The Off Topic Topic

[Barrister]

The gay couple in question just wanted a plain wedding cake (after all - who writes messages on a wedding cake).  The baker in question said he didn't support gay marriage and thus declined to make them a wedding cake - though he said sell them any other baked goods they might want.

Ah. So what was Eddie talking about?

They should have just said it was a birthday cake and the theme of the birthday party was marriage.

Or they could just as easily have said it was for a hetero marriage.  But the gay couple, just as much as the baker, were looking to make a statement.

I don't know the details of their interactions, but is this really fair?

Is it "looking to make a statement", merely to act normally and not lie about who you are?

There's nothing pejorative about "making a statement".  If it's a cause you believe in many of us would want to "make a statement".

In this case, after being denied service for their wedding cake, I imagine many people would just grumble and move on to another baker.  Launching a formal discrimination complaint I think qualifies as "making a statement".

[alfred russel]

I think you and BB are missing the point.  That was clear cut denial of a service generally available to the public based on sexual orientation.  Are you proposing that the best remedy for that breach is simply to move along?

I'm not missing the point. The effort to obtain the remedy is not worth the actual remedy. Unless you are out to make a point.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, if the service he provided to the public was selling wedding cakes with bible verses he would likely be fine. 

We have an amendment protecting freedom of speech.

[Malthus]

There's nothing pejorative about "making a statement".  If it's a cause you believe in many of us would want to "make a statement".

In this case, after being denied service for their wedding cake, I imagine many people would just grumble and move on to another baker.  Launching a formal discrimination complaint I think qualifies as "making a statement".

Yes, but it isn't I think a fair or accurate description of the act of seeking to order a cake for your own event, and not lying about what that event was.

I mean, it may have been, if they deliberately sought out some hardcore Christian baker, marched in wearing matching leather-daddy outfits chanting "we're here, we're queer, sell us a cake with a topper of me "topping" Kevin on top, and make it hardcore!" 

I agree that making a case of it is "seeking to make a statement". But as I said before -- that's a different decision point, after they were denied service. 

[Malthus]

Actually, this reminds me of decades ago working for my mother, making elephant sculptures - we did more than one with a "hardcore gay" theme (elephants in S&M outfits brandishing paddles in their trunks, that sort of thing).

My mom got a huge kick out of making those. 

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, if the service he provided to the public was selling wedding cakes with bible verses he would likely be fine. 

We have an amendment protecting freedom of speech.

And in that state there is a statute with is constitutionally valid that prohibits the denial of a service generally available to the public on the basis of sexual orientation.  So what is your point?

[derspiess]

They also never knew the baker would refuse their service (I presume).

Something tells me they knew exactly what would happen. 

[crazy canuck]

They also never knew the baker would refuse their service (I presume).

Something tells me they knew exactly what would happen.

Based on?

[Valmy]

They also never knew the baker would refuse their service (I presume).

Something tells me they knew exactly what would happen. 

Certainly could be. Maybe this bakery is the Hobby Lobby of bakeries and they wanted to make an example of them. Though I hope they provide better service than freaking Hobby Lobby does. Screw them and their fucking up my framing job over and over again and still making me pay for it God is clearly not on Hobby Lobby's side.

In any case it looks like in the great war to treat people like shit and use religion as a weak-sauce disingenuous excuse this case is probably a draw.

[Barrister]

They also never knew the baker would refuse their service (I presume).

Something tells me they knew exactly what would happen.

I think you're projecting.  I am by no means an expert on this case, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that.

[Jacob]

They also never knew the baker would refuse their service (I presume).

Something tells me they knew exactly what would happen.

They should have known the baker was a bigot?

[alfred russel]

Yeah, if the service he provided to the public was selling wedding cakes with bible verses he would likely be fine. 

We have an amendment protecting freedom of speech.

And in that state there is a statute with is constitutionally valid that prohibits the denial of a service generally available to the public on the basis of sexual orientation.  So what is your point?

A state statute isn't going to be able to override a federal constitutional right.

[derspiess]

They also never knew the baker would refuse their service (I presume).

Something tells me they knew exactly what would happen.

Based on?

Cynicism.

[Eddie Teach]

The gay couple in question just wanted a plain wedding cake (after all - who writes messages on a wedding cake).  The baker in question said he didn't support gay marriage and thus declined to make them a wedding cake - though he said sell them any other baked goods they might want.

Ah. So what was Eddie talking about?

My mistake. I thought the story was he'd sell them a cake but not customize it.

[Barrister]

In any case it looks like in the great war to treat people like shit and use religion as a weak-sauce disingenuous excuse this case is probably a draw.

YOu know, that's exactly the sentiment that sunk the civil rights commission on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case - that the commissioners just automatically assumed any opposition to gay marriage citing religion was disingenuous.