Why "Just bake the cake!" is wrong


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

If the baker was a little smarter, he would have baked the cake, took their money and donated it to a conservative group advocating for values he agreed with. 


I think I understand where you are coming from, MG. 
 

We all have to choose which battles we are going to fight and where we draw our line in the sand. It’s a matter of weighing the cost of the battle versus the rewards we hope to gain.
 

I would also say that sometimes we are asked to make heavy sacrifices based on the light and knowledge we have received from God. We have hope that those sacrifices will be rewarded after this life and that they will be worth the cost of our battles. 
 

I can only assume this is why he refused to bake the cake. If so, I personally believe that he will be rewarded for his sacrifices made because of the faith he has in his God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If the baker was a little smarter, he would have baked the cake, took their money and donated it to a conservative group advocating for values he agreed with. 

Art and smarts?  Do they even belong in the same sentence?  I mean, strippers and pole dancers can get a lot more paying gigs than the Irish Dance society or the Dutch cloggers or the BYU dance troup.  Just think about how many funds could be diverted to conservative causes, if only those folks were a little smarter. 

It ain't about smarts, it's about 'artistic integrity'.   You draw your line, and don't compromise on your morals.   It's one of the reasons we have a lot of starving artists.  Everyone wants to art, but not all the sources of money are worth pursuing.

And again (this has got to be one of the most repeated and most ignored facts of the whole thing), dude offered to sell them a cake.   He just declined to design them one of his artistic cakes. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Art and smarts?  Do they even belong in the same sentence?  I mean, strippers and pole dancers can get a lot more paying gigs than the Irish Dance society or the Dutch cloggers or the BYU dance troup.  Just think about how many funds could be diverted to conservative causes, if only those folks were a little smarter. 

It ain't about smarts, it's about 'artistic integrity'.   You draw your line, and don't compromise on your morals.   It's one of the reasons we have a lot of starving artists.  

 

You are right, it’s not about intelligence, it’s about wisdom. 

My idea is actually a great idea. Take their money, donate it to a pro traditional marriage group, make it public what you did. No other gay couple will hire you again, so you need not worry about baking cakes. The drawback is that you can no longer pat yourself on the back for being a martyr. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The drawback is that you can no longer pat yourself on the back for being a martyr. 

Oh, I don't think he's doing that.  So, the baker is in Colorado, and I've heard him interviewed many times.  He has been used by both sides, multiple times, because his willingness to refuse and violate a city ordinance is a legal jumping-off point that ends at the Supreme Court.  He comes across as someone who is ok with that.  Supreme Court decisions can have a bigger impact than prostituting your values to make a quick buck to donate to conservative causes.  Maybe he's wiser than you think...

We're all taking about Jack Phillips and the Masterpiece Cakeshop, right? 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If the baker was a little smarter, he would have baked the cake, took their money and donated it to a conservative group advocating for values he agreed with. 

MG, you know I like you. I hope you know that, anyway. But this is just absurd. You can't possibly believe this without discounting the baker's convictions.

The reason the baker didn't bake the homosexual couple's special cake for them is because, at least in the baker's mind, IT'S A CELEBRATION OF IMMORALITY. The baker refuses to use his God-given artistic gifts in celebration of immorality; to do so would compromise his principles. He will not sell his soul for $100 profit. His soul is worth more than $100, even if he turns around and donates the $100 to some conservative group.

If you sell yourself, you're a whore. If you sell yourself for $100, you're a cheap whore. The baker refuses to whore himself out. He certainly won't do it for whatever the profit is on baking a cake. There would be nothing "smart" about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I do. I see it vastly differently though, no apologies. 

And you've also made it clear in the past that you see no problems, legally or morally, with homosexual "marriage". So you fundamentally do not see this as a moral issue, which is why you pooh-pooh the baker's courageous efforts and see him as grandstanding.

So change it to something you don't pooh-pooh. Suppose the baker had refused a demand to create a dead-fetus-shaped cake in celebration of a woman's elective abortion, and were being sued for that refusal. Would you then say what he really should have done is bake the dead-fetus-shaped cake, complete with "Congratulations on your freedom!" icing, and then donated the $100 to a pro-life group?

Do you believe that the mortal Jesus would gladly have made crosses to crucify Palestinians who refused to worship Caesar as a god, and then just donated the proceeds to his local political group urging Romans not to crucify Jews for not worshiping Caesar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

And you've also made it clear in the past that you see no problems, legally or morally, with homosexual "marriage". So you fundamentally do not see this as a moral issue, which is why you pooh-pooh the baker's courageous efforts and see him as grandstanding.

