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

[trdsf]

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.

That's an awful lot of ifs, though.  If they're the only bakery in a small town and if it's a conservative, religious town and if there exists an out gay couple in this conservative religious town that wants a cake and if they 'go public' with it and post it online, and if other members of this small town notice it because they follow that person's page (although it's fair to say that someone likely to make a fuss over such a thing would be online friendly with the stipulated gay couple in the first place), and if there's enough information to identify who made it for them and if some third party decides to make a fuss about it -- and it completely ignores the more common cases like the one in Boulder (not a conservative small town) where a baker refused service to a gay couple because it offended his religion.

In the main, I still have to come down in favor of the client over the business.  The business exists to provide a service, and refusing it on the basis of the owner's religious opinions is not within the corporate remit.  They're there to offer a service, not a moral judgment.

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?

I think the wife has rights over the use of her image -- that is, herself.  She does not have to agree to be immortalized in stone (or whatever) if she doesn't want to be.  But I think that's her decision more than the sculptor's, and that this example is not wholly germane to the situation.  No one (so far as I know) has gone into a bakery and asked for a design of the baker in the nude on the cake.

I think a more relevant example is a hypothetical man who goes in to an Apple store to buy a pink iPod and is refused by a clerk because "pink is for girls".  It's just not their place to make that judgment.

[Johan]

Ok lets use the example I mentioned earlier then. Jack the baker owns Jack's bakery. Jack HATES sports. Customer comes in and asks for a birthday cake for their jock son. They want it decorated like a football field with the words Happy Birthday Champ on it. Jack says nope I won't make that cake. He's in the business of making cakes with custom decoration and he's perfectly capable of making the cake in question. The decoration in question is not offensive to anyone and no permission from anyone is required.

So should the customer be able to sue Jack for not making the cake or otherwise cause jack to suffer legal consequences simply because he doesn't want to make that particular cake?


Here's another example and this one isn't hypothetical. This one actually happened to me. There is a thai restaurant near where I used to live. My all time favorite thai dish is pad thai. I love it and its far and away one of the most popular thai dishes. We went to the restaurant for dinner one night and they didn't have pad thai on the menu. I asked if they had it and I was told they did make pad thai, but only on their lunch menu and only sometimes. They could make it and in fact did make it. But they wouldn't make it for me because I work during the day and therefore could only get to their establishment at night during dinner service. Should I be able to sue because they refused to make the dish for me? Should they be required by law to put up a sign letting me know there is no pad thai on the menu?

[Johan]

That's an awful lot of ifs, though.  If they're the only bakery in a small town and if it's a conservative, religious town and if there exists an out gay couple in this conservative religious town that wants a cake and if they 'go public' with it and post it online, and if other members of this small town notice it because they follow that person's page (although it's fair to say that someone likely to make a fuss over such a thing would be online friendly with the stipulated gay couple in the first place), and if there's enough information to identify who made it for them and if some third party decides to make a fuss about it

Yep its a lot of ifs. So?

-- and it completely ignores the more common cases like the one in Boulder (not a conservative small town) where a baker refused service to a gay couple because it offended his religion.

Of course it does. That was deliberate because I believe we already agree on that situation completely. It is absolutely unacceptable to refuse service to anyone because they're gay.

[trdsf]

Ok lets use the example I mentioned earlier then. Jack the baker owns Jack's bakery. Jack HATES sports. Customer comes in and asks for a birthday cake for their jock son. They want it decorated like a football field with the words Happy Birthday Champ on it. Jack says nope I won't make that cake. He's in the business of making cakes with custom decoration and he's perfectly capable of making the cake in question. The decoration in question is not offensive to anyone and no permission from anyone is required.

So should the customer be able to sue Jack for not making the cake or otherwise cause jack to suffer legal consequences simply because he doesn't want to make that particular cake?

And the difference here is that this is the same answer Jack would give anyone who asked for a sports-themed cake.  It's dumb, but it's not discriminatory.  A comparable example would be if Jack would have made a comparable cake for someone else but denied it to this customer; this example as provided is a blanket and consistent policy that applies to everyone.

