Another victory for cake bakers

[Guest MormonGator]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/17/high-court-avoids-new-case-over-same-sex-wedding-c/?fbclid=IwAR0aCsGVn1IRlbquW8utCxXwsg0CfZ8nn8mIx9H8CAwAoylmuLEe59Wr4TI

It's not because I'm "anti-gay" that I think it's a victory. It's because I'm "pro freedom" 

[Midwest LDS]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/17/high-court-avoids-new-case-over-same-sex-wedding-c/?fbclid=IwAR0aCsGVn1IRlbquW8utCxXwsg0CfZ8nn8mIx9H8CAwAoylmuLEe59Wr4TI

It's not because I'm "anti-gay" that I think it's a victory. It's because I'm "pro freedom" 

Happy to see this. That poor couple had 130000 dollars in fines and had their religious beliefs compared to holocaust denial by a member of the State Commision. It's a clear violation of First Amendment protections.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Happy to see this. That poor couple had 130000 dollars in fines and had their religious beliefs compared to holocaust denial by a member of the State Commision. It's a clear violation of First Amendment protections.

Exactly. Now that the left has won the culture war on this issue (homosexuality) it's no longer about tolerance, it's about bullying those who disagree into submission. The courts made the right choice. 

That said, if I was a baker, I'd bake the cake. In the real world, you can't pick and choose the morality of your customers. A professor was once asked if he would do business with someone who was unethical. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said "I'd like to say no, and you want me to say no, but the truth is that you have bills to pay and if you start looking for a reason to refuse customers, you'll go out of business."  

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. Now that the left has won the culture war on this issue (homosexuality) it's no longer about tolerance, it's about bullying those who disagree into submission. The courts made the right choice. 

That said, if I was a baker, I'd bake the cake. In the real world, you can't pick and choose the morality of your customers. A professor was once asked if he would do business with someone who was unethical. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said "I'd like to say no, and you want me to say no, but the truth is that you have bills to pay and if you start looking for a reason to refuse customers, you'll go out of business."  

Wouldn’t it be a shame if the baker confused the amounts of sugar and salt required . . .

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/17/high-court-avoids-new-case-over-same-sex-wedding-c/?fbclid=IwAR0aCsGVn1IRlbquW8utCxXwsg0CfZ8nn8mIx9H8CAwAoylmuLEe59Wr4TI

It's not because I'm "anti-gay" that I think it's a victory. It's because I'm "pro freedom" 

I'd wondered about that.  After the initial news, it seemed that they pretty much dropped off the map.  Good to hear!

[Guest MormonGator]

And just to be clear, if a gay couple wanted to refuse an LDS couple, they should have that right too. 

[Midwest LDS]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. Now that the left has won the culture war on this issue (homosexuality) it's no longer about tolerance, it's about bullying those who disagree into submission. The courts made the right choice. 

That said, if I was a baker, I'd bake the cake. In the real world, you can't pick and choose the morality of your customers. A professor was once asked if he would do business with someone who was unethical. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said "I'd like to say no, and you want me to say no, but the truth is that you have bills to pay and if you start looking for a reason to refuse customers, you'll go out of business."  

I get where you are coming from. From a perfectly economic standpoint your view makes sense, but I understand artists feel pretty protective about their work, and I can understand why they wouldn't want it represented in an activity they disagree with.

Conversly I've never understood the desire to force people to serve you if they don't want to. I know if a court ordered me to make a cake against my will it would be the worst piece of junk cake ever baked. It's a free market system, just go to the 20 other bakers in the area who don't care.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[Guest Mores]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That said, if I was a baker, I'd bake the cake. In the real world, you can't pick and choose the morality of your customers. A professor was once asked if he would do business with someone who was unethical. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said "I'd like to say no, and you want me to say no, but the truth is that you have bills to pay and if you start looking for a reason to refuse customers, you'll go out of business."  

That is true.  But we also need to remember that there will be a point where we have to make a decision on our level of participation/abetting in someone else's unethical deeds.  I wonder if a strip club or a porn production company asked me for help with their taxes, what would I say?  But I don't see that happening.  So, I'm happy I don't have to make that choice.

As a baker, I would have two answers.

1) I'd probably make the cake. I would not deliver it.  But I'd probably not deliver any cake.
2) In this political environment, I'd actually have more desire to NOT bake it.  I'm just obstinate that way.  So, I'd set up a system where I'd only bake wedding cakes for those with whom I have a standing contractual relationship.  And those groups would only be conservative religious groups.  I would employ some tactics similar to Chik-fil-a in order to do that legally.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I get where you are coming from. From a perfectly economic standpoint your view makes sense, but I understand artists feel pretty protective about their work, and I can understand why they wouldn't want it represented in an activity they disagree with.

 

The art I'm most familiar with is tattoos. And you are, of course, correct. Most artists are protective of their work. That's why 90% of tattoo artists won't draw a swastika on your forehead. They don't want their name represented with such a horrific image. So just to be clear, I support the bakers/tattoo artists 100% and no, I wouldn't force anyone to preform an artistic service for someone else. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Mores said:

That is true.  But we also need to remember that there will be a point where we have to make a decision on our level of participation/abetting in someone else's unethical deeds.  I wonder if a strip club or a porn production company asked me for help with their taxes, what would I say?  But I don't see that happening.  So, I'm happy I don't have to make that choice.

As a baker, I would have two answers.

1) I'd probably make the cake. I would not deliver it.  But I'd probably not deliver any cake.
2) In this political environment, I'd actually have more desire to NOT bake it.  I'm just obstinate that way.  So, I'd set up a system where I'd only bake wedding cakes for those with whom I have a standing contractual relationship.  And those groups would only be conservative religious groups.  I would employ some tactics similar to Chik-fil-a in order to do that legally.

