End of baker story. Bakery will have to pay same-sex couple up to $150K

[SMOGZINN]

This "sufficiency of quality" may affect the price of a product depending on the added time and cost it may require to satisfy the customers' needs. I wonder if this reasoning could be used to legally discriminate against a customer.-

And if the bakery had been smart and upped their prices by $20 when they suspected it was a SSM to make them a little less competitive, and while it would still be illegal, and they might still have to occasionally make SSM wedding cakes, they would probably have gotten away with it.

Also, in the sense that it (arguably) is the provider's right to charge whatever they see fit for a product and that the customer can then decide whether the price being asked is worth the value the provider sees in their product, would it pass the test of litigation if the provider justified the cost of their product based on the provider's feeling that "well, at that moment in time, based on what I thought the customer was asking for, that's what I wanted to charge the customer. If they didn't like the deal, so be it".

No, this is specifically disallowed in public accommodation laws. And the entire concept that business can charge whatever they want for a product or service is not true, there are all sorts of laws that disallow businesses to unfairly price products based on circumstance.

From a real world point of view, if I went to a bakery and I got the feeling that they really didn't want to service me for some reason, I'd definitely go somewhere else as I wouldn't trust them to provide for me the level of service I expect AND I'd surely consider the possibility that there may be extra "no-added-cost" ingredients added to the standard recipe of said cake that may not get me sick but would gag the hell out of me if I knew what they were.

This is because you live in a bubble of privilege. You can assume that almost any business you go into wants your business. You can be fairly certain that no matter where you go you will be able to easily find a business that will cater to you. You don't have to worry that you will be refused service that anyone else in a community can receive simple because of who you are. And sure, in the bigger cities it is easy to find a business that will cater to a gay couple, but try that in small town Texas and you might not be so lucky. It is for those gay couples living in such communities that this fight is necessary.

Edit: Also, if you refuse to provide service you will get sued, screw with the food in the ways you are hinting with and get caught, you go to jail.

Not unless the couple were stupid enough to not incorporate. And would you really support truly bankrupting people over this transgression? Isnt losing their business enough?

Actually, the ruling is enough. No one needs to take anything from the bakery or it's owners except of course that lawyers are involved and will want to get paid.

 

[alzan]

Not unless the couple were stupid enough to not incorporate. And would you support truly bankrupting people over this transgression? Isnt losing their business enough?

Well the bakery owners never seemed like the brightest bulbs in the drawer when the story first broke.

Bankrupting them? No. More like a modest fine and a small punitive damage amount which would both go a long way to spreading the "if you run a public accommodation business you serve all the public" message.

Did they lose their business because of actions by the original SSM couple, their LGBT and straight friends or did they simply close up shop because of negative publicity? If the former, good for the protesters; if the latter then it was a personal choice. Either way it all could have been avoided by the bakers simply honoring the original SSM couples' request.

 

[Retro Rob]

If I owned a bakery, I'd sell them a cake. If Lisa and Mary want me to write a congratulatory message that conflicts with my own beliefs, I'd tell them to get that done elsewhere, just as I would a religious fanatic who asked me to write "God hates f*gs" on their cake.

 

[nickqt]

If this man think that gay-marriages are wrong - it's his own opinion and if he thinks like that, it means that nobody proof him wrong!
It's OPINION and it can be different and in this situation, minority infringe on the rights of majority!

Someone can hate himself some gay people all day long. He doesn't have a right to walk into a business and have something written on a cake that the business doesn't want to write on that cake. He can still purchase a cake, though, as long as he isn't disrupting the business.

Your freedom of speech doesn't extend into making someone else say what you want them to say.

I disagree with the second part except for instances where there are obvious grounds (obscenities, incitements to violence, etc.). Otherwise, what's to prevent a TV network from prohibiting adverts from the political party it opposes? Or the print shop to refuse to make signs for someone because they have pro/anti-abortion messages?