And that's the point -- these businesses are only refusing some clients for reasons of personal prejudice.  It's not a blanket policy that affects all patrons equally.  It's a policy that targets a particular class.

Would we even be having this conversation if a baker had refused to make a cake for an interracial straight couple for effectively the same reason, that this kind of marriage offended their personal beliefs?  I think not.

Here's another example and this one isn't hypothetical. This one actually happened to me. There is a thai restaurant near where I used to live. My all time favorite thai dish is pad thai. I love it and its far and away one of the most popular thai dishes. We went to the restaurant for dinner one night and they didn't have pad thai on the menu. I asked if they had it and I was told they did make pad thai, but only on their lunch menu and only sometimes. They could make it and in fact did make it. But they wouldn't make it for me because I work during the day and therefore could only get to their establishment at night during dinner service. Should I be able to sue because they refused to make the dish for me? Should they be required by law to put up a sign letting me know there is no pad thai on the menu?

Again, this is not really a good comparison -- it's not on the menu, therefore they're not denying you anything that they are making for another patron in the restaurant.  They're denying you something that, for whatever reason, they don't make for dinners, and they don't make all the time.  They didn't say, "We don't serve pad thai to non-Asians."  They didn't make it exclusionary to you for any reason related to you.  They don't make it for anyone for dinner, so you're not being denied something that someone else who had come in in your place would have gotten.

[trdsf]

Yep its a lot of ifs. So?

And the comparable string of ifs on the other side is: if the bakery denies service to a gay couple that they would have provided a straight couple, then they have committed a discriminatory act.  That's a much more clear-cut string of consequences; the long string of ifs on the business side don't even end with a definite then.  They end with a might suffer some economic inconvenience.  So why is the definite discrimination outweighed by the potential--not real, but feared--possible economic inconvenience?

Of course it does. That was deliberate because I believe we already agree on that situation completely. It is absolutely unacceptable to refuse service to anyone because they're gay.

But you seem to be making the case that in some circumstances, it is okay to do it, because of local social pressures, or fear of the potential--and not necessarily realized--financial circumstances.  I would say the discrimination remains wrong; "I live in a small bigoted town" is not an excuse that any court would accept for racially discriminatory business policies.  Neither does it justify sexually-oriented discriminatory policies.

[Johan]

But you seem to be making the case that in some circumstances, it is okay to do it,

'the fuck? I do? Where? I think you should go back read the very first post I made in this thread

The argument is this particular baker refused to write 'support gay marriage' on a cake because the customer was gay. So here's the test. I'm completely straight. Suppose I go to that baker and try to order the same cake. If they say sure no problem the yes, they should be charged. However if they also refuse to fill that order when it comes from me, then that is completely within their rights.

I have said all along that it is completely wrong to refuse service for gay people simply because they are gay. But I have also said all along that if a baker does not feel comfortable producing a cake with a particular message, for any reason, it should be perfectly within that bakers rights to say no I won't make that particular cake for you nor anyone else. That has been my exact opinion all along and everything I've written reflects that. I will admit I did not add the 'nor anyone else' part in those exact words. But only because I thought I was already making my opinion very clear. My apologies if I wasn't.

[trdsf]

'the fuck? I do? Where? I think you should go back read the very first post I made in this thread

The small conservative town case was one you kept coming back to, so it did look to me like you were trying to make that particular point.

I have said all along that it is completely wrong to refuse service for gay people simply because they are gay. But I have also said all along that if a baker does not feel comfortable producing a cake with a particular message, for any reason, it should be perfectly within that bakers rights to say no I won't make that particular cake for you nor anyone else. That has been my exact opinion all along and everything I've written reflects that. I will admit I did not add the 'nor anyone else' part in those exact words. But only because I thought I was already making my opinion very clear. My apologies if I wasn't.

Yeah, the 'nor anyone else' part (or something comparable) makes all the difference.  In that case, I think we're on the same page.  If they're going to a) refuse service and b) not make that service available to anyone else anymore, they're on more solid ground, although I think that will cost them more business in the long run, cutting off an entire line of product because their commitment to their invisible friend meant more to them than real, live human beings.  And I still think it'd be pretty assholish.

