Skip to comments.The New Morality: Crying Over Served Cake
Posted on 02/28/2014 8:49:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In this day and age, why would you be stupid enough to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to deny someone services?
There are plenty of ways to avoid entering into a business transaction without having to appear discriminatory at all. When I worked for a private repair shop and encountered a client who seemed to be more trouble than they were worth for whatever reason, we used to simply say, I am sorry, but we cannot provide service. If people questioned why (which they did, very often and with plenty of attitude), we just kept repeating the same phrase: “I’m sorry, we cannot provide the service.” No one interpreted us as being discriminatory, or went as far as attempting legal action. We were simply annoying, so they moved onto a business that was willing to enter into the transaction. No harm, no foul.
That is the beauty of the free market: You have choices. If a bakery simply said I am sorry, we cant provide that service, and left it at that, a gay couple denied service might interpret the owners choice as being discriminatory, but they wouldnt have a leg to stand on in court. You cant sue based on an inference. Progressives, however, rely on the courts to push their agenda because Big Government is their god. So the minute you breathe a hint of something that could be misconstrued as an opportunity for a lawsuit, they gain home-court advantage.
By simply saying, I am sorry, we cant provide that service, you may be opening yourself up to some annoying picketing and internet memes, but whats the worst that will do? Throw you in the same court as Chick fil-A? We all know how well that protest worked out. The bottom line is, youre letting the free market decide your fate, not the courts.
The primary response I can hear to that is, But I should be free to express my beliefs! Yes, you should. But, you havent been for a long time. It shouldnt have taken gay marriage for Christians to realize that the progressive culture of political correctness has been stifling their freedom of expression for a generation. Todays court battles over gay marriage are rooted in yesterdays affirmative action victories; a new morality has taken hold and is avidly manipulating the power of the courts and ever-expanding government as the source of its strength.
The bill vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer opened the door to the courts to determine the sincerity of an individuals religious beliefs. The bill would have also require[d] that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
In other words, Christians and other “religious rights” activists were supporting a bill that would require them to defend the validity of their faith in the courts; courts, mind you, which they dont particularly trust to begin with. Thats playing into progressive logic, strengthening government power, and generating even more business for an already porky legal system.
Regarding the existing rights of private enterprise, the bill was redundant. Private business owners across most of the United States, including Arizona, already have the right to deny service to gays and anyone else they choose:
It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.
Thats not discrimination, that’s free enterprise. Stop burying yourselves in cries of persecution over wedding cakes and get busy touting the fact that the Constitution and the free market were designed to create a fair and level playing field. Use the laws we already have instead of trying to “perfect” them with even more legislation that is a mere means to a progressive end. Quit your whining and play to win.
I'm not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. But I disagree with the above.
If the gay mafia so desired, they could show a pattern of denial at a business. All they would need is enough data points. I'd bet that the gays would win the subsequent lawsuit against the business. Lots of money would change hands.
I think the Law while good intentioned concerning religious freedom and government overreach it was just plainly worded wrong. Here is a few things i would have changed.
1. Remove the word Religion - Religion is a hotword that causes all the MSM and weak spined RINO-crats to get all worked up in a tizzy dizzy. (I hate doing it, but it removes whole invalid as it may be sepration of church and state weasel words the libs like to use to get bills killed intheir tilted courts.)
2. Replace the word “Business” with “Artisan”
3. Rename the bill to “Artistic Expression Protection Act”
4. Re-word the bill to emphasize “Commissioned Work or individualized Consumer Products” are a product of an Artist and you cannot legally compel an Artist under force of law to produce something using their own artistic talent that is against their own personal beliefs or customs or if they are are uncomfortable with the subject matter.
5. Make sure the Bill also defines that any occupation involving an artistic services like Photography, Disc Jockey, Gourmet Catering, Entertainment, or Cultural Ceremonies are also covered by the “Artistan Rights” as well.
This would be how you write a bill that could easily pass even in a blue state that would prevent the bullying abuse that we see when a caterer or photographer is bullied by a group that wishes to make a point by bullying.
It is not just about Religion, but about protecting the occupation of an artist as well as their artistic expression.
I ask you, how would a conservative feel if they were forced to cater a luncheon for a bunch of commies against their will? How would a Stanist Sculptor feel about beign forced to sculpt a sculpture or Jesus (not that I actually give a damn).
This would protect Poltical groups as well as Religious groups as well.
Exactly. Homo activists would send a hetero customer in after the rejected homo, requesting the same service, film both transactions, and sue them out of existence.
So many people forget that the 1950’s and 60’s civil rights movement was not about private busineses being discriminatory, it was about STATE SANCTIONED discrimination!!!!!
You know the STATE the thing the left loves so damned much...
While there was blatant private discrimination going on, as soon as the State Discrimination went away the situation improved considerably.
