If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Who would have thunk it? A well thought out court ruling on a cake maker refusing on religious grounds to make a wedding celebration cake for a gay couple . FARK - In California   ( bbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, superior court judge, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Supreme Court of the United States, free speech, Judge David Lampe, same-sex couples, bakery owner, Judge Lampe  
•       •       •

6999 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2018 at 12:06 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-02-07 08:23:33 PM  
That was kinda well thought out. The baker even offered to have a competitor bake the cake. Why the kerfluffle? Oh. Attention
 
2018-02-07 08:37:21 PM  
Why would you want an asshole like that to make you a wedding cake? Keep the money in the community. Your wedding shouldn't be a political protest.
 
2018-02-07 08:43:40 PM  
"very happy to serve everything from my cases to anybody", but she could not "be a part of a celebration that goes against my lord and saviour".

Then you shouldn't be in this business.
 
2018-02-07 08:47:37 PM  
Preparing the cake may be an act of self-expression.  (Or it might not.  Personally I think it's complete bullshiat to say baking a cake is protected by the First Amendment.)  Selling it is an act of commerce, and should be subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Also, waiting for the next case that says the baker has a religious objection to black people, or jews, or women.  And the case that allows an architect to discriminate against clients becauase they're whatever.  That's what they're really aiming for--to create a wholesale end-run around all anti-discrimination laws.  Because 'Murrrica and Freedum.
 
2018-02-07 08:48:20 PM  

WTFDYW: That was kinda well thought out. The baker even offered to have a competitor bake the cake. Why the kerfluffle? Oh. Attention


Nope, plaintiffs are not "doing it for attention". I have to respectfully say to you, WTFDYW, that your privilege is showing. Hear me out: For someone speaking from the dominant culture (in this case, the default "straight" world) it might be difficult for you to imagine yourself on the receiving end of a business owner saying to you, "yes, I open my business to the public, but I think your lifestyle is less important, or even defective, as compared to mine. So I am going to use my religion as an excuse to say that you are not equal to me. So I'm going to suggest you go to the baker down the street who, unlike me, sees you as an equal member of society." As a member of the non-dominant culture (gay) I can tell you that is soul-crushing. It's one of many small cuts and micro-aggressions to say that I am not a full member of society.

Now, granted, I would definitely prefer to go to the baker down the street because I would not want to support someone as prejudiced as the original baker. But that's not the point to this discussion.

Here's the point: The judge's ruling allows these straight bakers to use religious expression and artistic expression to view themselves as a "better" person than their gay/lesbian customers. This. Is. Wrong. This is NOT the makings of an egalitarian society.

The ruling may also allow service providers to refuse service to, say, interracial couples because it may conflict with the service provider's religious or artistic expression.

Also, should other business (florists? hotels? restaurants? carpet layers? builders?) be allowed to pick and choose their customers over similar reasons?

And, finally, do you want to live in a society where such discrimination is possible towards your friends or family members?
 
2018-02-07 08:50:46 PM  
"The state argued that the First Amendment did not apply since the couple had asked for a cake without a message."

This.
 
2018-02-07 08:50:50 PM  

Raoul Eaton: .... Selling it is an act of commerce, and should be subject to anti-discrimination laws...


Thank you, Raoul Eaton, you summed up my rant in one short sentence!
 
2018-02-07 08:54:11 PM  

whidbey: "very happy to serve everything from my cases to anybody", but she could not "be a part of a celebration that goes against my lord and saviour".

Then you shouldn't be in this business.


Indeed. If your religion makes you unable to do business in certain cases, you should reconsider your business ... and your religion.
 
2018-02-07 09:06:11 PM  
I never thought there were so many filthy bigots with bakeries. Who would have guessed?
 
2018-02-07 09:06:23 PM  
I guess I'll be the first to say that the "Christian" baker should provide biblical justification/citation that gays go against her "lord and savior" (Jesus Christ).
 
2018-02-07 09:06:59 PM  

Gordon Bennett: I never thought there were so many filthy bigots with bakeries. Who would have guessed?


Oh, no, it's just that "they" are "icky."
 
2018-02-07 09:07:22 PM  
If I can walk in, point to a cake in your catalog, and say "I'd like one of these on such and such date, please." then you should be required to sell it to me, because you'd sell it to anyone.

If I have to walk in, have a consultation, and you personally design a custom cake for me, then you can say 'I don't want to do business with you.'

