California Bakery Can Refuse To Make Cakes For Same-Sex Weddings, Judge Rules

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-bakery-refuse-cakes-same-035822734.html

From the article: “In an eight-page ruling on Monday, Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe said Miller could continue to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, as such confections were a form of “artistic expression” and “expressive conduct” and therefore protected by the First Amendment.”

She shouldn’t be forced to make the cake. She seems very sincere about God giving her artistic gifts and doesn’t want to go against her beliefs.

The public accommodation law doesn't state that if your sincere in your beliefs about discrimination you don't have to serve all of the public. It says the opposite. If you are a store or a service open to the public, you serve all of the public. There isn't a carve out for artists who also happen to have a shop open to the public. It doesn't say that if you believe black people are cursed by God, you don't have to serve them. It doesn't say that if you don't believe gays should have wedding cakes, you don't have to sell them. It says the opposite.

Now, if you want to close your bakery and open a baking club, then you are no longer subject to the public accommodation law. Go for it.

> She seems very sincere about God giving her artistic gifts and doesn’t want to go against her beliefs.

I guess she isn't too sincere about other beliefs, like not judging others, being a light unto others, etc.

She's cherry picking her beliefs just like she's cherry picking her customers.

I'm very sincere about my lack of belief in god, yet I possess many artistic gifts and I share them in very public settings and places. Should I not share my artistic gifts with those that believe in god because it goes against my beliefs?

I think this is about religious folks that want the world to know how religious they are, a peacock display for all to see. Look how much I love god! I refuse service to some of his children, my brothers and sisters! Ain't I special?

Maybe it's about people who want to make a big deal: "They won't bake a cake for me! Waaaaaah! I don't want to go to another business, I want to go to this one!"

Yeah, that's right. Morons insisting on their constitutional rights.

What selfish, egocentric, entitled brats.

It's been interesting watching the replies to the earlier thread: https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2076297

This is likely the way the SCOTUS will rule. The baker did not make any attempt to prevent the gay couple from having their ceremony. This is demonstrated by their willingness to refer them to a competitor for the cake. There's also no evidence the baker refuses to serve gay people. No evidence was offered showing the baker will not sell their pre-made goods to gay people.

The ceremony is the thing.

That's where the court rightfully concentrated. The baker has the right to not participate in or contribute their artistic labor to a specific ceremony that violates their conscience. Being gay puts you in a protected class, but gay marriage is not a basic human right, and nobody can be compelled to participate in it.

I think you'd likely see this same ruling if an atheist opts out of catering an infant baptism. Religion is protected, but specific rites of religion are not. Nobody can be compelled to participate in or offer their artistic labors for one. An atheist baker cannot bar a Muslim from shopping in their store among pre-made items, but they likely can decline to create specialized items for a Muslim-specific rite. This is not a form of religious bigotry, it's a non-religious person choosing to not exert their creative labor in a rite they may find offensive.

Those of you insisting your hyperbole of bodies left on the side of the road, renewed racial discrimination and the like are little more than hollow drums at this point. You'd be better served just dealing with the facts at hand than trying to suggest a baker opting out of a gay wedding is the opening salvo of death, mayhem, and racial strife. Put down your tin foil hats.

It seems at its core a remarkably bad business decision to turn away business for almost any reason. But as long as you willingly offer your generic services without discrimination, the SCOTUS will likely find that you're free to refrain from providing your artistic labor for any project that violates your conscience.

If she is willing to sell a cake she already made, then her argument that it's an artistic endeavor and she shouldn't be forced to sell her artwork is mute.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is
> demonstrated by their willingness to refer them to
> a competitor for the cake.

"You can't eat in my diner because you're black, but you can go to the diner across the street -- they take black people. See, I'm not preventing you from dining."

Yeah, the "willingness to refer" is nothing but a dodge. It doesn't hold up.

ok ificouldhietokolob. Should a kosher bakery be forced to bake a cake that isnt kosher?

No one is asking the baker to make something they don't already offer.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one is asking the baker to make something they don't already offer.

