Patrick Stewart comes out in favour of bakery in ‘gay cake’ row

[Mike Cl]

I am just probing here--not quite sure how I feel about the aspect I want to bring up about this subject.  I remember in the Baltimore riots recently, went the CVS pharmacy was burned, it was mentioned that there was not another pharmacy within a mile of the place.  I imagine that some of the residents of that area were put under considerable pressure to find another one to get to.  Does a business, such as a pharmacy, have an obligation to serve the customers of that area in a neutral way--and with as much service as it can within the confines of it's business?  Maybe I'm trying to make too fine a distinction here.  Should an auto repair shop be forced to also sell tires?  No, I don't think so.  Should a pharmacy be forced to sell all common medicines?  Maybe. 

[Solomon Zorn]

I have a lot to say about this, but Johan already said it. I am a big proponent of gay rights, even though I am not gay. I even get in arguments with family over bigotry toward gays from time to time. But this isn't a question of bigotry, it's a question of free speech: no one should be compelled, by law, to make a statement, any more than they should be prevented, by law, from making a statement Suppose I am an atheist publisher, and someone wants me to publish a Christian book. Suppose I am an atheist artist or musician, am I to be required to draw crucifixes or play hymns, if I do my art for hire?

Discriminating in your choice of ideas, is not the same as discrimination against a person.

The pharmacy question is different. Unlike most retail situations. the products that a pharmacy offers are a special case. Those requesting them, have a medical need for them, and I don't have a problem forcing them to stock controversial medications.

[trdsf]

So for you, incitement is the benchmark one must hit before declining an order can be justified. So am I correct in assuming that fear of loss of current/future regular sales should not be allowed to enter into it for you then?

It doesn't for me, anyway.  I consider civil rights more important than economic ones.  The case you referenced earlier about the abortion banner is rather a special case (and I would be willing to entertain an argument that the inclusion of the picture made it unacceptable) -- I don't know what text was on it, but 'abortion is murder' certainly approaches the incitement line given the fact that clinics have been bombed and doctors murdered.

Under normal circumstances, no one else knows--or even cares--about who performed the service unless it's far enough above what's expected they want to seek out the business, or far enough below they want to avoid it.  A customer walks out of a bakery with a cake in a box, not waving a huge banner displaying what was on it, and when they get to their destination the baker isn't there personally announcing they made it to everyone who comes to get a piece.  So I don't think the economic argument stands, not in the vast majority of cases.

[Johan]

You have obviously never owned a business. From the sound of it, I'd wager you've never managed one either.

[trdsf]

You have obviously never owned a business. From the sound of it, I'd wager you've never managed one either.

How is that relevant?  I have worked at both small and large businesses -- do you think my eyes were closed the whole time?  Surely you're not suggesting that I have to run my own company in order to have my own opinion about corporate behavior.

[Johan]

No I'm not suggesting that. You obviously don't need business ownership experience to have an opinion on it. But I am suggesting that very few people have the ability to understand the perspective being a business owner brings to these subjects without actually owning a business.

And what you're suggesting, that businesses be forced to fill any order they're capable of filling, would create a situations where anyone could force a business to do things which could cause them real financial harm. And why? So no one ever has to suffer the unconscionable indignity of having to go back to the phone book and call another bakery.

[trdsf]

No I'm not suggesting that. You obviously don't need business ownership experience to have an opinion on it. But I am suggesting that very few people have the ability to understand the perspective being a business owner brings to these subjects without actually owning a business.

And what you're suggesting, that businesses be forced to fill any order they're capable of filling, would create a situations where anyone could force a business to do things which could cause them real financial harm. And why? So no one ever has to suffer the unconscionable indignity of having to go back to the phone book and call another bakery.

I think you're assuming a lot more financial harm than is realistically in play in these situations -- exactly what financial harm does a bakery face for baking a cake for a gay wedding and not making a fuss about it?  They're in business to provide a service -- generally speaking, you don't get to pick and choose your customers on the basis of your beliefs.  A business in the public sphere needs to serve the public.  If they want to limit their clientele to just those who share their beliefs, that's on the business owners to make known up front, not for the client to find out by running into the owner's prejudices.

