idiotic bullshit everywhere we go and expect people to grin and bear it: that's just not how it works.

Ahahahahahaha! Au contrare, that is exactly how it works! Are you serious?

 

[Mana1]

Senusret - slander, blackmail and lying to the police are pretty solid examples of the fact there is no 'true' freedom of speech. Aside from that, from the other side of the pond, you can be arrested/fined for using discriminatory, racial or homophobic language to intimidate or offend a person.

It's nice to see private companies using their rights to decline service. Seems pretty clear what their reasoning was here, not really relevant arguing that they could refuse for any other reason.

 

[Shiny Bunnelby]

I'm pretty sure if I entered the local bakery and asked for a cake with a penis on it, they would refuse service to me, even if it had a point to it, like a bachelorette party.

The reason why is because it's totally inappropriate. Freedom of speech is to protect you from being arrested, assuming you present your opinions in a non-disruptive/threatening manner, not consequences from fellow citizens who don't appreciate how you're "expressing" yourself.

They absolutely can refuse service for that. What they cannot do is refuse service altogether on the basis of religion, race, sexuality, etc. THAT'S discrimination.

This guy is just trying to draw attention to himself in a feeble attempt at looking like a religious crusader being snubbed from doing God's work.

Nothing to see here.

 

[maccrash]

Ahahahahahaha! Au contrare, that is exactly how it works! Are you serious?

you're telling me that if you went up to a gay man and started saying homophobic, threatening things to him, all you'd need to say is "freedom of speech!! don't get so offended, it's my RIGHT!!" and things would automatically be okay? so yeah, basically what Magic said.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

you're telling me that if you went up to a gay man and started saying homophobic, threatening things to him, all you'd need to say is "freedom of speech!! don't get so offended, it's my RIGHT!!" and things would automatically be okay? so yeah, basically what Magic said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Also, there's no such thing as rights. Freedom of speech is a privilege like anything else. That doesn't mean it's not well worth defending, though.

Senusret - slander, blackmail and lying to the police are pretty solid examples of the fact there is no 'true' freedom of speech. Aside from that, from the other side of the pond, you can be arrested/fined for using discriminatory, racial or homophobic language to intimidate or offend a person.

So, if I'm understanding you, what you're saying is that "hate speech nullifies freedom of speech."

The entire point of freedom of expression is to protect all speech. Its premise is that you can't discriminate! That's why it's called freedom of expression. If you were to discriminate, people could simply cherry pick what they want others to say by labelling it "hateful," which is against the very concept of freedom of expression.

 

[Mana1]

The entire point of freedom of expression is to protect all speech. Its premise is that you can't discriminate! That's why it's called freedom of expression. If you were to discriminate, people could simply cherry pick what they want others to say by labelling it "hateful," which is against the very concept of freedom of expression.

And we're saying you're wrong. If a company owner uses a racial slur against an employee, is nothing done?

Yes. The Law can decide if something is discriminatory - depending on the language used, intent, offender and victim. What is your point, and where do you see a problem with that exactly? Because your freedom to offend people is removed?