Ummmmm....the gay couple did. The gay couple was NEVER denied buying a standard wedding cake. What the baker didn't offer to them and DOESN'T offer to others (gay or straight) is a message/customization that she disagrees with or finds offensive.

Everyone's level of being offended and moral conscience is different. Writing something like "Congratulations Mireya and Eileen" on the cake may mean little to us but was huge to her. Saying "I'll sell you a cake but not with that on it. Here is the name of another baker in town who WILL do that for you" seems more than fair and accommodating to me.

I'm not sure what MY level of being offended would be, but if I were a baker and a NAMBLA convention in town requested a cake with depictions of older men fucking little boys on it, I would offer them the cake but draw the line on adding the depictions.

Everybody's "line" is different. The baker would have lost the case if she had flatly denied the couple a standard wedding cake or thrown them out of her store. That didn't happen. The judge recognized that a certain (minimum) standard of care WAS offered. I would not be surprised if his decision is adopted throughout the country - - that a certain level MUST be offered to ALL patrons but anything BEYOND that level would be at the discretion of the business owner. You can either go along with that or take your business elsewhere. Sounds fair to me.

And that, so to speak, is the icing on the cake.

bakemeacakeasfastasyoucan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok ificouldhietokolob. Should a kosher bakery be
> forced to bake a cake that isnt kosher?

Kosher bakeries don't make non-kosher cakes ever (is there such a thing?).
It's not a normal part of their business.
And declining to make one isn't discriminating against someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or anything else.

Bakeries that make wedding cakes make wedding cakes as part of their normal business. Declining to make one for a gay couple IS discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation. Which is illegal.

I'm not sure you know what kosher is. Regardless if I sell doughnuts and someone walked in and asked for a burrito I would have every right to say no.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure you know what kosher is.

Yes, I do.
I've just never heard of it being applied to cakes...
Which is why I asked :)

Apparently, it can be:

https://www.bakersjournal.com/profiles/baking-kosher-4583

I was addressing the troll. So purely for education purposes.

A kosher cake would be indistinguishable from a non kosher cake. Kosher has to do with how the ingredients are treated and segregated. How they are combined. The other items at the bakery, and how it is consumed.

If someone wanted to make a kosher cake not kosher all they would have to do is put it into a refrigerator with a ham.

Hogwash!

What matters here has nothing to do with the artistic intent of the baker, or the underlying ceremonial context of a wedding. What matters is the visible details of the cake that she is being asked to bake. If its final appearance does not suggest any position one way or the other about gay marriage, then there is no justification for refusing to bake it. The religious grounds would go only to the person of the customer, not the product. As such, refusal is blatant discrimination.

On the other hand, if, for example, the couple insisted upon an ornament that depicted a gay couple, she could refuse for religious reasons. In this case she is being asked to produce something she finds objectionable on religious grounds. She has a right to refuse.

It is that simple. This ruling will not hold up. Otherwise, you will find carwashes claiming that their work was "artistic."

Artisan cakes are art. That is why they are called artisan. The judge is correct.

No. There are no Artisan Cake museums because, although artistic, cakes are food. Wedding cakes are bought generally to be eaten in celebration at a wedding.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. There are no Artisan Cake museums because,
> although artistic, cakes are food. Wedding cakes
> are bought generally to be eaten in celebration at
> a wedding.

And paint is paint. I'm still not sure why they got upset at the Louvre when I painted over one of those Picassos with a good semi-gloss enamel I got on sale at Home Depot.

Guess again Devoted Exmo: http://theartisankitchen.blogspot.com/2010/01/wedding-cake-cupcakes-whaling-museum.html

If a cake isnt art then why do couples keep their wedding cakes for 30 years as a reminder of their wedding? Hmmmmmmmmm

This is not the norm, and was not what was requested from the couple for their wedding.

Edit to add a cake in a museum isn't the same as a museum dedicated to the art of cakes. A cake museum probably exists somewhere but it's not common to our culture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 03:08PM by Devoted Exmo.

hahahhahahahahhahahaha. ok Devoted Exmo. So anybody who disagrees with you is wrong because they deviated from the "norm". Its illegal to disagree with you. hahahahhahahahahahah. Nobody is allowed to be different. Its illegal now.