We had a case here in town about two years ago where a pizza truck refused service to a customer who, with no provocation, turned around and started cussing out and verbally abusing a gay couple who were in line behind him.  The problem I have with what happened is that they refused service for the wrong reasons -- on the basis of his hateful speech, which it was, but which he has a perfect right to.  They should have told him he was refused service for harassing other customers, which he was, and which avoids taking sides.

Now, the real take-away from this incident was the way the other customers in line -- straight and gay both -- leaped to the defense of the couple, and in opposition to what rapidly escalated to genuine hate speech.  What was more amazing was the part of town it happened in is the most gay-friendly part of the city... but idiots are everywhere, I suppose.

[Johan]

The small conservative town case was one you kept coming back to, so it did look to me like you were trying to make that particular point.
Yeah, the 'nor anyone else' part (or something comparable) makes all the difference.  In that case, I think we're on the same page.  If they're going to a) refuse service and b) not make that service available to anyone else anymore, they're on more solid ground, although I think that will cost them more business in the long run, cutting off an entire line of product because their commitment to their invisible friend meant more to them than real, live human beings.  And I still think it'd be pretty assholish.

Agreed, agreed and agreed. Business owners have the right to make decisions which end up costing them more business in the long run. And they also have the right to be dicks if they want to and all of that is exactly as it should be IMO.

We had a case here in town about two years ago where a pizza truck refused service to a customer who, with no provocation, turned around and started cussing out and verbally abusing a gay couple who were in line behind him.  The problem I have with what happened is that they refused service for the wrong reasons -- on the basis of his hateful speech, which it was, but which he has a perfect right to.  They should have told him he was refused service for harassing other customers, which he was, and which avoids taking sides.

Yeah I have a pretty conservative opinion on the free speech thing. The first amendment prevents the government from imposing limits of free speech. But that's it. People like to take that to mean that therefore no one can limit free speech and that simply is not the case. It is perfectly within my rights to tell you that you cannot say this or that while you're in my home. Which means it is also perfectly within my rights to tell you that cannot say this or that while you're in my place of business. And also perfectly within my rights to say that I won't serve you if you're wearing a t-shirt which says something I don't like or if you're saying something I don't like.

Go to pretty much any internet forum which blocks curse words and/or has rules against making personal attacks of other forum members. Ask any moderator there how often they have to explain that the 1st amendment doesn't do jack shit for you on a privately owned internet forum. I cannot count how often I had to explain that the forum was not congress and the forum policies were not federal laws to people when I was mod on a forum. If I had a dime for every time I got a PM from a forum member threatening to sue me because I was taking away their right to free speech and that's against the law and I'll get a lawyer and yada yada yada and oh won't you blow me you stupid jackwagon.... I don't miss being a mod.

[trdsf]

Yeah I have a pretty conservative opinion on the free speech thing. The first amendment prevents the government from imposing limits of free speech. But that's it. People like to take that to mean that therefore no one can limit free speech and that simply is not the case. It is perfectly within my rights to tell you that you cannot say this or that while you're in my home. Which means it is also perfectly within my rights to tell you that cannot say this or that while you're in my place of business. And also perfectly within my rights to say that I won't serve you if you're wearing a t-shirt which says something I don't like or if you're saying something I don't like.

Go to pretty much any internet forum which blocks curse words and/or has rules against making personal attacks of other forum members. Ask any moderator there how often they have to explain that the 1st amendment doesn't do jack shit for you on a privately owned internet forum. I cannot count how often I had to explain that the forum was not congress and the forum policies were not federal laws to people when I was mod on a forum. If I had a dime for every time I got a PM from a forum member threatening to sue me because I was taking away their right to free speech and that's against the law and I'll get a lawyer and yada yada yada and oh won't you blow me you stupid jackwagon.... I don't miss being a mod.

And there are reasons other than my unsuitable temperament that I don't want to be a mod anywhere.  :)

I think the main thing that people forget about the First Amendment is that while it certainly guarantees freedom of speech, it does not imply any responsibility on my part to have to listen -- basically, my freedom of speech ends at your ears.  You may choose to listen, but you're not required to and I don't have any right to force you to.  And vice versa.

