Bakery Lost Discrimination Case

[pioteir]

My God, Man!  If you can't understand his, you should be barred from church, and required to attend a Neo Nazi re-education program, so you can identify nasty trouble makers who want to ruin your marriage.

Sowwy...   I must've been in the bathroom when my white-hooded brothers preached about this... I'll immediately report to the nearest reeducation center and then, to never ever forget our teachings, get a bloody-red swastika tattooed on my forehead... Thanks for keeping me on the right path.

[marymargaret]

I lean towards Libertarian- I hate labels, though. Obviously this is a hot button issue emotionally for many people. 

Let me play devil's advocate- what if the bulk of the barker's business comes from the church going crowd in that community? Yeah- I know- ugly hypocrisy- but that is the level of consciousness we're dealing with in this scenario. If he agrees to make the gay couple's cake- he loses all his customers and his livelihood. If he refuses - he's taken to court and has to adjust his business plan to comply with the court ruling and in doing so, loses a large chuck of his business because he can no longer offer wedding cakes- (a big ticket item, BTW). So, now he has to find a way to make up for that loss of revenue. Will the gay community vow to make up for his losses in return for his support? Is it even fair to expect that from them?

This goes beyond gay/xtian fighting. This dictates how a person is allowed to run a business. Refusing that couple a cake didn't revoke their right to get married, didn't prevent them from having a reception and a cake from another bakery- so how exactly did the baker harm them? No one has to agree with him and can take their business elsewhere- it's their freedom of choice. The baker had limited choice- he had to give up part of his business by court order because they didn't like his attitude.

I think it's wrong to equate minor annoyances with truly despicable hate crimes. I don't know the baker. Did he go out of his way to cause trouble or harass this couple? Did he interfere with their livelihood?  Things can get out of hand if people get too caught up in grievance agendas. They can sometimes do worse harm than what they experienced and feel smugly satisfied about it.       

[pioteir]

I get what You're saying mary but he could just say he's booked and simply couldn't make the cake. Then the couple couldn't sue him for discrimination. But if he said he didn't make it BECAUSE they were gay and he would close the bakery down before "complicating his beliefs". Now that's something people can sue him for. And they did :)

On the other hand if it was about business and nothing else, how would the xtian customers find out if he actually did make the gay cake? They wouldn't and everybody woul be happy. I know the devil's advocate thing. Just sayin.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

An emergency trauma surgeon asks a libertarian gunshot victim, "Political affiliation?"
Libertarian gunshot victim replies, "Libertarian."
The emergency trauma surgeon says, "Sorry, I don't treat libertarians." and walks away.
Thirty minutes later the libertarian gunshot victim bleeds out and dies while the hospital staff frantically tries to get another surgeon to come in to treat him.

I suppose you support the emergency trauma surgeon's right to choose who he treats too, right Jason?

Don't you see Pappy? If everyone became a libertarian all the bad in the world would just magically go away because it's impossible to find unfairness in libertarianism.

[Shol'va]

Let me play devil's advocate- what if the bulk of the barker's business comes from the church going crowd in that community? Yeah- I know- ugly hypocrisy- but that is the level of consciousness we're dealing with in this scenario. If he agrees to make the gay couple's cake- he loses all his customers and his livelihood. If he refuses - he's taken to court and has to adjust his business plan to comply with the court ruling

Actually we don't know that. I'm not a lawyer, but I do deal with tort law, and what I'm hearing in your scenario is a good enough reason to explore the issue further and the ruling may in fact be different. There is no way to know for sure until it went to court.

[marymargaret]

Actually we don't know that. I'm not a lawyer, but I do deal with tort law, and what I'm hearing in your scenario is a good enough reason to explore the issue further and the ruling may in fact be different. There is no way to know for sure until it went to court.

I'm not an expert and would appreciate your POV. You're right, we don't know all the facts. The baker may have imposed the restriction upon himself and chose to give up that portion of his business. They don't cover the boring details any more just the emotion triggering snips.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The way I understood it your position is a service provider has a right to choose who they provide their services to. If that's the case then what is difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and a surgeon refusing to operate on a libertarian or a gay person for that matter. Shouldn't the surgeon also have the same right as the baker to choose who they perform services for?

