Bakery under investigation after refusing to bake anti-gay cake

[Alexander Nicholi]

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?

You might want to read this article here.

Apparently you're having a hard time understanding that there is no separation between "freedom to offend" and "freedom to say in nice political non-offensive approved way" or whatever you're on about. Save me the droll of what you think is and isn't okay to defend, and save me from who the fuck cares who's right or wrong - freedom of expression is what it is. It's freedom to say what you please. Not what others think is fine for you to to say.

 

[Mana1]

You might want to read this article here.

Apparently you're having a hard time understanding that there is no separation between "freedom to offend" and "freedom to say in nice political non-offensive approved way" or whatever you're on about. Save me the droll of what you think is and isn't okay to defend, and save me from who the ♥♥♥♥ cares who's right or wrong - freedom of expression is what it is. It's freedom to say what you please. Not what others think is fine for you to to say.

Thanks for that lovely link. Perhaps using your own words, rather than sarcastically linking people to concepts that don't actually fit, in would be more useful though.

Honestly pains me when I have to go look up US laws to confirm something to someone belonging to that country.

"Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities."

"Civil rights law makes it unlawful to harass an employee because of the employee's national origin. The EEOC relates that harassment can include offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's national origin, ethnicity, language, or accent (EEOC, National Origin Discrimination, 2011). Harassment also includes ethnic slurs, workplace graffiti, or other offensive conduct."

Two examples in terms of employer regulations and laws. Slur -> Illegal. IE, you are not permitted to say 'what you please'.

Freedom of expression is highly regulated - you are only free to say and do things that do not bring about harm to others. It is a standard, normal position in western countries. The fact that some Americans believe this as a right is ridiculous, really.


It's quite interesting browsing this wikipedia page comparing laws on 'hate speech'. Compare the US to places like the UK, Sweden, Norway, etc.

 

[Her]

Save the paragraph-long criticism of D&D for another thread.

I find it interesting that nowadays, the topic of freedom of speech seems to exclusively arise after a person has said something particularly discriminatory or refused to take part in something they find discriminatory.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

Freedom of speech allows you to express yourself in any method you choose, as long as you are not presenting it in a hostile or otherwise malicious stance. Beyond it being (in the west, at least) a law, it is also an almost unanimously agreed social rule. You are free to speak your mind, but you are not protected from the reactions to your words. That being said, it's no excuse for speech intended to spark flames, yet you are still allowed to do so if you so seriously desired.

I don't know about everyone else, but I think generally, what's trying to be said here, is that you are not protected by whatever backlash you may receive as a result of what you express. But I think it should also be made clear that it's not particularly civilized to silence anyone on the basis that what they said was offensive, it defeats the purpose of free speech. If anyone disagrees, and wishes to explain why, then they are free to do so.

 

[Chikara]

I don't know about everyone else, but I think generally, what's trying to be said here, is that you are not protected by whatever backlash you may receive as a result of what you express. But I think it should also be made clear that it's not particularly civilized to silence anyone on the basis that what they said was offensive, it defeats the purpose of free speech. If anyone disagrees, and wishes to explain why, then they are free to do so.

This is exactly what I was going to say. That's the problem with Americans who hold on too tight to their idea of freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want without getting in trouble with the law(to a certain extent, obviously you can't threaten the lives of other people), but that doesn't mean you're protected from society.

Though I'm wondering why freedom of speech is even being discussed here. This is a matter of someone attempting to get someone to be an accomplice to their hateful, unprogressive beliefs. It's not freedom of speech at all.

 

[Livewire]

So the bakery in Oregon can outright refuse service for a gay couple, citing "religious freedom", and be completely ok to do so, in the eyes of the law, but a bakery refuses to print hateful, anti-gay messages on a cake, and they're the ones getting in trouble? Let's call it what it is - bullshit, and not try and veil it in anything else. You can't have it both ways here - you can't refuse service simply based on their sexual orientation, your right to "free speech" but then cry foul when service is denied based on hateful, intolerant verbiage - their "free speech". It's ridiculous either way.

And Senusret & co, take the collective tone here down a notch or two or three.

You are here to discuss, debate and critique an opinion, in a professional, calm, respectful and tactful manner. Do not be purposefully hostile, offensive, passive aggressive, disrespectful, or resort to personal or ad hominem attacks when interacting with another member in this forum. Treat members with respect and decency, and they will do the same to you.

So cool it. Let's not complain en masse over the state of the forum but then have the nerve to be the contributing problem(s) the forum has.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

This is exactly what I was going to say. That's the problem with Americans who hold on too tight to their idea of freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want without getting in trouble with the law(to a certain extent, obviously you can't threaten the lives of other people), but that doesn't mean you're protected from society.

Though I'm wondering why freedom of speech is even being discussed here. This is a matter of someone attempting to get someone to be an accomplice to their hateful, unprogressive beliefs. It's not freedom of speech at all.

Well, at first it was whether or not it's okay for someone in a business to comply with a customer asking for a service such as this to be performed. It spiraled downwards from there.

