The problem is that people on the other side are actually, with a straight face, arguing that you give up your constitutional rights when you start a business.
The whole argument is absurd to any rational person.
We have been tested like this by people. But in the law, it is pretty simple, whoever supplied the sperm is called the father, whoever the baby exited is called the mother. What the individuals want to call themselves after the birth is not important. Once it is determined that we are practical and down to earth, sticking to the law, the people suddenly don’t need us and can work out their own issues. We can’t make the dad disappear, we can’t make another adult the mom unless there is an adoption.
* later viewing.
The author here provides a principled argument - that’s good.
There’s also a practical approach one could use if a person wants to avoid all the hassle: offer only one, standard, one-size-fits-all wedding cake. Perhaps it might even include in icing a verse from scripture addressing marriage - it shouldn’t be hard to find one. And include on the bakery shop wall a sign that says “No custom cakes”.
If somebody wants the wedding cake without the Bible verse (no matter what their demographics) you point to the sign.
Which he should be free to do.
When the government can force a business to trade with people it does not want as customers, then there is no freedom of association any longer. Denying custom to ethnic minorities may not be smart, but poor business sense should not be a crime.
your freedom of expression would cover anything you choose to do beyond being a lump.
what you choose to do for your work is an expression. you think only artists and journalists are covered by the first amendment?
the choice to not provide an expression is up to you and you alone.
to be forced to express yourself against your will is slavery by definition.
> To be consistent, the author also has to defend the rights
> of the bigot and racist who does not wish to service ethnic
> minorities.
Homosexuality is a behavior, not an ancestry.
For proof of this, look to the homosexual’s parents.
Alcoholism has far more genetic support for its appearance in a person’s life than homosexuality, yet we still do not condone alcoholism.
Homosexuality is a behavior, NOT an ancestry.
My mother was a caterer and in 30 years of business, I never saw a wedding cake with writing on it.
For “Symbolic Speech” to be protected, it’s meaning must be obvious and understood by the audience. I’m not sure anyone could make a case for that with a cake.
I believe that it is a better plan for us to simply let them know we are Christians by our example and love. Let them know you disapprove and then shower them with Christian love and generosity. You’d be surprised how much better example works compared to confrontation.
These days, I’m good with that.
Could I order pork chops from a Jewish kosher butcher or Muslim halal butcher and then sue for religious persecution if they didn’t provide? How about from a vegetarian?
Can a Tea party owned supplier refuse to make T-shirts for a Democrat? Can a liberal business refuse to make T-shirts for the T-party?
Can a printing company refuse to make fliers or brochures for a religious or political group with which it disagrees?
If there are court cases that are a resounding “yes” on these cases, then we can argue free speech in the florist case. If the answer has been mostly no, then speech trumping accommodation may not stand.
Just ask the liberals and queers if they think a black baker should be forced to bake a cake for the KKK?
Would they force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi cake?
Should a black southern BBQ be forced to cater a Klan rally?
Homosexuality is a behavior and they chose not to provide a service based on a behavior they disagreed with – not based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity (which is illegal). A lawyer doesn’t have to represent clients that engage in activities that he finds morally repugnant (behavior) — a plumber or electrician can make the same choice. A restaurant may refuse to deliver pizza to an abortion clinic or may refuse to let patrons bring alcohol to drink with dinner even if the restaurant’s motivation is moral disapproval (behavior). Businesses impose dress codes on patrons and refuse to allow patrons who wear T-shirts containing messages that they see as repugnant (behavior). Refusing service based on behavior is not illegal - it is common.
“The law says I have to make you a cake. I don’t agree. But. I will comply with the law. On a separate note, I have to admire your bravery in purchasing, and possibly even eating, a cake made under political duress. Good luck with that.”
My approach, if I objected, would be custom pricing on custom cakes. Any pervert who demands a cake I don’t want to make can pay a price so insanely high that they would be forced to go elsewhere. “No problem - that will be $38,417.22 for the cake you want.”
And the contract would specify that there is no penalty other than refunding their money if the cake is not delivered on time and satisfactory (if they actually pay, they will at the last minute get a refund due to “unforeseen difficulties”). It would be nice if those who object could simply refuse, but we have lost our freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. The only option for those who object is misdirection.
No.
Minorities, ethnicities arevnot activities. Neither are they activities that are inherently wrong, borderline evil.
I have no problem serving whatever minorities. However, should a white man come in to request a cake/services for a KKK meeting, I would decline. Should a black man come in for services for a Black Panther meeting, I would decline.
See the difference?
The florist in question HAD served the plaintiff in this case, in the past, but could not/would not participate in the ACTIVITY of same sex marriage that violates her Christian beliefs.
Simple solution. You have a catalog featuring all of your products. Homosexual weddings cakes, you only have two, the Sodom and Gomorrah cake, and the Revelations cake. Both cakes burst into flames when the candles are lit and melt all the tortured figurines.
I didn’t have any writing or a bride/groom cake topper on my wedding cake. Flowers don’t usually have any symbols either. Gays could just eliminate such and still sue the business.
A cake is a cake. Many wedding cakes are neutral, no pair of men on top. I see no problem with baking a cake without a symbol of two men on it. Who writes words on a wedding cake? What they do with the cake after it’s sold is their business. I in no way want gay marriage or approve of it. I just don’t see this as a huge battle.
I will, however, pray for this woman.
The baker should state that he does not make novelty cakes.