Colorado Baker accused of discrimination -- wouldn't make anti-gay wedding cake

[GarfieldJL]

When a person walks into an auto parts store to buy an oil filter, they would expect the business to sell them an oil filter and not settle for a fuel filter.

An oil filter is a generic off-the shelf part that is mass-produced in a factory. Custom baked goods are made by hand to the specifications of the customer.

Seriously if you're that attached to oil-filters and fuel filters sold in your store you need professional help.

It is on the other hand more common for people to have some emotional stake in something that they make by hand.

 

[bhsmte]

An oil filter is a generic off-the shelf part that is mass-produced in a factory. Custom baked goods are made by hand to the specifications of the customer.

Seriously if you're that attached to oil-filters and fuel filters sold in your store you need professional help.

It is on the other hand more common for people to have some emotional stake in something that they make by hand.

When a person walks into a public business that sells cakes, they should be able to buy a cake.

Very simple.

 

[GarfieldJL]

When a person walks into a public business that sells cakes, they should be able to buy a cake.

Very simple.

Except we're not dealing with a public business, both cases involve privately owned businesses.

There is a pretty big difference between a public business and a private business...

 

[NotreDame]

Baker Philips refused to sell a wedding cake to the Customer because of what said cake would be used for. He was perfectly willing to sell those same customers other baked goods.

Baker Silva refused to sell her customer the cake that said customer ordered but was willing to sell said customer other baked goods.

When you get down to it, the two cases are the same and you and others are turning a blind eye to that fact.

Garfield really this is rather simple. In order to violate the public accommodation law requires A.) The customer has some characteristic B.) The characteristic is protected under public accommodation law C.) Refused service to a customer and D.) Refusal of service was based some characteristic of the customer in which said characteristic is protected by public accommodation law. All 4, A-D, must be present for a violation of public accommodation law. Anyone of the 4 found to be lacking is sufficient to avoid violating the public accommodation law.

Ok, so baker Silva didn't refuse service as baker Silva indeed made the cake for the customer, so it isn't even clear baker Silva violated letter C.) Let's assume letter C is satisfied (I am assuming she refused service for sake of argument but I am not conceding this point and indeed I disagree baker Silva did refuse service).

Focusing upon letter D, it is apparent letter D is lacking. Baker Silva did not refuse service (refuse to place customer's message on the cake) on the basis of or because of some characteristic of the customer in which said characteristic is protected by public accommodation law but rather baker Silva refused service (refused to place message on cake) on the basis of the content of the message, specifically her ideological disagreement with the content of the speech to be placed on the cake was the basis for her conduct. Hence, baker Silva's motivation, her intent, her justification and reason for refusing service (specifically refusing to put the message on the cake) was the content of the message and not because of any characteristic of the customer and in addition not because of any characteristic of the customer protected by public accommodation law.

Baker Phillips' violated all 4. Baker Phillips refused service for any and all same sex weddings. The reason, the justification and basis for baker Phillips' refusal was his religious belief same sex marriage is wrong. The two customers, being the same sex and getting married, renders Phillips refusal as predicated upon a characteristic they share, a characteristic they have of being a same sex couple getting married. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected under public accommodation law, the couple is a same sex couple, and their characteristic as being a same sex couple is protected as sexual orientation under the public accommodation law. So, all 4 letters are present in regards to baker Phillips.

So, the two baker examples are not the same. Two elements are missing in regards to baker Silva but all 4 elements are present in regards to baker Phillips.

 

[DaisyDay]

Baker Philips refused to sell a wedding cake to the Customer because of what said cake would be used for. He was perfectly willing to sell those same customers other baked goods.

No, he refused to sell the wedding cake to the customers because they were gay. He was willing to sell the same cake to other customers who were not gay. His basis for refusal was the customer, not the cake.

Baker Silva refused to sell her customer the cake that said customer ordered but was willing to sell said customer other baked goods.

That's not true - baker Silva agreed to sell the customer the cake, any cake she made, to any customer, but would not write the hate message on it herself. Her basis for refusal was the message, not the customer and not the cake. The bases are fundamentally different.