So change it to something you don't pooh-pooh. Suppose the baker had refused a demand to create a dead-fetus-shaped cake in celebration of a woman's elective abortion, and were being sued for that refusal. Would you then say what he really should have done is bake the dead-fetus-shaped cake, complete with "Congratulations on your freedom!" icing, and then donated the $100 to a pro-life group?

Do you believe that the mortal Jesus would gladly have made crosses to crucify Palestinians who refused to worship Caesar as a god, and then just donated the proceeds to his local political group urging Romans not to crucify Jews for not worshiping Caesar?

And with that 100$, the pro life group convinces two women not to get abortions. Thus saving two more lives. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If it is something with artistic intent, something that is NOT generic but requires personal involvement, personal ethics and morality come into play.  You should not be able to force an individual to make a pornographic film if it is against their wishes, even if they are a film maker.  You should not be able to make an artist make a picture, statue, or any other piece of art that denies them the basic human right of freedom of religion or expression. 

You cannot dictate to Van Gogh to paint a Rembrandt.  You cannot force Picasso to paint a Davinci.  They paint what they have as artistic expression.

I really don't like the argument about an artist's rights.  What it's really saying is that religious freedom is less important than gay rights.  But artist's rights is greater still than that.  I don't buy into it.

Yes, I'm thankful for a minor win.  But the fact is that by getting that minor win in courts, we've found that religion is simply being pushed to the bottom of the barrel as far as rights.

Quote

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

D&C 134:4-5

This has nothing to do with "artistic expression."  It has everything to do with Religious Freedom and Freedom of conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I really don't like the argument about an artist's rights.  What it's really saying is that religious freedom is less important than gay rights.  But artist's rights is greater still than that.  I don't buy into it.

Yes, I'm thankful for a minor win.  But the fact is that by getting that minor win in courts, we've found that religion is simply being pushed to the bottom of the barrel as far as rights.

This has nothing to do with "artistic expression."  It has everything to do with Religious Freedom and Freedom of conscience.

Freedom of religion is only a PART of the First Amendment.  Artistic Expression deals with a majority of the rights recognized, such as not just the right of religion, but that of the press (publishing one's work), free speech (able to say what they want...NOT just about religion, but politics, nature, almost everything  and anything), and the freedom to petition and even assemble (and others can use their art in that or observe).

My discussion was not just limited to a single right of religion, as that is too narrow.  I would not want an artist (or any art whether on a personalized individualized cake, or on a canvas, or via a carving or statue, or any other method of art) limited in their artistic expression simply to religious concerns, or ONLY have it protected in regards to religion.  For something as personal as art, their form of expression should be protected rather than dictated.  One should not be able to dictate to someone that they must paint a picture of someone they despise and hate and do not desire to paint anymore than forcing them to do any other art.

It's about the First amendment, not just religion.

I think that someone selling something in general (such as a cake without personalized decorations for example) and does it in a public store must needs be told to sell it to any who seek to buy it if they will buy it at the price offered to all others with NO DISCRIMINATION against them in that facet, especially based upon race, religion, gender, orientation, sex, etc.

HOWEVER, there is a line, and that line comes when it belongs to our personal rights or personal expressions.  We speak of it as simply religion, but it is FAR more than just religion in regards to art.  We see it in education, we see it in politics and many other aspects.  People WANT to take the freedom of others and dictate WHAT they must think and do.  Art is just an example of it that is easy (well, for most people) to understand.  Personal art is an intimate expression of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.  To try to dictate what one MUST do as art is a dangerous line of trying to dictate what one must think, act, and believe.  This is why we have protections in the amendments (or one of the reasons) and it is to this, not just religion, that I feel we need to look at. 

I don't care if the person expressing their ideas is a homosexual (aka...gay) or heterosexual.  I don't care if they are Christian or Atheist.  I think ANY of their rights to artistic expression should be protected and that they should not be forced to dictate to another what they must or must not create.  Laws should be universal, not focused to supporting one elite group or another.  If we make laws that restrict the rights of one, invariably it comes back to strike at the rights of the other groups we may have thought they protected.

Only universal application can be utilized in my opinion.  Thus, we can protect the religious rights of one, while also protecting the religious rights of another.

I think the Baker should have their rights protected when people come in asking for them to decorate individualized cakes.  I see it as a form of art, even if it is on a baked good. 

On the other hand, I do not think a Baker should be allowed to discriminate on their normal cakes and baked goods.  If it is not individualized, but just something in their store, they should not be allowed to kick others out of the store simply due to the orientation or gender or other factor.  If we make it so that they can simply discriminate like that, in a place like the South it would soon turn to the point that there would be MANY that could not buy anything (many of those known as Mormons, whether or not they call themselves Mormon, which includes those in our church membership would be discriminated against).