This is the collision between commercial regulation and personal expression. One can sell one's personal expression, and you can't be compelled to speak or express yourself outside of a courtroom. A baker shouldn't be compelled to sell her creativity, but she can be compelled to sell her services. I draw a different distinction than the court does. A catalog of products or services on offer is functionally equivalent to a display case of products on offer. That the service has not been rendered yet is just as irrelevant as the fact the cake is sitting in the cooler rather than in the customer's hands.

A catalog or a shelf with products, and an 'Open' sign on the door says 'I will sell these items to any person who wants to buy them.'

I have always said that the way for these business owners to maintain their religious freedoms is to stop offering their services to the public. Take down the 'Open' sign, and put up one that says 'Members Only' or 'By Appointment'.

But they want all the benefits of being allowed to sell to the public without any of the responsibilities.

They want to have their cake and refuse to sell it too.
 
2018-02-07 09:07:52 PM  
"...citing the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation."
Also, was Scooby-Doo one of the lawmakers who wrote the legislation?
"Ruh-oh, Raggie! Re better not arow riscrimination against Rays and Resbians!"
 
2018-02-07 09:11:06 PM  
History will come to regard Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe's opinion much in the same way that a former Kern County Sheriff's approach to keeping public order was.
Robert Kennedy took on Kern County sheriff
Youtube G66myWragTg
 
2018-02-07 09:22:39 PM  

PirateKing: If I can walk in, point to a cake in your catalog, and say "I'd like one of these on such and such date, please." then you should be required to sell it to me, because you'd sell it to anyone.

If I have to walk in, have a consultation, and you personally design a custom cake for me, then you can say 'I don't want to do business with you.'

This is the collision between commercial regulation and personal expression. One can sell one's personal expression, and you can't be compelled to speak or express yourself outside of a courtroom. A baker shouldn't be compelled to sell her creativity, but she can be compelled to sell her services. I draw a different distinction than the court does. A catalog of products or services on offer is functionally equivalent to a display case of products on offer. That the service has not been rendered yet is just as irrelevant as the fact the cake is sitting in the cooler rather than in the customer's hands.

A catalog or a shelf with products, and an 'Open' sign on the door says 'I will sell these items to any person who wants to buy them.'

I have always said that the way for these business owners to maintain their religious freedoms is to stop offering their services to the public. Take down the 'Open' sign, and put up one that says 'Members Only' or 'By Appointment'.

But they want all the benefits of being allowed to sell to the public without any of the responsibilities.

They want to have their cake and refuse to sell it too.


I agree with your reasoning, as it harmonizes established law concerning custom contractors and anti-discrimination law for public accommodations as has been applied to other protected groups.  I don't care if the baker believes that Jesus hates teh Gay anymore than if she claimed he hated a given race, nationality, the handicapped, other religion etc. she's obligated to sell her standard stock in trade to the general public regardless.  She's not obligated to create something new on demand from a member of the public.
 
2018-02-07 09:24:36 PM  
Dammitalltohell. I knew I should have submitted this with reasoned jurisprudence to the left, reasoned opinion to the right.
 
2018-02-07 09:36:49 PM  

Wanebo: Dammitalltohell. I knew I should have submitted this with reasoned jurisprudence to the left, reasoned opinion to the right.


Can't win them all. Sometimes Fark is Funny, sometimes it's Smart. That's why we have just the two buttons, as we're never anything other than those exact two adjectives.
 
2018-02-07 11:24:47 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Soon.
 
2018-02-07 11:50:56 PM  
So you go in with your partner, look at the cakes, decide what cake you want, and then make up some excuse about not really being sure yet and you need more time. Step outside, step inside with your mom, and say you'd like cake #45.

How do you know someone's gay? What if I walk into cake store with my male roommate and ask for a cake? Do they assume we're gay?

Or how about this: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A GAY CAKE and instead of getting all up in people's business about who they are, just bake the farking cake.
 
2018-02-08 12:09:04 AM  
Sub-tard sounds insecure. What a whiney-ass headline in support of an obvious breach of civil rights.    There's no "reasonable" in being a bigot.  Period. End of f*cking story.
 
2018-02-08 12:12:26 AM  
Insofar as a wedding cake is an atistic creation, should an artist be compelled by law to be creative upon demand for any person, no matter how the lifestyle of that person seems to violate that artist's moral or religious sensibilities?