[ Exactly. Homo activists would send a hetero customer in after the rejected homo, requesting the same service, film both transactions, and sue them out of existence. ]
A Liberal goes into Conservative printshop and orders up 100,000 flyers that are pro communist, he says no, the Liberal forces them to print the flyers and there is a spelling mistake etc... Now since the covservative was forced into doing this (by government decree)... The Liberal would be justified (under the law precedent and past history) to sue the conservative print shop for sabotaging a product with malicious intent even if the mistake was unintentional...
No one has thought of this scenario.... but it could lead to this...
That won’t fly, printers ALWAYS create “proofs” for the customer to approve. The customer has to sign that the proof is perfect and good to go. Any errors in the finished product are the customer’s fault.
I think I see the flaw in his argument.
“In other words, Christians and other religious rights activists were supporting a bill that would require them to defend the validity of their faith in the courts; courts, mind you, which they dont particularly trust to begin with. Thats playing into progressive logic, strengthening government power, and generating even more business for an already porky legal system.”
I had the same qualms about the bill. It would give government the right to judge whether a religious belief was “sincere” or legitimate. Is that the best possible solution to this dilemma?
I say we simple say that any business making a persnalized product or service is an artisan and by forcing an artisan to do somethign they don’t want to do it is infringing their “Artistic Rights” which are protected by the 1st amendment.
Trying to get a bill with Religious anything through the corrupt liberal Circus court system is simply tilting at windmills at this point. Maybe after an Article V reform it would be viable, but here, now? Not so much, if the bill passed we all know the lib judges with their “Stench from the bench” would throw it out and we cannot even trust people like Roberts onthe supreme court anymore if it gets knocked up there...
Use Neutral Language that would INCLUDE religious views by definition and get it passed, then when it gets appealed in the courts you can sopecifically view it as a 1st amendment expression.
It is not like we are saying that someone can refuse selling a pre-made hostess twinkee that they walk out of the store with, this is a personalized custom product or serivce that would involve deep collaboration and contact with a client over a prolonged period of time.
If you are forcing someone to use their artistic skills and talent to do somethign they don’t want to do that is intellectial tyranny.
What I was saying all the way back when the lawsuit hit the news: if you don’t want to work with a particular customer never tell them why just don’t. If you must get into why keep it general never get personal, booked that week/ month, not enough notice. As soon as you say why doors get open you’d rather keep closed, especially if you make it personal.
[ That wont fly, printers ALWAYS create proofs for the customer to approve. The customer has to sign that the proof is perfect and good to go. Any errors in the finished product are the customers fault. ]
Never underestimate a liberal lawyer with an agenda....
To attempt to make a law to frame out the extent of religious freedom within this false premise will be, well. .garbage in, garbage out.
We should not need a new law for this. I already am endowed with the right not be compelled to endorse or promote a behavior that violates my own moral code.
Patterns are hard to establish though, especially with a business that needs run time. The wife and I got “rejected” at a few places when planning our wedding, turns out 3 months (which we figured was plenty) isn’t enough lead time for a lot of that stuff (especially dresses, they apparently want everybody to think they don’t even plant the cotton until you place your order). With these companies probably refusing at least one customer a day due to timing finding the ones you rejected for other reasons gets tough.
Printing mistakes you’ll have to redo one way or the other. A couple of years ago we would get flyers from a pizza joint on Campbell over and over and over and I know the pizza joint never paid for any of them because the printer just couldn’t seem to wrap their head around the street NOT being Camel. Your printing contract says you’ll do it right or replace it.
Any homosexual, or anyone else for that matter, who would seek out a business with the intention of forcing the owner to act against his morals, is an a$$hole and a bully when there are hundreds of options available.
If not for SPITE, many of these fights could be avoided.
What kind of a JERK deliberately seeks out an overtly, devoutly religious photographer or professional baker, and asks that professional to serve at a gay wedding (or whatever it is) that the Jerk KNOWS goes against the professional’s religious views? Does the jerk really think he’s going to get the best service possible if the professional reluctantly complies? No. It’s all about spite, bullying.
It reminds me of the lines in Orwell’s 1984 in which the Inner Party man, O’Brien, confirms this to Winston Smith: “’How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.’”
I’m sure the overwhelming majority of folks in a gay wedding will pick a gay-friendly photographer and cake baker, but a few people just have to be spiteful jerks. (Can a gay baker be forced to cater to a Westboro Baptist Church wedding, as Jonah Goldberg recently asked? Can the baker be forced to inscribe “GOD HATES F*GS” on the cake?)
The State has no Right to force any individual or business to conduct business with anyone, in sprite of the last 60-80 years of the Supreme Court’s wild over-reach hiding behind the “Commerce Clause”.