Presuming the "speech" involved meets community decency standards, I strongly oppose giving business owners the right to refuse to perform customization services otherwise commonly available to all clients generally, if that refusal is based solely upon personal disagreement with its content. Whether that's "Happy Wedding Adam and Steve" or "Gay Marriage is wrong" should both not be grounds for refusal of services.

TV is considered (to some extent) a public forum.

I can understand a baker not wanting to write "Gay people are X" on a cake, regardless if they are gay or straight. I wouldn't write it on a cake, and I'm straight. I can't understand being in the business of selling cakes, and not selling someone a cake, because you don't like gay people.

Never mind the bigotry. It's just bad business.

 

[smackababy]

Someone can hate himself some gay people all day long. He doesn't have a right to walk into a business and have something written on a cake that the business doesn't want to write on that cake. He can still purchase a cake, though, as long as he isn't disrupting the business.

Your freedom of speech doesn't extend into making someone else say what you want them to say.


TV is considered (to some extent) a public forum.

I can understand a baker not wanting to write "Gay people are X" on a cake, regardless if they are gay or straight. I wouldn't write it on a cake, and I'm straight. I can't understand being in the business of selling cakes, and not selling someone a cake, because you don't like gay people.

Never mind the bigotry. It's just bad business.

Haven't you heard? Gay dollars aren't as much as straight dollars. In fact, they are only worth about 3/5ths.

Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar...

 

[1prophet]

The solution for those that want to protect their religious beliefs but avoid discrimination lawsuits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duXFIKswTOM

http://www.thekitchn.com/video-watch-a-cookiebaking-rob-153189




Video: Watch a Cookie-Baking Robot in Action




What's even better than a homemade chocolate chip cookie? A homemade chocolate chip cookie made by a robot.
A team at MIT is developing a robot baker able to bake a batch of cookies from scratch. See the robot in action below!
Wearing a chef's toque and dental gown, the baking bot uses a laser scanner and camera to locate the cookie sheet and butter before finding the other ingredients by color and size. The robot then creams the butter and sugar, mixes in the remaining ingredients, and pours the clump of dough into a cake pan for baking.
A team of undergraduates is currently working on programming the robot to clean up its workspace before and after baking. Even better!

 

[Smoblikat]

Up to $150,000. I highly doubt it will be anywhere near that amount.

Also, I think there's a slight difference between not baking a cake for a couple because they are gay, and not baking a cake that says "gay marriage is wrong".

Free speech is free speech, I fail to see how one is different than the other.

Also, since when is it the governments job to force private entities to perform services they dont willingly wish to perform?

 

[Matt1970]

I never understood this. I have gay customers and their money spends just like anyone else's. Denying yourself extra profit to make some kind of point? Ya, I guess you really showed them.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Also, since when is it the governments job to force private entities to perform services they dont willingly wish to perform?

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 with the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) as its legal basis. Businesses classified as public accommodations cannot discriminate against protected classes, which homosexuals happen to be in the State of Washington Oregon where this business was operating. Also, governments have been forcing private entities to perform services they don't wish to perform since the very first government ever formed; you think anyone has ever said, "Hooray, it's time to pay taxes!"? That's government forcing a private entity to do something it would rather not for the greater good.

[EDIT] Fixed state.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm confused.

If the fine hasn't been decided, how can the story be over?

 

[fskimospy]

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 with the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) as its legal basis. Businesses classified as public accommodations cannot discriminate against protected classes, which homosexuals happen to be in the State of Washington Oregon where this business was operating. Also, governments have been forcing private entities to perform services they don't wish to perform since the very first government ever formed; you think anyone has ever said, "Hooray, it's time to pay taxes!"? That's government forcing a private entity to do something it would rather not for the greater good.

[EDIT] Fixed state.

Just an FYI, the Civil Rights Act uses the commerce clause as its legal basis, at least insofar as public accommodations go.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Just an FYI, the Civil Rights Act uses the commerce clause as its legal basis, at least insofar as public accommodations go.

