Where to Draw Line on Free Speech? Wedding Cake Case Vexes Lawyers

[ikalugin]

"Lifestyle" implies a choice; the overwhelming evidence, medically, biologically, and psychologically is homosexuality is not a choice.

Being in a (hetero or homosexual) relationship is a choice, unless you imply that people lack the agency to make it.

Decision to sell or not the sell the cake is made not on the basis that the person they sell to is homosexual, but on the basis that they participate in related activities, for example are in a homosexual relationship. Unless people lack the agency to make a choice to participate in those activities nor the good or service is life critical (ie emergency medical care, law enforcement etc) I do not see how your argument works.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by vienna

Kind of confused about your response; I did not say the customer has an absolute right of expectation from the seller; to the contrary, I stated there is no such thing as an absolute right of any kind. As I also stated, I am of two minds on the matter as the exact line of demarcation of rights in this matter is vague and motile. I have not taken a definitive stand either way...



Show me where, in my post you refer to, did I explicitly say, or claim, in any way, a seller "has to make a deal ..., here, now". You are arguing about statements never made and never even intimated; you are arguing a fallacy and untruth; all in all, I'd say your umbrage is, well...

...absurd...






<O>

You said you were of two minds over an issue, and I tried to describe that I think your position is self-contradictory there. There is no reason and argument supporting to be indifferent. So I described how crystal-clear the moral/legal situation imo really is: nobody can ever own somebody else and demand that the other must be up to his service (if he has not accepted payment in advance). It leaves no room for indifference, that profound I see my argument on that nobody has claim for somebody else's existence and that nobody has to live for the sake of somebody else.

[Skybird]

I just read the Federal Constitutional High Court in Germany has ruled that from now on all official registers and offices and services must allow options to register not just male and female gender on forms and in registers, but a third, unspecified option as well.

The mental asylum I live in has opened another wing.

Facebook now lists over 50 gender choices. The court is late to the madness party.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

I think this is a key concept here and a good litmus test for whether someone's rights are being violated.

I believe there are two relevant points which support the idea that the baker is well within his rights. One: The gay couple are not being denied the right to a cake per se, they're just being denied at that particular bakery. No one is suggesting that they can't have a cake at their wedding at all. Two: Even if they were, I know of no law or statute which guarantees the right to having a cake (in any circumstance) in the first place, let alone mandating that someone else bake it for you. However, the rights of freedom of religion and of expression are explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. If the gay couple were to simply choose another bakery, or bake the cake themselves, they could have a wedding cake and the Christian baker would not have to violate his principles/beliefs. Everyone wins.

I believe this applies to other current events, as well. As I stated in the thread about the NFL controversy, no one is suggesting that the players cannot protest per se, some simply believe they shouldn't do it on others' time. Even if they do it on their own time: if their employer feels it is having a negative impact on their business by association, or if they simply disagree with it, firing the player does not deny their right to continue to protest. It just means they'll have to find another source of income. Again, I know of no law or statute which guarantees a person the right to a particular job regardless of their actions.

In the past, I have also echoed the sentiment that I would not want a cake that someone was forced to bake for me under duress. In a conversation with a friend, I even suggested that the baker go ahead and bake the cake, but just make it really poorly to prove a point. (For instance, decorate it with his eyes closed or add a crap ton of salt to it. Nothing harmful.) My friend countered with the suggestion that sales would drop after a poor review. I replied that might be so ... but personally, if I see ninety-nine great reviews for a company and one bad one, I usually assume that that was a fluke or just one of those people that can't be satisfied.

I also believe it is worth mentioning that the U.S. economy is based mostly on free market capitalism. This means that the person or company which can provide the best service/product at the lowest price will usually come out on top. The consumers themselves can directly vote with their dollars for whomever they want. If a community decides that they do not agree with the practices of a particular business, they can collectively avoid that business. In other words, if we as a society believe a business should behave in a certain way, we can directly influence that. There's no need for the law to get involved at all.

The only time I believe the law should get involved is when it comes to state or federally run/funded services or products/services which are vital for a person's well being. This includes such things as health care and public education.

