From USA TODAY
Column: Why I can't make cakes for gay weddings
What I didn’t say was that I wouldn’t sell them a cake.I’m happy to sell a cake to anyone, whatever his or her sexual identity. People should be free to make their own moral choices. I don’t have to agree with them.But I am responsible for my own choices. And it was that responsibility that led me to decline when two gentlemen came into my shop and invited me to create a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony.Designing a wedding cake is a very different thing from, say, baking a brownie. When people commission such a cake, they’re requesting something that’s designed to express something about the event and about the couple.
The interesting question about this case isn't whether one has the right to practice religion freely or whether the right to equal treatment supersedes that. I think those questions are already settled. The interesting question in this case, and the one that will decide which was it goes is the age old question of "what is art?"
It is generally accepted law that we can't force artists to create work that violates their beliefs. On the other hand it is also generally accepted that service providers can't exclude customers because of religious belief. On the one extreme your plummer can't tell you he won't fix your drain because you're a catholic. On the other hand we can't force a Satanist sculptor to create a manger scene for your church. That's not the question being asked here. The question is whether a cake counts as artistic expression that ought to be protected.
Personally I have no idea, and I'm not afraid to admit that. The interesting thing here is that 99 percent of cakes that we all encounter don't and aren't intended to convey a point of view. But that 1% (or less) that are (as anyone can see on the Food Network these days) sure could be counted as creative expression. I think it's less than ideal to have to have the Court decide what counts as art, but I suppose it's less bad than having to leave the law undecided. We'll see.
PS: Nice to hear from you again! Been a while.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.html
- Therein lies the crucial difference between the cases: Silva’s objection was about what she sold; a design-based objection. Phillips’s objection was about to whom it was sold; a user-based objection. The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. Indeed, Masterpiece once even refused a cupcake order to lesbians upon learning that they were for the couple’s commitment ceremony.
Business owners generally have wide discretion over what they do and do not sell: A vegan bakery needn’t sell real buttercream cakes. A kosher bakery needn’t sell cakes topped with candied bacon, or in the shape of crosses. By contrast, business owners generally do not have discretion over how their products are later used: A kosher bakery may not refuse to sell bread to non-Jews, who might use it for ham-and-cheese sandwiches.
In his defense, Phillips has pointed out that he refuses to sell Halloween cakes or demon-themed cakes; he analogizes these refusals to his unwillingness to sell gay wedding cakes. In other words, he maintains that his turning away the gay couple was about what was requested, not who was requesting it.
The problem with this retort is that “gay wedding cakes” are not a thing. Same-sex couples order their cakes from the same catalogs as everyone else, with the same options for size, shape, icing, filling, and so on. Although Phillips’s cakes are undeniably quite artistic, he did not reject a particular design option, such as a topper with two grooms — in which case, his First Amendment argument would be more compelling. Instead, he flatly told Craig and Mullins that he would not sell them a wedding cake.
The last paragraph you quote is almost certainly why this case will be decided against Phillips. One of the interesting aspects here is why the Court even granted it cert. I suppose the three holdouts who voted against the Obergefell decision are keen to relitigate it and Gorsuch is such a moron-ideologue that he has already written his opinion. Presumably those were the 4 needed cert votes. But there's really nothing to gain. If if goes in favor of Phillips (unlikely), it will be a narrow opinion that carries very little weight for the rest of the law. It's a waste of the Court's time and energy, and we'd heal easier as a society if we just moved on.
Kennedy has been the nation's biggest promoter of gay rights, so even if he's uncomfortable using the courts to decide a religious issue, it's really difficult to see him scaling back any gains that he has personally given to the gay community (Kennedy has written literally every single major gay rights opinion).
#lolbrooks took on the issue today, arguing that the couple would have been better off engaging rather than litigating. It's an argument that works good in storybooks, but I'm not sure how effective it would be in the world. Classic Brooks though; the glasses don't get any more rose colored.