Right, but the principle behind the government regulating discrimination came from the interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And the question was silly anyway, as governments have always forced private entities to do things they might not otherwise do; if they didn't, it's just anarchy. "What do you mean I can't kill my neighbor and take his stuff? Stop trampling my rights!"

 

[alzan]

If I owned a bakery, I'd sell them a cake. If Lisa and Mary want me to write a congratulatory message that conflicts with my own beliefs, I'd tell them to get that done elsewhere, just as I would a religious fanatic who asked me to write "God hates f*gs" on their cake.

Both your examples, in the long run, would ultimately result in less customers.

Everyone has free speech rights. If I were in the business of setting up public address systems and the KKK or JW's wanted a public address system for their meeting halls I'd sure as hell set it up as long as their money is good.

A congratulatory message that conflicts with your beliefs? Give me a break. Your beliefs aren't harmed or brought into question one iota by fulfilling a customers requests; that's just a "holier than thou" attitude gone awry, same as the bakery shop owners.

 

[Retro Rob]

Both your examples, in the long run, would ultimately result in less customers.

Everyone has free speech rights. If I were in the business of setting up public address systems and the KKK or JW's wanted a public address system for their meeting halls I'd sure as hell set it up as long as their money is good.

A congratulatory message that conflicts with your beliefs? Give me a break. Your beliefs aren't harmed or brought into question one iota by fulfilling a customers requests; that's just a "holier than thou" attitude gone awry, same as the bakery shop owners.

Eh, well anyone taking an unpopular stance expects their lives to endure negative impact, so I don't think they really care about that...if they're a realist about it.

Yes, I don't agree with gay marriage, so why would I be a part of making a message congratulating them? It's about how ones conscious is affected, not if his beliefs are being harmed.

Everyone does have free speech rights, but the don't have the right to force me to print that speech.

 

[nickqt]

Free speech is free speech, I fail to see how one is different than the other.

Also, since when is it the governments job to force private entities to perform services they dont willingly wish to perform?

Free speech doesn't include you being able to walk into my home or business and demand that I say or write that I'm a big ol' dummyhead.

And, if a business offers its services to the public, they can't discriminate. It's been that way since the Civil Rights Acts.

Lunch counters.

 

[fskimospy]

Free speech is free speech, I fail to see how one is different than the other.

Baking a cake is not considered to be speech by the courts. Writing on one is.

Also, since when is it the governments job to force private entities to perform services they dont willingly wish to perform?

It's been the government's job for about half a century now. One of the most famous and widely beloved pieces of legislation in US history (the civil rights act of 1964) banned private entities from discriminating against people by refusing to serve them based on race, etc.

Well maybe the South doesn't love it, but everyone else does.

 

[alzan]

Eh, well anyone taking an unpopular stance expects their lives to endure negative impact, so I don't think they really care about that...if they're a realist about it.

Yes, I don't agree with gay marriage, so why would I be a part of making a message congratulating them? It's about how ones conscious is affected, not if his beliefs are being harmed.

Everyone does have free speech rights, but the don't have the right to force me to print that speech.

Okay we'll play that game; how is your conscious being affected by accepting money to perform your service as owner/operator of a public accommodation business?

How is accepting money to perform your public accommodation service forcing you?

And yet again it boils down to my initial question when the original story was posted: "How can a businessperson refuse business in this economy or any other and call it a good business decision?"

 

[GoPackGo]

What if I wanted a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it? One where he is having sex with one of his nine year old wives. Oh and don't forget the tears in her eyes and the blood running down her legs. It's a religious request so public accommodation, right?

 

[fskimospy]

What if I wanted a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it? One where he is having sex with one of his nine year old wives. Oh and don't forget the tears in her eyes and the blood running down her legs. It's a religious request so public accommodation, right?

Nope. No requirement to make that at all under public accommodation laws.

EDIT: I think there is some confusion about public accommodation laws. Basically, when you have a store open to the public you have to be willing to sell your products to whoever wants to buy them regardless of race, religion, etc.