The case I think was more about artistic rights of the Bakers in relation to artistic expression and religion rather than simply just religion, or that of baked goods.  It encompassed a lot more than simply...I want to practice my religion.  It dealt with others who were trying to be thought police and dictate what or how the Baker could think and express themselves.  From what I see on the case, they did not win simply because it was over freedom of religion, but as saying it was a form of art, and as art, it was protected under the laws that protect freedom of speech and artistic expression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

You are right, it’s not about intelligence, it’s about wisdom. 

My idea is actually a great idea. Take their money, donate it to a pro traditional marriage group, make it public what you did. No other gay couple will hire you again, so you need not worry about baking cakes. The drawback is that you can no longer pat yourself on the back for being a martyr. 

Not really.  Others have tried this and failed.

Normally what happens is that a particular shop is focused on for attack to bankrupt it.  Normally there are other stores that actually WILL do what they want (in this case, bake a cake which is decorated individually to what they wish), but because of political agendas, they will NOT GO to those shops.  The point is to bring light to a particular shop and 'bring it down' as some enthusiastically cry.

In this case, what normally happens (using the cake as an example) is that the request is utilized to bring a lawsuit that they hope will bankrupt the shop or owner.  If the owner had acquiesced and baked the cake, the ability to refuse at any other point would have been weakened.  By baking and decorating the cake individualized with art to them, he would have signaled that it was not necessarily against his values to do so or his beliefs, ideas, or expression.  His defense to doing so would be weakened greatly.  The precedence that he would decorate an individualized cake would have already been shown. 

Thus, they would come at him again until he either baked and decorated the cakes on a regular basis with no concerns for his religious or moral views, or eventually refused to do so.  If he refuse to do so after he had already accepted decorating them in the past, it could weaken the defense greatly giving a greater chance for the people suing him to win.  The more of the cakes he baked, the weaker his defense becomes.

In general, this strategy has been highly successful at driving artists and those certain groups target into bankruptcy or dissolving their business.  It's not necessarily the first attack or the second, but the ensuing ones that succeed due to the precedence of the weakened cases occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Freedom of religion is only a PART of the First Amendment.  Artistic Expression deals with a majority of the rights recognized, such as not just the right of religion, but that of the press (publishing one's work), free speech (able to say what they want...NOT just about religion, but politics, nature, almost everything  and anything), and the freedom to petition and even assemble (and others can use their art in that or observe).

My discussion was not just limited to a single right of religion, as that is too narrow.  I would not want an artist (or any art whether on a personalized individualized cake, or on a canvas, or via a carving or statue, or any other method of art) limited in their artistic expression simply to religious concerns, or ONLY have it protected in regards to religion.  For something as personal as art, their form of expression should be protected rather than dictated.  One should not be able to dictate to someone that they must paint a picture of someone they despise and hate and do not desire to paint anymore than forcing them to do any other art.

It's about the First amendment, not just religion.

I think that someone selling something in general (such as a cake without personalized decorations for example) and does it in a public store must needs be told to sell it to any who seek to buy it if they will buy it at the price offered to all others with NO DISCRIMINATION against them in that facet, especially based upon race, religion, gender, orientation, sex, etc.

HOWEVER, there is a line, and that line comes when it belongs to our personal rights or personal expressions.  We speak of it as simply religion, but it is FAR more than just religion in regards to art.  We see it in education, we see it in politics and many other aspects.  People WANT to take the freedom of others and dictate WHAT they must think and do.  Art is just an example of it that is easy (well, for most people) to understand.  Personal art is an intimate expression of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.  To try to dictate what one MUST do as art is a dangerous line of trying to dictate what one must think, act, and believe.  This is why we have protections in the amendments (or one of the reasons) and it is to this, not just religion, that I feel we need to look at. 

I don't care if the person expressing their ideas is a homosexual (aka...gay) or heterosexual.  I don't care if they are Christian or Atheist.  I think ANY of their rights to artistic expression should be protected and that they should not be forced to dictate to another what they must or must not create.  Laws should be universal, not focused to supporting one elite group or another.  If we make laws that restrict the rights of one, invariably it comes back to strike at the rights of the other groups we may have thought they protected.

Only universal application can be utilized in my opinion.  Thus, we can protect the religious rights of one, while also protecting the religious rights of another.

I think the Baker should have their rights protected when people come in asking for them to decorate individualized cakes.  I see it as a form of art, even if it is on a baked good. 