- Given that context, the neighborly approach would be to say: “Fine, we won’t compel you to do something you believe violates your sacred principles. But we would like to hire you to bake other cakes for us. We would like to invite you into our home for dinner and bake with you, so you can see our marital love, and so we can understand your values. You still may not agree with us, after all this, but at least we’ll understand each other better and we can live more fully in our community.”
David Brooks mainlines unicorn farts.
Jesus would not hate anyone. The fact, implied, is that the cake artist "hates" the customer. This is a red herring argument and misses the point completely. It wasn't the customers he "hated" or objected to, it was the behavior and being asked, not just to serve a cake, which he did freely to all customers, it was that he was being compelled to "promote" behavior whic he found morally objectionable. This is the crux of the matter. Did Jesus "hate" the adulteress who was being threatened - no! However, he did object to the behavior and found it morally objectionable. This classic case of stereotyping everyone who finds a moral objection based on conscience (like Eric Liddell at the 1924 olympics) a popular ploy to smear and besmirch everyone who does not agree with the populist agenda.
Also.
I was like you once.
Believe me or not. But I was once like you. I asked my mom why she had an Elton John CD and played it in the car when Elton John was a sinner, and shouldn't be rewarded for encouraging others to sin. When I was about nine years old I took that CD and shot it with my brand new pellet gun, and asked my mom if she was proud of me for helping her avoid sin.
I completely understand the perspective you're approaching this all from. I lived it for the first 20 years of my life.
The universe is too big and too unknowable for the kind of certainty that comes with this way of thinking.
There is enough darkness without us making more.
In an ideal world, this gay couple would have found someone else to make the cake.
In an ideal world, simple word-of-mouth that a given business refused to cater to non-christians would be sufficient for non-christians and christians alike to decide whether or not to be a patron or client.
We do not live in such a world.
Tell me, what message does this tell the world about christians? What message does it tell non believers about Christianity? What does it tell non-believers about the character of Christ?
If you are saved, if you have the capital T Truth, act like it.
This artist was "targeted" by the pro-gay agenda. You are right, they could have bought a cake somewhere else, but that was not the plan. For all of your words, Jesus still condemned the behavior, but not the person. Read again the account my friend. THAT is the POINT!
Have a snowy barn owl, just because.
I didn't click the link, but I did read the quote in your post. The baker is entitled to his views and while I don’t necessarily agree with him, I can somewhat understand where he’s coming from. That said, if you ask me, a cake is a cake whether you’re designing it or selling it and if you’re comfortable with offering one service then there’s no reason why shouldn’t be comfortable offering another service.
All of that aside, what sometimes seems to get lost in this conversations is that while not codified into law, public perception and public practice can become kind of laws in and of themselves. That very fact is part of the reason why our government has so many laws trying to protect our rights and why our courts often have hearings centered around our rights. Religious freedom, right to own property, right to vote, right to a fair hearing, on and on and on. These conversations are ever constant and ideas and arguments are introduced and dropped with changing perceptions all the time that without that government protection, conditions for minorities could change very rapidly. Heck, it’s fair to argue that even with government protection sometimes minorities get the shaft. For example, in regards to religions, there are countries out there where social perception to religious minorities has allowed governments to codify into law practices that severely restrict religious practices if not outright penalize people of religious minorities for no other reason that they’re a religious minority.
I’m having a hard time saying what I’m trying to say because I can’t find the words to say it, but I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s important to recognize that all parties in this court case feel very strongly about their viewpoints and their rights. That’s a good thing. It’s important to have convictions. What I think is more important to recognize though is that this court case is another facet of what should be a never ending discussion in how we can ensure we all live in a just society and that that should be a goal we should all strive for, because the alternative isn’t pretty.
As an aside, I went to the bookstore this week to pick up a study Quran to replace the one I gave out so many years ago. The fact that I was able to do that without any concern or obstacle involved really did remind me of how important tolerance and freedom and protection of the laws are, both for me as an individual and for society as a whole. I’m just one man and it’s just one book (a very important though) but it goes to show that these conversations we have do impact us in ways both big and small.