In the case of a decorated cake, you must be willing to decorate cakes for everyone but that does not mean you must decorate them in a particular way that the customer wants. If it was a bakery that sold Muhammad cakes generally and wouldn't sell one to someone due to religion that would run afoul of public accommodation laws. In the case you mentioned, choosing not to decorate it in a particular way does not.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Nope. No requirement to make that at all under public accommodation laws.

EDIT: I think there is some confusion about public accommodation laws. Basically, when you have a store open to the public you have to be willing to sell your products to whoever wants to buy them regardless of race, religion, etc.

In the case of a decorated cake, you must be willing to decorate cakes for everyone but that does not mean you must decorate them in a particular way that the customer wants. If it was a bakery that sold Muhammad cakes generally and wouldn't sell one to someone due to religion that would run afoul of public accommodation laws. In the case you mentioned, choosing not to decorate it in a particular way does not.

Exactly. The thing that people don't seem to get about this is that there is no obligation for a vendor to produce a product they wouldn't sell to anybody when it comes to not discriminating. If you won't sell me a cake because I'm gay, that's discrimination (also illogical, since I'm not gay, but just as an example). If you won't sell me a cake because you're a shoe store and you don't actually sell cakes, that's not discrimination. If a baker tells you he won't sell a cake with a specific message on it, that's not discrimination; he won't sell that cake with that message on it to ANYONE. It's not a product that he ever offers. However, if he sells a cake to a straight couple but wouldn't sell an identical cake to a gay couple, that's discrimination, and it's illegal.

 

[Darwin333]

If this man think that gay-marriages are wrong - it's his own opinion and if he thinks like that, it means that nobody proof him wrong!
It's OPINION and it can be different and in this situation, minority infringe on the rights of majority!

So you think you should be able to walk into a bakery owned by a black guy and have him, by force of law, make you a cake that says "Black people should be property"?

Now if they refused to make a normal wedding cake for a heterosexual couple you would have a valid point.

Edit: What this asshole was doing is akin to asking a bakery that sells normal wedding cakes to decorate one showing graphical gay sex even though they don't sell sexually graphic cakes in the first place.

 

[GoPackGo]

So you think you should be able to walk into a bakery owned by a black guy and have him, by force of law, make you a cake that says "Black people should be property"?

Now if they refused to make a normal wedding cake for a heterosexual couple you would have a valid point.

At what point was the baker told it was a gay couple? The original article states after learning what/who the cake was for that the order was denied.

Did the baker ask about the decorating? Did the couple ask for a same sex topper?

My opinion is they should have sold the cake. Did they refuse to sell to people because they ate shrimp or pork as well?

Gay marriage should be a boon for the wedding business.

 

[glenn1]

Exactly. The thing that people don't seem to get about this is that there is no obligation for a vendor to produce a product they wouldn't sell to anybody when it comes to not discriminating. If you won't sell me a cake because I'm gay, that's discrimination (also illogical, since I'm not gay, but just as an example). If you won't sell me a cake because you're a shoe store and you don't actually sell cakes, that's not discrimination. If a baker tells you he won't sell a cake with a specific message on it, that's not discrimination; he won't sell that cake with that message on it to ANYONE. It's not a product that he ever offers. However, if he sells a cake to a straight couple but wouldn't sell an identical cake to a gay couple, that's discrimination, and it's illegal.

So could a baker accept an order for two wedding cakes, and agree to write "Happy Wedding Joe and Samantha" on one, and refuse to write "Happy Wedding Joe and Samuel" on the other? Please answer the question I already posed multiple times in the thread

 

[feralkid]

If this man think that gay-marriages are wrong - it's his own opinion and if he thinks like that, it means that nobody proof him wrong!
It's OPINION and it can be different and in this situation, minority infringe on the rights of majority!

You mean the majority of Americans, who believe in equal rights to marry being infringed by a homophobic minority, right?

 

[shortylickens]

it bothers me that simply having your feelings hurt entitles you to a big fat check.
We need to change that shit in the legal system.