I don't think so.

/Plenty of other cake makers, attention-whoring folks.
//First world subcultural problems.
 
2018-02-08 12:12:38 AM  
The reason these cases are problematic is not just because of the cake.  It's the next case where it's an ambulance driver.
 
2018-02-08 12:14:08 AM  

PirateKing: If I can walk in, point to a cake in your catalog, and say "I'd like one of these on such and such date, please." then you should be required to sell it to me, because you'd sell it to anyone.

If I have to walk in, have a consultation, and you personally design a custom cake for me, then you can say 'I don't want to do business with you.'


This is a reasonable way of handling it.  How would people react if the case was about some white supremist asshole wanting a wedding cake with the confederate flag and swastikas?  In either case, there are arguments both for and against the right to refuse.
 
2018-02-08 12:16:08 AM  
I might be a little more inclined to respect the baker's position if they were also demanding proof from straight couples that they aren't committing adultery, and asking that nice couple holding hands if the woman is unclean at the moment, or any of the dozens of other biblical prohibitions they are guaranteed to be ignoring.

If you're following one part of the bible and not another, you're not religious, you're just a bigot.
 
2018-02-08 12:17:32 AM  

Gordon Bennett: I never thought there were so many filthy bigots with bakeries. Who would have guessed?


Well it's not like homeschooling and Bob Jones qualify you for a plethora of career options.
 
2018-02-08 12:17:59 AM  
Why the fark should anyone be compelled To do anything against their will by the state?

Yea yea lots of people don't want to pay thier taxes. But does anyone think the draft is such a good idea today?

Don't want to bake cakes for someone?  Don't there are plenty of bakeries. Just be sure to publicize why you were turned down. Or maybe the state can open up a socialist bakery.
 
2018-02-08 12:19:23 AM  

Te Ne Cede Malis: Why the fark should anyone be compelled To do anything against their will by the state?

Yea yea lots of people don't want to pay thier taxes. But does anyone think the draft is such a good idea today?

Don't want to bake cakes for someone?  Don't there are plenty of bakeries. Just be sure to publicize why you were turned down. Or maybe the state can open up a socialist bakery.


Like serve blacks at lunch counters?
Fark off.
 
2018-02-08 12:20:50 AM  

Earguy: Gordon Bennett: I never thought there were so many filthy bigots with bakeries. Who would have guessed?

Oh, no, it's just that "they" are "icky."


And you'd think bakers would be fine with a cream filling
 
2018-02-08 12:22:00 AM  

OgreMagi: PirateKing: If I can walk in, point to a cake in your catalog, and say "I'd like one of these on such and such date, please." then you should be required to sell it to me, because you'd sell it to anyone.

If I have to walk in, have a consultation, and you personally design a custom cake for me, then you can say 'I don't want to do business with you.'

This is a reasonable way of handling it.  How would people react if the case was about some white supremist asshole wanting a wedding cake with the confederate flag and swastikas?  In either case, there are arguments both for and against the right to refuse.


First, I can't believe any dumbass would smart this stupid ass post. I have to assume you have never bought a wedding cake. This is how it goes. These are the flavors we offer, here are your style choices, what day do you need that. The couple didn't ask for anything that the baker doesn't already provide. They didn't even want any text. Tell me again how doing excatly what you do every day is the same as doing something as unreleavent as you described. Aldo, tired as fark of this stupid strawman, I think this time we retired it permanently and shun idiots who go back to that well.
 
2018-02-08 12:24:45 AM  

Raoul Eaton: Preparing the cake may be an act of self-expression.  (Or it might not.  Personally I think it's complete bullshiat to say baking a cake is protected by the First Amendment.)  Selling it is an act of commerce, and should be subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Also, waiting for the next case that says the baker has a religious objection to black people, or jews, or women.  And the case that allows an architect to discriminate against clients becauase they're whatever.  That's what they're really aiming for--to create a wholesale end-run around all anti-discrimination laws.  Because 'Murrrica and Freedum.


That's exactly want I was thinking. Bake all the cakes you want for "self expression." Go nuts, it can be quite fun!

But as soon as you cross the line into operating a business open to the public, you kinda have to abide by those pesky anti-discrimination laws, or as I like to call them, "don't be an asshole" laws.
 