That's the most well-reasoned view I've read on this subject. This is not discriminating against gay people who want to get "married" and celebrate with a cake but a business owner with a legitimate religious objection to the gay marriage should have the right to decline the business. While the baker was refusing to provide the cake, he wasn't engaging in anti-gay discrimination. He was happy to provide the gay dudes with other baked goods, he just does not believe gay marriage is marriage. I'm sure we would not be having this argument if the baker was Muslim and there was pork in involved.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

While the baker was refusing to provide the cake, he wasn't engaging in anti-gay discrimination. He was happy to provide the gay dudes with other baked goods, he just does not believe gay marriage is marriage. I'm sure we would not be having this argument if the baker was Muslim and there was pork in involved.

Hehe, i was thinking the same, i just did nt care to post it so that the crowd does not go "Oh Skybird does the Islam thing again".

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah.

And further thoughts on the subject: If I was a baker, I could not refuse service to a gay couple, because while I may object to gay marriage, I certainly cannot claim a legitimate religious objection.

If I did make a cake for them, I would go ahead and make a wonderful, delicious cake, because that's what being a professional means and despite my difference in opinion over gay stuff (mostly I object to hearing about it nonstop 24/7), they are both probably great people.

[Platapus]

Part of being a professional is putting your personal feelings aside and abiding by the customs and ethics of your chosen profession.

In my opinion, that's what makes a person a professional instead of someone just earning money.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I'm sure we would not be having this argument if the baker was Muslim and there was pork in involved.

I don't think that comparison is valid.

A Muslim, depending on how the Muslim chooses to interpret the Haddith, may or may not choose to prepare pork. Let's assume that for the sake of this discussion, the specific Muslim does not choose to prepare pork.

In this case, the person never prepares pork. The comparison would only apply if the person selectively chooses to prepare or not prepare pork.

In the case of the baker, they are selectively choosing to prepare their business product (wedding cake).

It is not valid to compare a business that never makes a product with one that selectively makes a product.

A more accurate comparison would be a baker who never makes wedding cakes. But that comparison would not make sense either.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Yeah.

And further thoughts on the subject: If I was a baker, I could not refuse service to a gay couple, because while I may object to gay marriage, I certainly cannot claim a legitimate religious objection.

If I did make a cake for them, I would go ahead and make a wonderful, delicious cake, because that's what being a professional means and despite my difference in opinion over gay stuff (mostly I object to hearing about it nonstop 24/7), they are both probably great people.

Yes, maybe they are great people. But does this mean they can demand you to do something in support of their wordview when that violates your world view? If they really were this great people - they would not demand this in the first from you.

So maybe they are not that two great people at all.

I know one thing. I would not go and insist that a Hindu should slaughter a cow and sell the meat to me. Nor would I demand a baker who is against gay marriage that he should make me a cake and write "Gay marriage is great" on it.

No. Probably no great people these two are indeed. I would avoid them. And probably by that woudk amke them going after me. Claiming a right to be loved by all, and a right that I must not avoid them.

Note, however, that I think the issue on the legal basis is far more profound than just the first amendment controversy as described in the NYT article. Its more profound for me, and nothing specifically American at all, but generally of importance everywhere. Can you go out there and claim that people having a business shall not be allowed to freely decide whether they agree to have you as a customer and make a deal with you, are they your submissive servants per se, even if no contract exists and no advance payment was paid, no contract exists? My answer to that is an unconditional "No". Like customers have the right of choosing which baker they buy at, bakers must have the right to choose their customers.

I do not want to dramatize this, but this once again is about freedom. That somebody chooses you - does not already give him claim for you. He can ask you, and you must be free to say "Yes", "Yes, if you..." or "No".

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You said you were of two minds over an issue, and I tried to describe that I think your position is self-contradictory there. There is no reason and argument supporting to be indifferent. So I described how crystal-clear the moral/legal situation imo really is: nobody can ever own somebody else and demand that the other must be up to his service (if he has not accepted payment in advance). It leaves no room for indifference, that profound I see my argument on that nobody has claim for somebody else's existence and that nobody has to live for the sake of somebody else.

Being of two minds is not indifference; it just means I have yet to make a definitive decision owing, for the most part, on not having what I consider all the related data on an issue; when I feel I can render a definitive, in my view, opinion on an issue I will; I just choose not to make a 'knee-jerk', unthinking reaction...

Not indifference, just considered, fairly thought-out, reflection on an issue...

...and, again for the last time, I never made or intended to make any assertion of a claim of someone 'owning' some one else, and, again, you have not provided evidence of your assertion of my intent; funny thing about intent: the only person who really knows some one else's intent is the person having an intent; external impression is just opinion and is often wrong...






<O>