It is obscene that the same institution that can find a “penumbra” to the Right to Privacy that allows the murder of babies AND requires us to pay for these murders can also decide that an individual cannot tell two Fruitcakes to “Go buy your cake elsewhere”! If he does then he either will be fined, imprisoned or become a designated target for “Robbery-by-Lawyers”.
You're right. You are using plain old common sense here. But I'm quite sure that the gay mafia will ignore common sense and force a pattern to appear, even if a pattern doesn't actually exist.
Sadly, in cases like these the businesses will start out guilty, and have the difficult job of proving otherwise.
Why in the hell should anyone have to lie about not wanting to provide a service to a gay wedding?
Apparently, the author believes those with religious beliefs should have to hide them in public. That is unacceptable in a free nation.
“There’s already a precedent for that, as when liberal musicians refuse to let their music be used at Republican events even when the music was purchased legitimately and wasn’t being used for commercial purposes. Remember when Heart stopped Republicans from using their song “Barracuda” at events featuring Sarah Palin? I think Neal Young did a similar thing. So the artistic freedom angle might possibly work. “
Excellent point, they use “Artistic Expression Freedom” to bash us over the head constantly, so why the heck are we not using it as tool in our toolbox to fight these morons?
“Artistic Expression Freedom” is a right that IS protected by the 1st Amendment, we need to start exercising it on behalf of our side befor the other side takes it, makes it their own, then twists it out of existence...
[ The State has no Right to force any individual or business to conduct business with anyone, in sprite of the last 60-80 years of the Supreme Courts wild over-reach hiding behind the Commerce Clause. ]
The Fact that they can contiue to cite a case concerning an illegal ruling about a wheat farmer in Kansas in the 1940’s and use that ruling to screw over individual rights and the rights of people enguaging in voluntary goods exchange is an abomination.
It shows WHY we need an Article V convention to propose new amendments to deal with Judicial Tyranny from the bench including term limits for Federal Judges and the ability for the states to override a ruling based on a 4/5ths majority of the states.
[ In this day and age, why would you be stupid enough to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to deny someone services?
Why in the hell should anyone have to lie about not wanting to provide a service to a gay wedding?
Apparently, the author believes those with religious beliefs should have to hide them in public. That is unacceptable in a free nation. ]
Let me cite an example from the 50’s-60’s.
In the south once STATE ENDORSED/FORCED RACIAL discrimination was ended Private Business discrimination virtually disappeared overnight as these businesses could no longer hide behind the skirt of the state, instead they had to live and die by the free market....
Word would get around and those businesses that discriminated due to race were indeed then just cutting off their nose to spite their face because they were limiting their own customer base, thus the “gods of the copybook headings” were allowed to rule once more.
These businesses need to reverse their tactics. As owner of a Christian Bake shop, I’d simply make it store policy to decorate every item made with a cross. Story policy. Same for all patrons. Anyone can order a cake, but this is how they’re made. Call the homosexual provocateur’s bluff. They don’t want the cake, they want a confrontation so they can continue to chip away and destroy Christianity.
Actually, the artists cannot stop politicians from using their music in public appearances. If the policitian only wants to pay for a single license for one piece of music, the copyright owner has a veto, however, the politician could just buy a blanket license from BMI or ASCAP, and they would still be able to play the song, but they would probably have to pay more money.
I think most politicians get in trouble because they play the songs without bothering to get any license at all.
Yeah, they can refuse, but only if the person is looking for a single-song license. If the politicians decided to play a few songs at their events, and most of them probably do anyway, then they can get that blanket license. The artist can’t do anything then, unless they remove their music from being licensed by that company entirely.
True. It is the flip side of what they complain of...having to hide their “orientation”. If they are now out but another group feels they must hide then nothing has really changed. And this is the point...they seek to impose on others what they experienced.
IANAL either, but those are my thoughts as well. The concept of "Disparate Impact" has legal legs nowadays (I really hate that because it's illogical: It's a deliberate conflating of correlation and causation), so I would not be surprised at all if it were used against somebody refusing service to homo couples. Even a baker in a small town is not immune, because if he refuses once and the couple suspects it's because of religious objection, they'll take it to their friends before they take it to court, and they'll develop that set of data points.
"Welcome Westboro Baptist Church"
"Thank GOD for AIDS!!!"
Why not just sub-contract the work out. Take the same sex order for a wedding cake , but turn the actual baking over to your friend who also bakes cake, but is O.K. with same sex.
Kind of like the ordering work done for your house, like roofing, windows, etc. You sign the deal , but the work gets contracted out to actual group of people who do the work.
Just be up-fromt with Mr. or Ms. SameSex about it. They will get their cake baked and you will not be the one who baked it.
Unlike vampires, homosexuals are not allergic to crosses.
Indeed there are gay friendly churches with crosses all over them.