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.
When a person walks into a public business that sells cakes, they should be able to buy a cake.
Very simple.
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.
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 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.
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.Baker Silva refused to sell her customer the cake that said customer ordered but was willing to sell said customer other baked goods.
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.When you get down to it, the two cases are the same and you and others are turning a blind eye to that fact.
Baker Silva did NOT refuse to bake or sell a cake so your example fails right there.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.
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.I think you'd still be going after him for holding true to his religious convictions.
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.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.
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...
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.
I'm well aware of that, however the key part to remember here is that discrimination can go both ways.
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.
It is rather actually rather easy to counter your argument of the two cases being different.
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...
What evidence do you have that Phillips was willing to sell other cakes and baked good for use in a gay wedding?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
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.
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.
So far the only distinction you are making is the baker you are supporting is taking a stance you agree with.
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.
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
Your arguments are not convincing Garfield.
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.
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 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.
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.
OP link said:“‘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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?