With a right comes a responsibility -- typically, to respect the equivalent and equal rights of others.

And that's among the reasons I find cases like the bigoted bakers troubling -- it's an inherently selfish act, to set one's invisible friend ahead of the real, live person standing in front of them that they are denigrating as an equal human being, and all the worse for being done in the name of a fantasy character.  And of course, we all know what kind of a screaming purple fit these people would throw if they were put in that same position on the receiving end.

[Johan]

I think what I find so disturbing about it is that we now live in world where one ill-advised tweet can get you fired even if you're an absolute nobody and can end your entire career if you have some level of celebrity to begin with. And yet even though that's the case, we're still seeing these small business owners choosing to let their bigot flag fly without being the least bit shy about it. It really does make you wonder whether most of these small unknown businesses are doing just for the immense of free advertising that inevitably follows.

There was a case of that recently that was close to me in a couple of ways. A business owner located about 60 miles away went on facebook and posted some kind of bigoted shit about how he will proudly refuse to serve any openly gay customers. This didn't just hit close to home for me because it was 60 miles away. It also hit close to home because this jackwagon is a vendor that I've actually used at work. I've met the guy and shaken his hand.

His business specializes in building and customizing jacked up 4x4 off road vehicles. But he also specializes in doing diesel engine conversions in those vehicles. My job is coordinating maintenance on semi trucks so we've got lots of vendors that know big truck engines inside and out. But we also have an old diesel cargo van and no one could make it run right. Those small diesel engines are a different beast and the semi guys really don't know much about them. So you need someone that specializes in them which is what this jackwagon does.

So we took it to this guy and he did a great job with it. It runs great now and my boss gave it to me to use as a company car so its now my daily driver.

So what's most offensive about this whole deal is that he got tons of free publicity by going on facebook and saying he'd refuse to serve openly gay people. He builds monster off road 4x4's. How many openly gay guys were ever going to be his customer? I'd wager very few. I'm confident the entire event was motivated entirely as a marketing/advertising ploy. And the public did their part of the job exactly as we wanted them to.

I will always continue to hope that the next time some business owner comes out as a bigot, the general public responds with a resounding ho hum and goes on with their day is if nothing happened. Because doing anything else only serves to give that business owner exactly what they want.

[trdsf]

.
.
.

It really does make you wonder whether most of these small unknown businesses are doing just for the immense of free advertising that inevitably follows.

.
.
.

I'm confident the entire event was motivated entirely as a marketing/advertising ploy. And the public did their part of the job exactly as we wanted them to.

I will always continue to hope that the next time some business owner comes out as a bigot, the general public responds with a resounding ho hum and goes on with their day is if nothing happened. Because doing anything else only serves to give that business owner exactly what they want.

I think that does drive some of these places to do exactly that -- the first couple places that denied service generated a lot of business with the wingnut brigades in support of them "standing up for jay-zus" and I agree, it's quite likely some of the ones doing it now want a piece of that.

A lot of it depends on the locality, of course.  A business here that made a similar announcement would find themselves shuttered in short order because their local business would just plain stop -- Columbus has a weird reputation as being the San Francisco of the Midwest, this is an extremely equality-friendly town, even though it's not easy to be fabulous when you're plain ol' Buckeye beige.  :)

Even some of the big-name Republicans around here have no problem with marriage equality -- the only difference between Democratic supporters and Republican supporters is that generally, the Repubs want to move more slowly towards it.  If the SCOTUS decision strikes gay marriage bans, probably half the statewide elected Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief that it's been taken out of their hands.  Gov. Kasich doesn't really care -- he's been trying to have it both ways anyway so he can position himself for 2016.  His latest tack is basically 'I'm against 'em, but if the Supreme Court says we have to have 'em, then we have to have 'em.'  Which is at least a better understanding of the way our Federal government works than any of the declared GOP candidates have, I'll have to give him that.

Besides, we're Ohioans.  We suck at being extremist anything.  :D