Ok, you're sticking with that.  Let me make a few minor changes to your example to make it applicable.  There are two possible versions of your example, you choose which one is accurate.

One:
Patient is bleeding, surgeon is about to operate.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, stop for a moment.  Patient, what is your political affiliation?
Patient:  Huh?  Libertarian.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, I have a policy against serving libertarians at this hospital.  You may not operate on him.
Surgeon:  Huh?

Two
HR Manager:  Your resume looks fairly impressive.  Do you have any reservations about what you may be asked to do at this hospital?
Surgeon:  Yes, I won't operate on libertarians.
HR Manager:  Very well, thank you.  Next candidate please.


So, which of those two are you trying to describe?

[Shol'va]

I'm not an expert and would appreciate your POV. You're right, we don't know all the facts. The baker may have imposed the restriction upon himself and chose to give up that portion of his business. They don't cover the boring details any more just the emotion triggering snips.

It's for the latter part of the comment that I hesitate to delve too much into it. I was looking for the arguments presented by both sides in court, as well as the judge's reasoning and I came up short as far as official documents, all I'm finding is news outlets.
Having said that, I think the issue of public accomodation still comes into play even if you were a gay person and walked into the heart of a Christian community's business that has a long accepted and established reputation of catering to a church.

[PopeyesPappy]

Ok, you're sticking with that.  Let me make a few minor changes to your example to make it applicable.  There are two possible versions of your example, you choose which one is accurate.

One:
Patient is bleeding, surgeon is about to operate.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, stop for a moment.  Patient, what is your political affiliation?
Patient:  Huh?  Libertarian.
Hospital Owner:  Surgeon, I have a policy against serving libertarians at this hospital.  You may not operate on him.
Surgeon:  Huh?

Two
HR Manager:  Your resume looks fairly impressive.  Do you have any reservations about what you may be asked to do at this hospital?
Surgeon:  Yes, I won't operate on libertarians.
HR Manager:  Very well, thank you.  Next candidate please.


So, which of those two are you trying to describe?

Neither of them, but it surprises me that you don't want to answer the question. It really is a pretty simple question. Why is it OK for the baker to discriminate but not the surgeon?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Because the surgeon is in the employ of the hospital owner, and therefore follows hospital policy.

[marymargaret]

It's for the latter part of the comment that I hesitate to delve too much into it. I was looking for the arguments presented by both sides in court, as well as the judge's reasoning and I came up short as far as official documents, all I'm finding is news outlets.
Having said that, I think the issue of public accomodation still comes into play even if you were a gay person and walked into the heart of a Christian community's business that has a long accepted and established reputation of catering to a church.

I personally don't like to see anyone mistreated. Communities are more diverse than they used to be and a certain amount of give and take would be helpful to keep the peace. Who can say if people from either side deliberately seek out conflict to draw attention to their cause.

[SGOS]

Actually, the court ruling gives the baker an edge too.  If he's going to bake wedding cakes, and the court says he has to make them for gays too, the Christian community is going to look like radical extremists if they boycott the baker for baking a gay cake when by law he is prevented from discriminating.  The baker can still announce publically that he hates gays, and still please the Christian Community, but he still gets to bake the cake and collect his fee from the gay couple.  Hell, he can even piss in the cake batter if it's that important to him.  But Good Lord, some of these possible outcomes and scenarios test the limits of absurdity and do not speak well of the human condition.

[the_antithesis]

If that's the case then what is difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and a surgeon refusing to operate on a libertarian or a gay person for that matter.

The libertarian being refused service might effect him. That's the fucking difference.

[marymargaret]

This might give more information about the legal ruling. The comments section is a flame war- read at your own risk! There was another article that revealed more info on the baker's policies. He also won't bake cakes for Halloween or Bachelor parties. It also says he makes birthday cakes regularly for a lesbian couple. I'll add that link, too.


com/cafesociety/2014/05/masterpiece_cakeshop_civil_rights_commission_hearing_tomorrow.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06/gay-wedding-cake-cause_n_5100645.html

There's a PDF file for the ruling- I just can't link it right. I am interested in legal proceedings- not sure how many of you want to look at it this closely, but it is interesting reading.  File is titled "Initial Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop Case"  published by Michael_Lee_Roberts

[Shol'va]

First link isn't posted properly, FYI.