When you get down to it, the two cases are the same and you and others are turning a blind eye to that fact.

No, in one case the customer was refused, in the other, the message was refused. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of class of person, but not illegal to discriminate because of a written message.

Okay let's say that some other customer had approached Baker Philips and asked him to bake the cake that Baker Silva had refused to bake, and he also refused because he thought the message was hateful and out of line. However he also refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Baker Silva did NOT refuse to bake or sell a cake so your example fails right there.

I think you'd still be going after him for holding true to his religious convictions.

I haven't gone after anyone, but I agree with the courts that baker Philips illegally discriminated against the customer because the customer was gay. Should baker Philips refuse to write a message on a cake, that is his prerogative. I don't care about his religious convictions provided he doesn't use them as an excuse to illegally discriminate.

Neither baker was willing to fulfill the order given by their respective customers. You can argue she was willing to bake a cake till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that she wasn't willing to bake the cake to her customer's specifications.

The facts are that baker Silva WAS willing to sell ANY cake in her store to ANY customer - she was also unwilling to write THAT message FOR ANY customer.

I think I see your problem here - you don't see the difference between a "person" and a "message". If you could distinguish between those two very different concepts, you might be able to understand the difference in these two cases.

 

[Cute Tink]

Except we're not dealing with a public business, both cases involve privately owned businesses.

There is a pretty big difference between a public business and a private business...

And now back to the very beginnings of this to correct this misconception again?

This business is privately owned, but operates as a public accommodation. That's a legal distinction and is simply a fact.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Garfield really this is rather simple. In order to violate the public accommodation law requires A.) The customer has some characteristic B.) The characteristic is protected under public accommodation law C.) Refused service to a customer and D.) Refusal of service was based some characteristic of the customer in which said characteristic is protected by public accommodation law. All 4, A-D, must be present for a violation of public accommodation law. Anyone of the 4 found to be lacking is sufficient to avoid violating the public accommodation law.

I'm well aware of that, however the key part to remember here is that discrimination can go both ways.

Ok, so baker Silva didn't refuse service as baker Silva indeed made the cake for the customer, so it isn't even clear baker Silva violated letter C.) Let's assume letter C is satisfied (I am assuming she refused service for sake of argument but I am not conceding this point and indeed I disagree baker Silva did refuse service).

She wasn't willing to sell the product that the customer requested. The fact she was willing to sell some other substitute product doesn't change the fact she's essentially violating letter C. Remember Philips was perfectly willing to sell other baked goods to the customers (even cakes), just not a wedding cake for use in a gay wedding... So either letter C has been violated in both cases or it was not violated in either case.

Focusing upon letter D, it is apparent letter D is lacking. Baker Silva did not refuse service (refuse to place customer's message on the cake) on the basis of or because of some characteristic of the customer in which said characteristic is protected by public accommodation law but rather baker Silva refused service (refused to place message on cake) on the basis of the content of the message, specifically her ideological disagreement with the content of the speech to be placed on the cake was the basis for her conduct. Hence, baker Silva's motivation, her intent, her justification and reason for refusing service (specifically refusing to put the message on the cake) was the content of the message and not because of any characteristic of the customer and in addition not because of any characteristic of the customer protected by public accommodation law.

Actually you can argue she did violate letter D, because she didn't want to fill the order because of the customer's political persuasion.

Baker Phillips' violated all 4. Baker Phillips refused service for any and all same sex weddings. The reason, the justification and basis for baker Phillips' refusal was his religious belief same sex marriage is wrong. The two customers, being the same sex and getting married, renders Phillips refusal as predicated upon a characteristic they share, a characteristic they have of being a same sex couple getting married. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected under public accommodation law, the couple is a same sex couple, and their characteristic as being a same sex couple is protected as sexual orientation under the public accommodation law. So, all 4 letters are present in regards to baker Phillips.

Just as Silva would refuse to bake any cake that would contain a message speaking out against gay marriage... So she is in effect discriminating against anyone that disapproves of gay marriage that isn't going to live their lives in fear of retailiation from the supporters of gay marriage.