And in any case, why is theoretical financial harm worth more than real-world emotional harm?

[stromboli]

Anyone saying they won't bake a cake for a gay wedding is just a bigot and stupid, period. In some sense they brought it on themselves and deserve to be called out for it. There are so many ways to dodge the issue without declaring yourself a bigot, such as saying you are too busy, don't have the required expertise or any number of craft related excuses the issue would never come up.

To my mind they set themselves up for it by making that declaration. The mere act of prohibiting based on declaring a societal group as unworthy is no different than a southern baker in the 50's saying black people can't have wedding cakes. I don't see it as any more difficult than that.

[Johan]

I think you're assuming a lot more financial harm than is realistically in play in these situations

The abortion banner I mentioned earlier? They wanted to fly it because they wanted to get press out of it. They made the panel to be shocking because they were hoping it would make the the 6 o-clock news. It stands to reason that some of that press could turn negative against the company flying the panel.  IIRC the client wanted to fly that panel one or two long flight days only which meant it would have brought in about $5k in revenue tops. At the time we were also flying several national accounts. If we had gotten bad press from flying the abortion thing, there is very real chance those other companies would have dropped us which would have meant well over $100k loss in revenue for the year.

-- exactly what financial harm does a bakery face for baking a cake for a gay wedding and not making a fuss about it? 

Picture a small bakery in a small town of mostly catholic, mostly bigoted people. Perhaps 10% of that bakeries annual revenue comes from providing services to local church events. The church makes no secret of not liking gay marriage. Easy to see how making one cake could end up costing you 10% of your annual revenue in that situation.

They're in business to provide a service -- generally speaking, you don't get to pick and choose your customers on the basis of your beliefs.

Nope you don't. Or at least you shouldn't. Unfortunately the same is not true in reverse. Customers can and do pick the businesses they choose to patronize and therefore the businesses they choose not to patronize based on their own beliefs. So sometimes serving one customer can mean you lose one hundred others. And business owners, at least successful ones, factor that into the decisions they make.


 

A business in the public sphere needs to serve the public.  If they want to limit their clientele to just those who share their beliefs, that's on the business owners to make known up front, not for the client to find out by running into the owner's prejudices.

So you're ok with it as long as they put up a sign?

And in any case, why is theoretical financial harm worth more than real-world emotional harm?

Is it all that emotionally harmful for a business to tell you no they won't do that? I mean I hear no from businesses I try to patronize all the time and I don't need therapy because of it.

[trdsf]

The abortion banner I mentioned earlier? They wanted to fly it because they wanted to get press out of it. They made the panel to be shocking because they were hoping it would make the the 6 o-clock news. It stands to reason that some of that press could turn negative against the company flying the panel.  IIRC the client wanted to fly that panel one or two long flight days only which meant it would have brought in about $5k in revenue tops. At the time we were also flying several national accounts. If we had gotten bad press from flying the abortion thing, there is very real chance those other companies would have dropped us which would have meant well over $100k loss in revenue for the year.

Yes, and I addressed that several posts ago as a special case.

Picture a small bakery in a small town of mostly catholic, mostly bigoted people. Perhaps 10% of that bakeries annual revenue comes from providing services to local church events. The church makes no secret of not liking gay marriage. Easy to see how making one cake could end up costing you 10% of your annual revenue in that situation.

How many bakeries are you assuming a small town can support?  And you're talking about this as if the purchasers of the service were running around the town square waving a banner that says "Mom's Bakery made us a gay cake!"  Customer services are not, for the most part, widely spread Internet events.

Nope you don't. Or at least you shouldn't. Unfortunately the same is not true in reverse. Customers can and do pick the businesses they choose to patronize and therefore the businesses they choose not to patronize based on their own beliefs. So sometimes serving one customer can mean you lose one hundred others. And business owners, at least successful ones, factor that into the decisions they make.

Again, you're talking like the purchaser is running around telling everyone "Mom's Bakery made me a gay cake!"  I just came back from the corner store, and I couldn't tell you what the person in line ahead of me bought.  The vast majority of people either don't know, or don't care, and that's the way the system works.