2018-02-08 12:26:52 AM  
C'mon people. The bakery cannot be forced to create an artistic expression that they don't agree with. I'm pretty sure that we could all agree that they would be within their rights to refuse to make a zombie cake or a cake made to the exact likenss of Christian Slater.
 
2018-02-08 12:28:35 AM  

SMOIT!: C'mon people. The bakery cannot be forced to create an artistic expression that they don't agree with. I'm pretty sure that we could all agree that they would be within their rights to refuse to make a zombie cake or a cake made to the exact likenss of Christian Slater.


How were they forced? The cake was blank. How you conduct the sale is not artistic expression.
 
2018-02-08 12:29:17 AM  
Substitute "interracial couple" for "gay couple".

Would you Libertarian/Fark Independent/Randian goat-farkers defending Bigots R Us not sound like racist shiatbags? Yup, you would.
 
2018-02-08 12:30:44 AM  

OgreMagi: PirateKing: If I can walk in, point to a cake in your catalog, and say "I'd like one of these on such and such date, please." then you should be required to sell it to me, because you'd sell it to anyone.

If I have to walk in, have a consultation, and you personally design a custom cake for me, then you can say 'I don't want to do business with you.'

This is a reasonable way of handling it.  How would people react if the case was about some white supremist asshole wanting a wedding cake with the confederate flag and swastikas?  In either case, there are arguments both for and against the right to refuse.


I see what you're getting at, but I think even in your example most bakers would just sell the nazi the damn cake. Maybe even without spitting in it first.

We're talking about spreading some icing around on someone's dessert, not sculpting a monument or composing an aria.
 
2018-02-08 12:31:11 AM  

SoupGuru: How do you know someone's gay? What if I walk into cake store with my male roommate and ask for a cake? Do they assume we're gay?


Exactly. This was going to be my question. What if someone stereotypically gay (or not) walks into a bakery and orders a birthday cake. Do they (or anyone for that matter) have to prove they are straight, or that they are buying a cake for a straight person? Surely people boneheaded enough to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake would also balk at baking a cake for any gay person.

This whole thing is ridiculous and I can't wait for the Supreme Court to smack this stupid ruling down.
 
2018-02-08 12:32:55 AM  

Te Ne Cede Malis: Why the fark should anyone be compelled To do anything against their will by the state?

Yea yea lots of people don't want to pay thier taxes. But does anyone think the draft is such a good idea today?

Don't want to bake cakes for someone?  Don't there are plenty of bakeries. Just be sure to publicize why you were turned down. Or maybe the state can open up a socialist bakery.


Since the late 30s, the US gov't has had the power to regulate commerce pretty much locked down. What they don't have, the states, counties, and municipalities do.

We all agree to this, on the whole, since it's beneficial for everyone for businesses to be regulated in various ways.

You wouldn't object to the same bakery being shut down or fined for violation of health code, or employment code, or tax code, or the ADA, or city business licensing, or farking parking enforcement, yet suddenly when it's anti-discrimination all of the sudden the laws can go fark themselves.

The choices between 'offering services to the public' and 'offering services to those my religion allows me too' are not fully overlapping venn diagrams. You have to pick one or the other, and you make that choice when you open the business, not when you're suddenly made uncomfortable in your moral underpants by a particularly fetching same sex couple.
 
2018-02-08 12:32:58 AM  

ImpendingCynic: SMOIT!: C'mon people. The bakery cannot be forced to create an artistic expression that they don't agree with. I'm pretty sure that we could all agree that they would be within their rights to refuse to make a zombie cake or a cake made to the exact likenss of Christian Slater.

How were they forced? The cake was blank. How you conduct the sale is not artistic expression.


That' not how I rememer this story.
 
2018-02-08 12:33:47 AM  
The term "micro-aggression" should be unmercifully stamped out of the English language.

Who the hell came up with it anyway?
 
2018-02-08 12:36:45 AM  

Hickory-smoked: OgreMagi: PirateKing: If I can walk in, point to a cake in your catalog, and say "I'd like one of these on such and such date, please." then you should be required to sell it to me, because you'd sell it to anyone.

If I have to walk in, have a consultation, and you personally design a custom cake for me, then you can say 'I don't want to do business with you.'

This is a reasonable way of handling it.  How would people react if the case was about some white supremist asshole wanting a wedding cake with the confederate flag and swastikas?  In either case, there are arguments both for and against the right to refuse.

