• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Gays and Their Damn Wedding Cakes! 12/5 for SCOTUS Arguments

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Wait, so getting a cake baked for you is a right?

Oh, its not? Time to move on to another establishment that will sell you a cake, or why not just make one yourself? Bakers are free to sell, or not sell, any of their wares to anyone they want. Patrons are free to utilize, or not, any services offered by an establishment.
This is not even remotely true. If an establishment refuses service based on someone’s race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation (in many states) they are in violation of the law and face fines or even eventually the forced closure of the business. This has been the case in our country for most or all of your lifetime.

You may remember something called the civil rights movement which showed why these laws are important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegeon

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
14,116
4,159
136
AFAIK the argument regarding the law is settled, but the practical argument is what has me scratching my head thinking "WTF?". Running a business revolves around one basic system: You have a service or product, and there's your customer. Go sell it to them. By doing so you can pay your bills, grow your business, ensure that your well-being is properly catered for, etc. By not selling your service/product, you're 100% working against that principle. Why would you do that? Furthermore, they'll go to your competitor down the road, probably weakening your business in the process.

There was only one time when I did not do business with a particular customer for 'moral reasons', and it was for repairing a laptop that they wanted to sell on. Over various conversations it turned out that they had mistreated the laptop pretty drastically (for example - out of many: the broken power button was when they jammed the button in a rage). In my opinion, selling something on that you've mistreated in ways that would obviously affect its longevity without explicitly stating all of that history is morally wrong. While the person buying it from them is consenting to buy it, they're buying it as described, not with all of that extra history, and chances are if he had sold it with that history noted before the sale, he wouldn't even get a tenth of the price he wanted for it.

Otherwise, as far as baking cakes is concerned, if I knew that the buyer intended to poison people using the cake I'm selling him then that would be IMO a valid moral concern as they are threatening the well-being of others. To attempt to apply such moral concerns to "but they're gay" would require me to become a moral arbiter for all of my customers and require sufficient history to ensure that my product/service isn't being "misused", which is frankly absurd; my skills and experience allow me to fix computers, not pick apart how good or bad I think my customers are. In the case of the baker and the gay couple, the couple aren't engaging in some kind of deception or doing harm to any of the wedding guests, so how the hell is it even vaguely my problem (assuming for a second that I'm a homophobic and likely hypocritical moron who likes to hide behind religion to justify my bigotry).

One of my customers is a holocaust denier. Quite a few of my customers are racist. They still have computers that need fixing and my bank account still needs filling. By doing business with them I'm not helping them be any more or less of an arse to other people, and just because someone is say a holocaust denier it doesn't mean that actively harming or deceiving anyone.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,950
3,703
136
You may remember something called the civil rights movement which showed why these laws are important.
Speaking of the Civil Rights Acts the one thing they don't do is provide specific protections to LGBT's and with this current administration they won't anytime soon.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
Wait, so getting a cake baked for you is a right?

Oh, its not? Time to move on to another establishment that will sell you a cake, or why not just make one yourself? Bakers are free to sell, or not sell, any of their wares to anyone they want. Patrons are free to utilize, or not, any services offered by an establishment. Seems like the sort of thing capitalism would sort out on its own.
Nope. There are laws against discrimination.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,690
293
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
How far do you go with this though?

I think we're living in a time period where not doing it with a smile on your face will simply result in a loss of business as well as bad publicity for your cake shop.

But why are we limiting it to just cakes? How about priests or whomever officiating the wedding, even though the wedding goes completely against their religion? How about a stripper that you want to hire that isn't gay but you want him to strip and dance on someone of the same sex? How about prostitution. Are you discriminating if you refuse to sell your sexual services to a black gay male with aids? You just discriminated on three counts there!

I'm just saying that it gets dicey real quick and it's a very slippery slope. I personally don't think we need laws or enforcement on matters like this. Please don't be ridiculous and compare this to the days of not serving blacks in restaurants. As I said, you're a fool to give up business based on your beliefs (IMO), but let people be stupid.



Ding ding, we have a weiner.
Salient questions. I don't think anyone is protected when there's someone at physical risk (I assume you meant a gay with AIDS, not someone with assistants :) , and anyone could be HIV-positive). Knowingly putting someone at risk for that puts them in a different kind of legal jeopardy. As to the other issues, why not? What's the harm, except to the intolerance that the law is trying to eliminate in the business world? I understand people may get uncomfortable. I may not want to sell to someone wearing a swastika, but I don't have the legal right to do that.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,690
293
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" has been supplanted by the law, tolerance, as wished for in the great movie "Giant," from back when those signs were common. We've come a long way baby.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,831
2,928
126
As a Second Order Dragon Master Alpha Male(got my SODMAM cert for verification), I'd refuse to bake a Cake for Betas and Fatties. Cake won't help them.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,287
2,000
136
Personally, I would hope things like this get worked out by online reviews, protests, word of mouth, etc. Although, I don't think this should exempt them from any anti discrimination laws. Providing a cake is not violating religious practice. Marrying the couple would be different. This is not analagous to Hobby Lobby because the law would require Hobby Lobby to pay for treatments that would allow an egg to be fertilized but not implanted.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,374
7,164
146
I’m beginning to think that if owners of business wish their business to have the same religious morals as themselves that they should lose the protections of being a limited liability corporation.