So, the two baker examples are not the same. Two elements are missing in regards to baker Silva but all 4 elements are present in regards to baker Phillips.

It is rather actually rather easy to counter your argument of the two cases being different.

 

[Cute Tink]

I'm well aware of that, however the key part to remember here is that discrimination can go both ways.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the customer cannot illegally discriminate against the baker in these cases, because the customer is not operating a public accommodation.

Actually you can argue she did violate letter D, because she didn't want to fill the order because of the customer's political persuasion.

No. This is factually incorrect. The customer's political persuasion was completely irrelevant to the case. She wouldn't write that message for any customer with any political persuasion.

It is rather actually rather easy to counter your argument of the two cases being different.

Except you haven't yet, even though your arguments contain facts that aren't even a part of the cases.

 

[bhsmte]

Except we're not dealing with a public business, both cases involve privately owned businesses.

There is a pretty big difference between a public business and a private business...

Still on that one huh?

Most businesses are privately owned, would you agree?

One small point though, do they open their door to the public and become a public accommodating business?

That is all that matters, when it comes to the law. I am quite sure though, someone will try that argument again though.

 

[DaisyDay]

Remember Philips was perfectly willing to sell other baked goods to the customers (even cakes), just not a wedding cake for use in a gay wedding

What evidence do you have that Phillips was willing to sell other cakes and baked good for use in a gay wedding?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Still on that one huh?

Most businesses are privately owned, would you agree?

One small point though, do they open their door to the public and become a public accommodating business?

That is all that matters, when it comes to the law. I am quite sure though, someone will try that argument again though.

So you're saying that a person surrenders their 1st Amendment rights if they try to earn a living...

Look I could easily use your argument against the baker you are supporting, you realize that fact, don't you?

 

[bhsmte]

So you're saying that a person surrenders their 1st Amendment rights if they try to earn a living...

Look I could easily use your argument against the baker you are supporting, you realize that fact, don't you?

Nope, those rights are still there, with limits of course.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Nope, those rights are still there, with limits of course.

So far the only distinction you are making is the baker you are supporting is taking a stance you agree with.

 

[Cute Tink]

So far the only distinction you are making is the baker you are supporting is taking a stance you agree with.

Your arguments are not convincing Garfield.

This "private business" argument has already been tried and failed. All it shows is ignorance of how businesses work. It has been covered before.

The return to unsupported accusations of why people have their positions simply shows a lack of argument.

FYI, you can have a private business that isn't a public accommodation. You might remember that point from all the times it's been stated in these discussions.

 

[bhsmte]

So far the only distinction you are making is the baker you are supporting is taking a stance you agree with.

Nope.

The baker who refused to write the hate speech on the cake, was willing to sell the person the bible shaped cake, just not write the hateful words. Since the baker made that judgment independent of the person's traits (religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.) they did not discriminate against that person. The key here is, they were willing to sell them the cake they asked for, without the hate speech.

In the other case, the Christian baker, refused to sell the gay couple a cake, period.

Hope that clears it up, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[NotreDame]

Just as Silva would refuse to bake any cake that would contain a message speaking out against gay marriage... So she is in effect discriminating against anyone that disapproves of gay marriage that isn't going to live their lives in fear of retailiation from the supporters of gay marriage.

It is rather actually rather easy to counter your argument of the two cases being different.

Actually you can argue she did violate letter D, because she didn't want to fill the order because of the customer's political persuasion.

No, quite simply this statement is not supported by the facts but is contradicted by the facts. The facts demonstrate baker Silva did not put the message on the cake, or as you call it refused service, on the basis of the message and not because of the customer's political persuasion. You are not entitled to your own facts man.

Just as Silva would refuse to bake any cake that would contain a message speaking out against gay marriage... So she is in effect discriminating against anyone that disapproves of gay marriage that isn't going to live their lives in fear of retailiation from the supporters of gay marriage.

No, this is speculative. First, it isn't at all clear Silva wouldn't bake "any cake that would contain a message speaking out against gay marriage." Her objection to the customer's message was the nature and manner in which the customer's disapproval of same sex marriage was expressed. In her view the customer's message was "discriminatory and hateful." She may have put a message on a cake speaking against same sex marriage when the message was expressed tactfully.