However, I do agree. Although I'm not really interested anymore in debating whether or not it's moral for someone to express unprogressive and insular opinions such as the customer in the article. Sure, he can go on all he wants about how he thinks his deity is going to damn homosexuals, but it should be established that any owner of a business shouldn't have to contribute to their beliefs, if they do not wish to do so, especially when the action in question is designed to both inflame and cause hurt amongst a chosen target.

That's really the bottom line of this. It shouldn't be complicated to answer, the matter is that someone wanted to manifest their hate into an object that directly targeted an oppressed group of people. With no opinions, that is the highlight of the facts. Is it reasonable for anyone to react so negatively towards this? Absolutely. Freedom of speech was never the object of question in the first place.

 

[Tek]

I think Chikara's right. Free speech is probably not the central issue here. From the article Zekrom presented: "Jack is a founder of Worldview Academy, which is a "non-denominational organization dedicated to helping Christians think and live in accord with a Biblical worldview," according to the organization's website."

As if there is a single Biblical worldview (there's what, seven bajilion denomations and offshoots of Christianity?). And I bet he defines 'helping people' differently than I do. In my view, trying to make everyone exactly like yourself is mostly just helping your own ego. But there's always been people who think this way, and several people were born just now who will grow up the same. Luckily our system of government draws upon a more evolved view.

Growing up in the Kansas we were taught that 'your rights stop where my rights start'. Which means that civilized people don't simply say "Fuck you free speech YOLO swag penis", but have some consideration for other people.

And really, the laws are quite clear. You can be as racist and homophobic as you want in the privacy of your own home, but in public you are held to a certain standard. There's a minimum amount of respect you must show to others - whether you agree or not - and this dude didn't even come close.

Also I think it's pretty significant that he chose to make a stink rather than find another baker or make his intolerant edibles himself.

 

[Sir Codin]

Anybody here remember the baker family that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple recently?

What are your thoughts on that in relation to this situation?

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

I think its funny. The man who requested these cakes wouldn't say the words or what he wanted out loud and refused to let employees make copies of his request. Clearly he himself understands that inflammatory nature of his request. I personally don't expect him to get very far with this, considering they did not refuse him service based on his beliefs, but based on his requests. All they really have to do is merely demonstrate that they have served--and continue to serve--people who follow religious beliefs similar to the man who requested the cake.

And yes, if they do get in trouble(the bakery) then I can see this kind of thing being appealed and moved to higher courts. It is in clear contrast to to earlier precedents that have been established such as the aforementioned baker for gay wedding incident. I also find it funny that meanwhile, in Michigan, they attempt(ed?) to pass a law that would effectively allow people to refuse service to LGBT individuals--or anyone that violates their religious beliefs.

That being said, in the U.S. you have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as you have a real legitimate reason to do. That concept is explained pretty well in this quote taken from the website Legal Zoom.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

Given that reasoning, I think the bakery would have a legitimate case to refuse his business. The refusal of service is not based on his religion, but is to protect a legitimate business interest in not associating her bakery with words that discriminate or otherwise alienate a particular demographic of people. It also violates her free speech(which is why free speech was brought up) because she is forced to say these things(even if non-verbally) to make the cake; your freedom of speech also includes your freedom to not say particular things if you do not wish to. I mean really, what if he wanted to get a swastika on his cake with the words "Kill all Kikes" printed on it? Or maybe a picture of a black man hanging from a tree with "FUCK ALL NIGGERS" written underneath. Nobody would even consider this a violation of any particular beliefs that he held--they would see it for what it is, a business owners refusal to spread hate. While the man is free to have such things on his cake, the bakery is free to refuse to put them on themselves. If he really wants to, he can go buy a tube of frosting and write the words on himself afterwords afterwards(lel). Sure it might look trashy, but then so too does his attitude.

 

[LeahB]

Religious fanatics are fighting for the right to discriminate against gays and now this bakery is being investigated for refusing to discriminate against gays? What's the world coming to?!

But seriously, I think the baker did the right thing by refusing to fill their cake with hate speech. If the customer wanted it that badly, he could have gone to another bakery or even written it himself.

 

[Kyoe]

The right to refuse service? we don't have that here in 'Murika anymore.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/

That, of course, is my satirical way of saying anyone who agrees with the bakery being investigated is in the wrong, and anyone who doesn't has an invalid argument.

To put my perspective very plainly, personal differences should not affect business, but people should have the right to let it. Freedom means having the right to live as you choose. Free people are not always fair, and they do not always treat people fairly. In this case it boils down to the choice of liberty, or equality. One hand would be saved, and the other cut off. Chose wisely.

 

[Yoshikkko]

Freedom of speech is such a weak argument. Anyone using the 'freedom of speech' argument has already lost tbh especially in this case. Of course that baker did the right thing and it's absolutely ridiculous that they're being ""investigated"", they can't convict murderers but they want to investigate a baker refusing to bake a certain cake. You're not even obligated to make anything for a paying customer if you don't agree because it's your business. Not that I'm surprised because these things happen all the time but yeah messed up.