It comes into the public eye when a business owner -- for non-business reasons -- refuses service to a customer that they provide for anyone else.  It doesn't come into the public eye when the customer goes in, makes a purchase, and goes home with it.

And I begin to suspect that some of these places are starting to do it deliberately, because they know that the first couple places started getting orders from all over the country from other religious bigots offering their financial "support".

So you're ok with it as long as they put up a sign?

That would be more honest of them.  Then a customer would know not to go in there and expect service.

Is it all that emotionally harmful for a business to tell you no they won't do that? I mean I hear no from businesses I try to patronize all the time and I don't need therapy because of it.

I strongly doubt that you hear 'no' from businesses regarding services that they will perform for anyone else, and told no on the basis of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the business transaction itself.

If you happened to be a redhead and walked into a barber shop and were told "We don't serve ginger people," you'd sue, and rightly so.  This is the same thing, and I don't see this as being any different from the old "Whites Only" policies in the old South.

[Munch]

Ok, lets extend this a little more. In Edmonton recently, a report came that a father, along with his wife and two daughters, were riding to a bike shop in edmonton to get bike parts to fix them up.
But when they got to the bikeworks, the father was ordered that he wasn't allowed to enter the premises, but his wife and daughters could, due to the bike shop owners, which was volenteer based, telling him men who were not trans or Non-Binary could not enter the premise.

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/1383872/edmonton-cyclist-denied-entry-to-bike-shop-based-on-gender/

On a recent Sunday evening, John (who asked for his full name to be withheld) was riding his bike with his wife and two daughters.

The family needed bike parts and was interested in buying a bike, so they rode to the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society’s BikeWorks South, near Whyte Avenue.

But at the volunteer-staffed shop, people at the bike works allegedly told John he couldn’t come inside, yet his wife could. “I was denied entry based on gender. I was surprised,” he said.

Despite an open for business sign, John said he was barred entry because of the society’s “Women, Trans and Gender Non-Binary” program that was being held at the shop that Sunday.

The Sunday afternoon program is held three times a month, and allows individuals identifying with those specific groups to participate in what the society’s website describes as a “safe space” at BikeWorks.

“If you do not identify as woman, trans or non-binary, you can support this important initiative by … respecting the space and not entering during the Women, Trans & Gender Non-Binary program,” reads the society’s website.

Regardless, John said he felt excluded based on gender â€" and has filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission solely because of his exclusion, not because of the program.

“I have no problem with a program that is trying to get women, trans-gendered and non-binary people in there, but don’t segregate,” he said.

This is not the first time Edmonton Bicycle Commuters has heard complaints from people who felt barred from entering the shop during the program, which started in 2010, said Chris Chan, executive director of EBC.

But Chan said this program and others that the group runs cater to specific demands from local cyclists.

“We offer a range of classes and programs because not everyone feels comfortable in every single situation all the time,” he said.

“It’s about finding that balance in making sure our shop is affordable and accessible but still providing a service to as many people as possible. I don’t think we can provide a single, unified service that everybody would feel comfortable with all the time, at the same time.”

Chan said the society is examining all of its programs to see if they are most effectively meeting the needs of cyclists.

“We certainly are looking at this program and constantly thinking about it, and we are thinking about it more at the moment. We’ve updated the wording on our website so there’s less confusion about what the program is. I think that’s a lot of it.”

â€"With files from Tim Querengesser
In their own words, according to Edmonton Bicycle Commuters Society

Here’s what EBC’s website says about why they have a women, trans and gender non-binary bike repair program.

“(S)tudies show a 3:1 ratio of male to female cyclists, and the numbers are even more imbalanced in the world of bike repair.”
“Mechanical repair has traditionally been a male-dominated field. Bike repair shops are often staffed entirely by male mechanics, and genders may be treated differently, sometimes in subtle ways.”
“Our Women, Trans & Gender Non-Binary program helps reduce barriers to bringing more women, trans and non-binary persons into our shop, which helps EBC to train & recruit non-male mechanics for public shop days, making those days more welcoming for everyone.”