Second, your statement above is disapproval on the basis of the content of the message, the ideology of the message, as opposed to the characteristic of the customer. This is a difference your position has failed to take into consideration in post after post. This is a difference completely weakening your argument.

Third, Silva would provide a cake to the customer, which isn't refusal of service to a customer wanting a cake, but her refusal is to place a message on the cake because of the message itself. So customers opposed to same sex marriage may still obtain a cake from her, which demonstrates she isn't discriminating on the basis of their political persuasion. What she isn't willing to do is place what she views as an offensive message on the cake, i.e she is refusing to write the message based on the content of the message, in particular its offensive quality.

It is rather actually rather easy to counter your argument of the two cases being different

You haven't done it, you haven't countered my argument, not in this post for reasons I just noted or in any preceding post. So apparently it is hard to refute my argument than you think.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Your arguments are not convincing Garfield.

The fact my arguments are not convincing to you doesn't mean they aren't convincing to others.

It should be pointed out you had already made up your mind concerning this, just like I've made up my mind on this issue.

It would be extraordinarily difficult for you to come up with an argument that would be convincing to me, and vice-versa.

The baker who refused to write the hate speech on the cake, was willing to sell the person the bible shaped cake, just not write the hateful words. Since the baker made that judgment independent of the person's traits (religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.) they did not discriminate against that person. The key here is, they were willing to sell them the cake they asked for, without the hate speech.

In the other case, the Christian baker, refused to sell the gay couple a cake, period.

Actually you just proved my point. The fact the customer is taking a stance you disagree is why you rush to label it hate speech in order to justify what the baker that you agree with did.

My stance is either both bakers should have had their 1st Amendment rights respected or both should face the same consequences.

I would prefer that both bakers have their 1st Amendment rights respected.

 

[bhsmte]

The fact my arguments are not convincing to you doesn't mean they aren't convincing to others.

It should be pointed out you had already made up your mind concerning this, just like I've made up my mind on this issue.

It would be extraordinarily difficult for you to come up with an argument that would be convincing to me, and vice-versa.

If your arguments are convincing, someone should put them down on a legal pleading and present them to a judge and get these pesky laws off the books.

 

[Cute Tink]

The fact my arguments are not convincing to you doesn't mean they aren't convincing to others.

I should have been clear - by "not convincing" I mean they have no grounding in law or the facts of the cases.

It should be pointed out you had already made up your mind concerning this, just like I've made up my mind on this issue.

Yes, but I made up my mind based on the facts of the cases and the applicable laws. Your arguments have variously presented a lack of understanding of the laws (private business statements), a lack of understanding of the facts of the cases (regarding the nature of the denial in this case), a willingness to create new facts not presented in the case (that the customer was denied for political persuasion) and a desire that some people's arguments be something other than it is (double standards).

It would be extraordinarily difficult for you to come up with an argument that would be convincing to me, and vice-versa.

I'm sorry that the facts of the cases don't speak for themselves.

Actually you just proved my point. The fact the customer is taking a stance you disagree is why you rush to label it hate speech in order to justify what the baker that you agree with did.

For the record, the baker in this case was the first to call this speech "hateful":

“‘We’re not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.’”

My stance is either both bakers should have had their 1st Amendment rights respected or both should face the same consequences.

I would prefer that both bakers have their 1st Amendment rights respected.

These statements are still predicated on the mistaken belief that the cases are same and therefore should be judged the same.

 

[GarfieldJL]

If your arguments are convincing, someone should put them down on a legal pleading and present them to a judge and get these pesky laws off the books.

I've already said I have very little faith in the legal system since the Obamacare ruling.

I believe an objective individual would find my arguments to have merit, but there seem to be very few people these days that can maintain objectivity on hot-button subject matters.

It should be noted that this discrimination was also predicted and those on the left called those that predicted it to be homophobes. Well looks more like they either understood human nature better than those on the left, or those on the left were in favor of Christains (particularly Conservative Christians) being discriminated against.