On the other hand, I do not think a Baker should be allowed to discriminate on their normal cakes and baked goods.  If it is not individualized, but just something in their store, they should not be allowed to kick others out of the store simply due to the orientation or gender or other factor.  If we make it so that they can simply discriminate like that, in a place like the South it would soon turn to the point that there would be MANY that could not buy anything (many of those known as Mormons, whether or not they call themselves Mormon, which includes those in our church membership would be discriminated against).

The case I think was more about artistic rights of the Bakers in relation to artistic expression and religion rather than simply just religion, or that of baked goods.  It encompassed a lot more than simply...I want to practice my religion.  It dealt with others who were trying to be thought police and dictate what or how the Baker could think and express themselves.  From what I see on the case, they did not win simply because it was over freedom of religion, but as saying it was a form of art, and as art, it was protected under the laws that protect freedom of speech and artistic expression.

Actually, this is even worse. 

Before, it merely said that gay rights were more important than religious rights.  Now you're saying (or the argument is saying) that gay rights are SO important, that it takes ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS COMBINED to justify overruling gay rights.

No, methinks I like it not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, this is even worse. 

Before, it merely said that gay rights were more important than religious rights.  Now you're saying (or the argument is saying) that gay rights are SO important, that it takes ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS COMBINED to justify overruling gay rights.

No, methinks I like it not.

Yes, actually.  I think many do not like it, and if many more realized what was under attack, perhaps there would be more that would strive to defend it.

Those who frame it as just an attack against religion are (in my opinion) looking at it too narrowly.  IN the case we are discussing (if we are discussing the same case) if it had been left up to merely the idea of freedom of religion vs. that of the others...I don't know if they may have won.  It remains unanswered.  It fell to the idea of freedom of speech and the first amendment.

Marxism and Marxist Communism has shown a pattern on how it attacks freedom.  It is this same pattern that some are trying to follow today in order to enforce their own ideas on other people.

Religion may be a portion of it, but it is not just an attack on religion, it seeks to control the way people think, act, and believe.  It is FAR more than just an attack on the freedom of religion.  Killing of religion is actually easier than destroying the ideas of the First Amendment and what it was written to protect. 

We see groups of both sides (just various groups on both sides, but not necessarily both sides, with some groups much more visible than others) that are trying to use this tactic.  They are trying to FORCE others to say, think, act, and believe EXACTLY as they would want them to, and if they do not, to somehow make it illegal for them to say, think, act, or believe in that manner.  If they could kill those who do not think like they do, I have no doubts they would use it as a tool to intimidate and force others to do that.  Instead, many have turned to the courts and judicial activism to write the laws rather than the government congresses and legislatures.   In the past some of these have been more fringe groups people laugh off (for example, Aryan nations, or the old KKK before reforms), but today, some of these types of groups seem to have gotten far more mainstream (for example, those that push the idea of forcing Religions to perform gay marriage even if against their doctrines of the church) than they have during the 20th century.  The popularity of what used to be fringe groups could be somewhat alarming if we really see how politically successful they have become in many areas of judicial activism and influencing our laws.

So, yes, my thought is that it is actually much worse than just an attempt to destroy Freedom of Religion, but MANY of the Freedoms we take for granted in the US.  In some nations, the first step they took has NOT been to do away with religion or restrict it that much, but to restrict the freedom of speech and the right to assemble FAR before they crack down on religion.  Attacking the freedom of speech and press are precursors to an much stronger push that can include a much more effective destruction of the freedom of religion.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 7:39 AM, MormonGator said:

If the baker was a little smarter, he would have baked the cake, took their money and donated it to a conservative group advocating for values he agreed with. 

I keep thinking we almost understand each other...then this. :::sigh:::

Jack will bake general wedding cakes, or congratulations cakes, for anyone who wants to come by and purchase one from the case. What he objects to is being asked to customize, using his God-given talents, cakes with anti-Christian messaging. The plaintiff had said that if Jack baked the celebration of transitioning cake then the pornographic homage to Satan one was coming next.

There was no middle ground here--no way for Jack to be clever or practice realpolitik. So, instead of taking the transgender Satanists $100 bucks, he's having to obtain the Christian law firms pro bono services, probably worth in the $10,000s. It would be so much easier to tell Jack to be clever, take the money, and end this. However, his opponents are gunning for him. Jack humiliated them once, and they are hoping for vindication with round 2. He can't compromise. He must fight. We both agree there is a line...I'm not sure where you think it should go, if not here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

I keep thinking we almost understand each other...then this. :::sigh:::

 

I actually understand where you guys are coming from, 100%. I admire you (and @Vort) for where you draw the line. It's just that I prefer to handle the situation in a different way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share