Now, in the same vain as with the cake shop, whats your opinion of this, it follows the same premise and their website makes the statement that they will only welcome women, trans and non-binary into their store at certain times.

Is this as equally acceptable behavior for a business?

[Johan]

Yes, and I addressed that several posts ago as a special case.

Special case? It is EXACTLY the same concept. Exactly the same. We turned down work because we felt there was a chance it might have been seen as controversial by some of our larger clients and thus could jeopardize the revenue we made from those clients. 

Again, you're talking like the purchaser is running around telling everyone "Mom's Bakery made me a gay cake!"  I just came back from the corner store, and I couldn't tell you what the person in line ahead of me bought.  The vast majority of people either don't know, or don't care, and that's the way the system works.

It comes into the public eye when a business owner -- for non-business reasons -- refuses service to a customer that they provide for anyone else.  It doesn't come into the public eye when the customer goes in, makes a purchase, and goes home with it.

Look at the words I bolded above. Just because its unlikely anyone would find out does not mean its guaranteed no one would find out. We didn't turn down that banner work because he knew the other clients would find out. We had no way of knowing if they would find out. Hell we had no way of knowing whether they'd even care if they did find out. We made a business decision based on what we felt was a possibility. That is how tons of business decisions are made.

That would be more honest of them.  Then a customer would know not to go in there and expect service.

Fair enough. http://www.amazon.com/RESERVE-REFUSE-SERVICE-ANYONE-Plastic/dp/B0022VT47U

I strongly doubt that you hear 'no' from businesses regarding services that they will perform for anyone else, and told no on the basis of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the business transaction itself.

You would be wrong about that.

If you happened to be a redhead and walked into a barber shop and were told "We don't serve ginger people," you'd sue, and rightly so.  This is the same thing, and I don't see this as being any different from the old "Whites Only" policies in the old South.

And again, you would be right if the bakery did indeed refuse to sell any cake to the customer. Do we know for a fact that is what happened here? Because there seems to be some speculation that the bakery refused to create that one particular cake for the customer, meaning they were perfectly willing to sell the customer a cake with a different message on it. And if that's the case then no, it is NOT exactly the same at all.

Walk into an Apple store and tell them you'd like a purple iphone and see if they make you one.

[trdsf]

Ok, lets extend this a little more. In Edmonton recently, a report came that a father, along with his wife and two daughters, were riding to a bike shop in edmonton to get bike parts to fix them up.
But when they got to the bikeworks, the father was ordered that he wasn't allowed to enter the premises, but his wife and daughters could, due to the bike shop owners, which was volenteer based, telling him men who were not trans or Non-Binary could not enter the premise.

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/1383872/edmonton-cyclist-denied-entry-to-bike-shop-based-on-gender/

Now, in the same vain as with the cake shop, whats your opinion of this, it follows the same premise and their website makes the statement that they will only welcome women, trans and non-binary into their store at certain times.

Is this as equally acceptable behavior for a business?

I think it's crazy behavior, bur it's at least something they make known ahead of time, and something they have regularly scheduled -- hopefully they have more than just a notice on their website, otherwise you get situations like this where someone is blindsided, so I suspect they didn't have a sign on the door that they were hosting a semiprivate event.  I wouldn't blame the family if they took their business elsewhere after this, though.

I don't know about you, but if I'm passing a bike shop and decide to stop in, I don't pull out my phone and check their website before going in.  I just go in.

[trdsf]

Special case? It is EXACTLY the same concept. Exactly the same. We turned down work because we felt there was a chance it might have been seen as controversial by some of our larger clients and thus could jeopardize the revenue we made from those clients.

Look at the words I bolded above. Just because its unlikely anyone would find out does not mean its guaranteed no one would find out. We didn't turn down that banner work because he knew the other clients would find out. We had no way of knowing if they would find out. Hell we had no way of knowing whether they'd even care if they did find out. We made a business decision based on what we felt was a possibility. That is how tons of business decisions are made.

In what sense is the baker compelled to carry the cake through the town shouting "HEY LOOK WE BAKED A GAY CAKE FOR THESE PEOPLE!"?  It's completely different and you know it.  Being in the plane towing the banner creates -- rightly or wrongly -- a connection between the messenger and the message.  You are not obliged to publicly associate yourself with a message that's not yours.