People have no inherent right to the protections granted by corporate law. So if they don’t want to follow those laws and pretend their legal entity is them then let them risk their own money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,831
2,928
126
I’m befinnig to think that if owners of business wish their business to have the same religious morals as themselves that they should lose the protections of being a limited liability corporation.

People have no inherent right to the protections granted by corporate law. So if they don’t want to follow those laws and pretend their legal entity is them then let them risk their own money.
Though true, the problem is compounded by the fact that Churches had been flouting laws regarding Political endorsement for quite awhile.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,690
293
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
By doing business with them I'm not helping them be any more or less of an arse to other people
? A computer doesn't help with that? You are right though, you can't refuse them service; as customers, they have free speech rights. When I worked in field service, I knew our products helped companies be super-efficient, and less than generous, with business expenses (including payroll). I didn't always see that as "moral" though.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
Should it be legal for a business to force customers to follow its religious beliefs to do business there? Put up a "Bigoted Christian Bakery-hard core believers only" sign over the door to make their feelings clear? All in violation of state regulations?
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,690
293
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
For the uninitiated, "Giant" (1956) started out as a story of cross-cultural, single race, love, trials and tribulations, but who couldn't love Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor? It morphed into a story (partly) about cross-racial love. It took ol' Bick a while to accept the fact that his son was in love with a Latina woman, married her, and (gasp!) had a mixed baby. In the final scene Bick took the family to a diner (he was woke by then), only the waitress and the proprietor wouldn't serve his Latina daughter-in-law and her baby. A fight broke out between Rock Hudson's character and the owner. As Bick lay in a heap after losing, the owner tossed the sign on him, "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone," revealing the excuses we made for intolerance, the hubris of white privilege. We grow.
---------------------
Impressions on "Giant:"

Verdant territory, youthful beauty beyond belief, love blossoming
A brown wasteland, dusty, too bright, shielded eyes, foretelling inner conflict
Texas tea, bubbling up, free for the taking
Oil supplanting cattle, greed more important than legacy
Power against power, human volatility in a handsome guise
Alcohol bringing down the impression of the mighty, the once meek
Esteem, both public and of the self, bankrupt
A final brawl between budding acceptance and withering hate
Bigotry triumphs and let slips its widespread ugliness to the uninitiated and the intentionally ignorant, its seemingly superior strength, its lowly roots
Humanity upward, uncovering its sheltered eyes
Splendor beyond words, youth gone by, a new, more innocent generation, realizing new morals, wisdom
From Mr. Hudson's closeted days to National Coming Out Day
Stories for the ages
 
Last edited:

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
One of my customers is a holocaust denier. Quite a few of my customers are racist. They still have computers that need fixing and my bank account still needs filling. By doing business with them I'm not helping them be any more or less of an arse to other people, and just because someone is say a holocaust denier it doesn't mean that actively harming or deceiving anyone.
And you are providing the same exact service as you would to anyone else, computer is broken, you fix computer regardless of their race, ethnicity, beliefs etc., which it should be.

But if you knew that they use those computers to promote fake news, neo nazi beliefs, pro white kkk beliefs, hate speech, holocaust denial, etc. , would you still provide the same service to them and should you be required to do so?
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
Artists can say they won't sell paintings to gay people?
Artists refusing to sell their already made paintings to gay people, illegal.

Baker refusing to sell the same wedding cake he sells to everyone else to gay people, illegal.

Artists refusing to make a painting depicting a gay theme or a baker refusing to custom design/monogram a cake depicting a gay theme for the gay wedding is what the argument should be in order for the baker/artist having any chance of success legally.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,690
293
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
It's all about fairness (a most basic, easily recognizable human requirement, even dogs have it), even to those we hate - as a business owner. Hate the gays, the Nazis, the blacks, the Muslims, the wealthy, the needy... at home, or at the protest, or on a bumper sticker, not in your place of business - in my humble opinion. The court's? We'll see.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
Artists refusing to sell their already made paintings to gay people, illegal.

Baker refusing to sell the same wedding cake he sells to everyone else to gay people, illegal.

Artists refusing to make a painting depicting a gay theme or a baker refusing to custom design/monogram a cake depicting a gay theme for the gay wedding is what the argument should be in order for the baker/artist having any chance of success legally.
He refused to sell them any wedding cake. As soon as he saw they were a gay couple, it was over. It never got to design at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegeon

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,049
468
126
Hey look, another conservative that loves the 10th amendment right up until it’s used to do liberal things instead of conservative ones.
They only like amendments that they benefit from. Guns for everyone but censor the press because they don't like what they write about Cheeto in office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bradly1101

ASK THE COMMUNITY