I see what you're getting at, but I think even in your example most bakers would just sell the nazi the damn cake. Maybe even without spitting in it first.

We're talking about spreading some icing around on someone's dessert, not sculpting a monument or composing an aria.


Well, and
1. The bakery already bakes wedding cakes, and not(that we know of) Nazi cakes

2. Comaparing gay people wanting equal services in the public marketplace to white supremacists is pretty farking low, and sick to death of this shiat.

Also, The roads fire department, police department, etc, that make the cake shop accessible and keep it safe are paid for by taxes collected from ALL the public. Including the LGBT people she loathes. This is why businesses have to serve everyone of they are open to THE PUBLIC

sigh. This is a clear violation of Unruh, and will be reversed if it hits the California supreme court. But by then the SCOTUS case will have trumped it, and LGBT people get a little more second class.
 
2018-02-08 12:37:46 AM  
If the government issues you a permit to run your business, you should not get to discriminate based on your flawed misinterpretation of your own religion.  Imagine how pissed Christians would be if they were denied service by businesses owned by people of other religions.
 
2018-02-08 12:38:36 AM  
I must assume that anyone who believes that the ruling is appropriate also believes that a business owner who claims a sincere belief that God intended the races to remain separate should be free to refuse service to interracial couples because otherwise the would be a Constitution-hating hypocrite.
 
2018-02-08 12:40:59 AM  

Dimensio: I must assume that anyone who believes that the ruling is appropriate also believes that a business owner who claims a sincere belief that God intended the races to remain separate should be free to refuse service to interracial couples because otherwise the would be a Constitution-hating hypocrite.


That's precisely what this and similar cases opens up.

Bigots gonna bigot.
 
2018-02-08 12:43:11 AM  

Eclectic: Dimensio: I must assume that anyone who believes that the ruling is appropriate also believes that a business owner who claims a sincere belief that God intended the races to remain separate should be free to refuse service to interracial couples because otherwise the would be a Constitution-hating hypocrite.

That's precisely what this and similar cases opens up.

Bigots gonna bigot.


I have been assured by some that the case of discrimination on the basis of race is different because the Bible does not allow for racial discrimination and only religious beliefs based upon their specific interpretation of the Bible are subject to any Constitutional protection.
 
2018-02-08 12:43:42 AM  

Dimensio: I must assume that anyone who believes that the ruling is appropriate also believes that a business owner who claims a sincere belief that God intended the races to remain separate should be free to refuse service to interracial couples because otherwise the would be a Constitution-hating hypocrite.


"Here at the Coffee Hut, our baristas's foam designs are artistic expressions, and since the owner truly belives african americans bear the curse of Ham, find another coffee shop"

/coming soon
 
2018-02-08 12:44:39 AM  
Interesting angle! My devil's advocate situation is this: What if some Christian troll finds a Muslim baker and asks them to make a cake shaped like a pig? Should the Muslim baker be allowed to refuse?
 
2018-02-08 12:44:44 AM  

SomeFarkinFarmgirl: If the government issues you a permit to run your business, you should not get to discriminate based on your flawed misinterpretation of your own religion.  Imagine how pissed Christians would be if they were denied service by businesses owned by people of other religions.


/best Apu voice

No! You cannot snap into a Slim Jim here! Now leave here! Thank you! Come again!
//best Apu voice
 
2018-02-08 12:45:15 AM  

Kittypie070: The term "micro-aggression" should be unmercifully stamped out of the English language.

Who the hell came up with it anyway?


I agree, I think we can find a much more annoying term. How about nano-negging or milli-molestation?
 
2018-02-08 12:45:49 AM  

spamdog: Interesting angle! My devil's advocate situation is this: What if some Christian troll finds a Muslim baker and asks them to make a cake shaped like a pig? Should the Muslim baker be allowed to refuse?


Does the muslim bakery ALREADY FARKING MAKE PIG SHAPED CAKES? Then bake the farking  cake.
 
2018-02-08 12:47:16 AM  

Eclectic: Does the muslim bakery ALREADY FARKING MAKE PIG SHAPED CAKES? Then bake the farking  cake.


Settle down beavis. No the Muslim baker does not already make pig cakes, lol.
 
2018-02-08 12:48:01 AM  

Gordon Bennett: I never thought there were so many filthy bigots with bakeries. Who would have guessed?


Sadly, filthy bigots are everywhere. About 0.1% of them are bakers, same as with sane people.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report