In no way is that comparable to the bakery case.  The baker isn't required to put it on display, not required to personally deliver it, not even required to hand it over in a box with a clear plastic top.  This isn't a case of a business declining to publicly associate with a message they disagree with, this is a business publicly making a message of their own -- IMO, the only message they're delivering is that they're homophobic bigots.

You would be wrong about that.
And again, you would be right if the bakery did indeed refuse to sell any cake to the customer. Do we know for a fact that is what happened here? Because there seems to be some speculation that the bakery refused to create that one particular cake for the customer, meaning they were perfectly willing to sell the customer a cake with a different message on it. And if that's the case then no, it is NOT exactly the same at all.

Walk into an Apple store and tell them you'd like a purple iphone and see if they make you one.

Utter nonsense.  There's a huge difference between going in and asking for a product that a business makes or is perfectly capable of making with the materials at hand, and asking for a non-existent product.  There is no barrier to creating the cake as ordered -- it's not like the customer went into the bakery and asked for a cement plinth.  They asked for a product that the business is perfectly capable of creating without any special equipment, ingredients, anything.

You may as well suggest that Ford can refuse to sell cars in Las Vegas because people might drive to a casino and they don't want to endorse gambling.

[Johan]

In what sense is the baker compelled to carry the cake through the town shouting "HEY LOOK WE BAKED A GAY CAKE FOR THESE PEOPLE!"?  It's completely different and you know it.  Being in the plane towing the banner creates -- rightly or wrongly -- a connection between the messenger and the message.  You are not obliged to publicly associate yourself with a message that's not yours.

In no way is that comparable to the bakery case.  The baker isn't required to put it on display, not required to personally deliver it, not even required to hand it over in a box with a clear plastic top.  This isn't a case of a business declining to publicly associate with a message they disagree with, this is a business publicly making a message of their own

Ah I see. So because the banner company is flying something that is on display to the general public, its reasonable that the public would associate that message with the company flying the banner. But because a cake isn't on display to the public, the public therefore has absolutely no way to ever find out where the cake came from. Got it.

Think about things like facebook. If I want to buy a cake that says 'support gay marriage' on it, isn't it at least plausible to think I might take a pic of said cake and put it on my facebook page? Do you have facebook friends who live in the same town as you? Now think about the question you asked me in a previous post. Just how many bakeries can a small town support? Now think about the last time you saw a plane pulling a banner. Did you know by looking at the plane and the banner what company was flying it or where it came from?

These business decisions are made based on what the business owners think might happen. The possibility is at least equal in both cases and possibly more likely in the case of a bakery in a small town.

Utter nonsense.  There's a huge difference between going in and asking for a product that a business makes or is perfectly capable of making with the materials at hand, and asking for a non-existent product.  There is no barrier to creating the cake as ordered -- it's not like the customer went into the bakery and asked for a cement plinth.  They asked for a product that the business is perfectly capable of creating without any special equipment, ingredients, anything.

Ok bad example. Fair enough. Lets use a different example then. Lets keep it to artistic creative output by individuals capable of creating such things. So I'm an uber rich guy and I want to hire a sculptor to sculpt me a statue that I will then place in my garden. I love myself so I want the statue to be of me. I find a sculptor and hire him and he does a great job and I pay him a bundle for the service. Now lets say I decide to go back to that sculptor and make me another statue. This time I want a statue of the sculptors own wife who is a very lovely woman and I want that statue of her to be bending over as if to tend to a flower on the ground. The sculptor tells me to go fuck myself.

I mean the sculptor is already in the business of creating statues of real people and is perfectly capable of producing the statue I want. He knows I pay well for his work. The statue I want is not offensive to anyone except perhaps the sculptor himself and his wife and their family. But they won't see it because it will be in my own garden. I never told him it will be placed in such a way so as to make it look the statue of me is fucking his wife from behind so he would have no way of knowing that, even though he might suspect it. But lets face it, its my god damn garden and its none of their god damn business what statues I put in it so what right does that sculptor have to refuse to make the statue I want?