"Honey, how was work today?"
"Great sweetie. A gay couple came in and wanted me to bake their cake. I refused. By the way, we're being sued for 100,00$ and it'll cost ten times that in legal fees. What? The kids need to eat? We have a mortgage? Can't talk now, I have a deposition to go to." 

Like I said, any artist has the right to pick and choose who they serve. However (and it's a big one) if you get a reputation of not serving a certain group of customers, it could very well ruin your life and your business. 
 

[Guest MormonGator]

The other thing I'm concerned about is the "slippery slope" argument. Since I won't serve a gay wedding because it's against my religion, I'm not going to serve a Bar mitzvah either. And since I'm not going to serve a bar mitzvah, I'm not going to serve an Islamic funeral. And since LDS aren't "Christians", I'm not going to bake for this missionaries coming home party. And since I disagree with the Catholic teaching on the Pope, I'm not going to serve this babies baptism. After all, why stop at excluding just gays? 

I'm playing devils advocate here @Midwest LDS. Arguing points I don't really believe. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by MormonGator

[Midwest LDS]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The other thing I'm concerned about is the "slippery slope" argument. Since I won't serve a gay wedding because it's against my religion, I'm not going to serve a Bar mitzvah either. And since I'm not going to serve a bar mitzvah, I'm not going to serve an Islamic funeral. And since LDS aren't "Christians", I'm not going to bake for this missionaries coming home party. And since I disagree with the Catholic teaching on the Pope, I'm not going to serve this babies baptism. After all, why stop at excluding just gays? 

So again, I"m in favor of the bakers rights. I hope I've made that clear. But there are problems and issues with this. 

Although it seems like someone that picky would be put of business before long.

"I only serve Protestants who accept the authority of the Missouri Synod!" 

[Guest Mores]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Like I said, any artist has the right to pick and choose who they serve. However (and it's a big one) if you get a reputation of not serving a certain group of customers, it could very well ruin your life and your business. 

And if I refused to make a "Congratulations on the Offing" cake for a known mafioso, I'm sure I could lose a lot too.  What's the difference between being threatened with death or battery vs being threatened with a lawsuit to ruin your business?

I could also make a lot more money if I kept the books for a money laundering entity.  But I wouldn't. Legal or illegal are only defined by unethical people in the halls of government.  So, that doesn't give us any help.

There are some lines we don't cross no matter the cost.  And it is unfair to judge others on just where they will draw that line.

Stick with the concept of consensual commerce and we're ok.  But if you allow the law suits for this crap... f'getaboudit.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

Although it seems like someone that picky would be put of business before long.

"I only serve Protestants who accept the authority of the Missouri Synod!" 

 

 

Just now, Mores said:

And if I refused to make a "Congratulations on the Offing" cake for a known mafioso, I'm sure I could lose a lot too.  What's the difference between being threatened with death or battery vs being threatened with a lawsuit to ruin your business?

I could also make a lot more money if I kept the books for a money laundering entity.  But I wouldn't. Legal or illegal are only defined by unethical people in the halls of government.  So, that doesn't give us any help.

There are some lines we don't cross no matter the cost.  And it is unfair to judge others on just where they will draw that line.

Stick with the concept of consensual commerce and we're ok.  But if you allow the law suits for this crap... f'getaboudit.

Like I said gentlemen (and @Mores) I agree with you both. Just playing devils advocate 

[Midwest LDS]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 

 

Like I said gentlemen (and @Mores) I agree with you both. Just playing devils advocate 

Oh I know I was being facetious. Sometimes online forums don't adequately convey intended humor.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Midwest LDS said:

Oh I know I was being facetious. Sometimes online forums don't adequately convey intended humor.

My lack of a sense of humor doesn't help either. 

My good friend is a member of the Missouri Synod but has been increasingly disturbed by their "left wing" tilt. I said "Dude, you aren't a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church" and he then ranted at me for about ten minutes about "those ______ liberals messing everything up." It was listening to @Vort. 

[anatess2]

This is where Malcolm X and MLK differed.  And I actually agree more with Malcolm X on the matter.  MLK worked to get legislation to force businesses to "accept the black man".  Malcolm X disagreed.  He believed that what the black people need is not to be accepted into white establishments, rather what they need is a system where black people can own and run establishments and accept and reject who they please so that black people have a choice - go to an establishment who hates you but is forced to serve you or go to an establishment that wants you.

[Guest Mores]

54 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Like I said gentlemen (and @Mores) I agree with you both. Just playing devils advocate 

How did you know I identify as a lady?

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

In the real world, you can't pick and choose the morality of your customers. A professor was once asked if he would do business with someone who was unethical. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said "I'd like to say no, and you want me to say no, but the truth is that you have bills to pay and if you start looking for a reason to refuse customers, you'll go out of business."  

Artists always suffer.  One of the ways they suffer, is by experiencing pressure to art in ways they don't wanna art.  Every content creator must draw their own line as to what they'll do and what they won't do.

Most of 'em seem to understand this instinctively, or at least they come to such an understanding pretty early on.  Here's a random example from some random young teen artist randomly found on the net, talking about what you can pay them to do, and what you can't pay them to do:

.

The notion that some kid being forced to draw nsfw or gore, because if they don't, they're 'discriminating', is sorta stupid.  

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Although it seems like someone that picky would be put of business before long.

"I only serve Protestants who accept the authority of the Missouri Synod!" 

Indeed. Capitalism (and, more broadly, commerce) tends to break down borders between groups.  That’s why governments in the southern states enacted Jim Crow laws in the first place—they understood that, left to their own devices, business owners would eventually figure out that black men and white men both pay with green money; and that would undermine their preferred segregationist culture.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Just_A_Guy