Make an argument if you're so inclined. You're free to disagree with me.

But don't tell me that wedding cakes are not eating during a wedding celebration, but rather they're for looking at in museums.

ok Devoted Exmo. You changed the argument. The argument is if an artisan cake is art. Artisan works are art. The word art is the root of the word artisan! Just because you eat something doesnt disqualify it as art! That is something you just made up. hahahahahhaahha. Plus most people just eat 1 slice of their wedding cake because they want to keep it for 30 years or for however long it lasts. https://www.brides.com/story/why-we-preserve-the-top-layer-of-wedding-cakes

If her cakes are primarily artisan works of art, and she should not be forced to make a cake for the couple because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, why was she willing to sell one of her already artisanaly created cakes for the gay wedding?

Was she willing to sell her art to a gay couple? Yes.

Was she willing to sell a cake to be used at a gay wedding? Yes.

So this does not appear to be an argument that she will not sell her art to a gay couple.

So this does not appear to be an argument that she cannot allow her cakes to be eaten at a gay wedding because it's against her religious beliefs.

ok Devoted Exmo. The only thing that proves is that she followed the law and the court agreed with her. She knew as an aritsan shop owner she had the right to refuse to create a cake but she didnt have the right to refuse to sell a cake that already existed. She followed the law. Just because the law doesnt say what you want it to say is just tough for you.

Her argument to the court is that she should not have to make a cake because she's an artist and her work product is art.

But then she said that she was willing to sell her artworks but not produce another for them.

This court agreed with her, on the basis that the wedding cake was not already made work of art.

Therefore, this case will not likely withstand a challenge to it's decision.

You are being slightly ridiculous with this argument. I could call anything art and refuse to allow certain people to consume it. I could make a bread that had fancy spirals and then say that people born on Tuesday couldn't buy it or eat it because their spirit doesn't agree with my artsy bread.

You really are missing the point here. If I refuse service to everyone not wearing a tie than when a black person comes in not wearing a tie I'll tell him no because he doesn't have a tie on. If I refuse to sell cakes with the word fuck on them than a woman walks in and asks for a fuck cake than I get to say no. If I refuse to sell pants that are green and a handicapped person comes in and asks for green pants I get to say no. However, I sell wedding cakes to some people and not others and my reason is an arbitrary bullshit reason like, I don't like bald people I should expect some legal push back.

If you don't make cakes to order for same-sex weddings,it doesn't matter whether it's the same-sex couple themselves or anyone else who asks you for one...you don't have to do it.

You missed the point. One gets to discriminate against the things they sell, how they sell it, when they sell it, where they sell it, and so forth. But they cannot discriminate against who they sell it to.

The dress code is a perfect example. No shirt no shoes no service. Formal wear required. You get the point, I think.

"One gets to discriminate against the things they sell, how they sell it, when they sell it, where they sell it, and so forth. But they cannot discriminate against who they sell it to."

But if it doesnt exist then how can you sell it bro? hahahahahhah

From your link.....

"Traditionally speaking, the top tier of the wedding cake is often saved and preserved to be eaten once again at one of two occasions—your one year anniversary, or your first child's christening (which often was within that first year of marriage!). Why, you may ask?
There are a few reasons that have aimed to explain this custom. First, there's the obvious symbolism of recycling a piece of your wedding into the celebration of your child. More commonly, there's sentiment, and the superstition of good luck and prosperity that is believed to occur when couples enjoy a piece of their cake one year later. Others say it's simply a way to bring a literal piece of your wedding day into your lives again on a momentous, celebratory occasion. Regardless of reason or belief, many newlyweds are faced with the task of properly preserving their cakes."

I don't see anything about saving it because its piece of art.

Apart from an insistence that everybody who disagrees with them should be punished, I've never quite understood the zeal exerted by the some in the gay community on this.

This right of artistic-oriented businesses to be selective about how they apply their talents is unquestioned in a variety of ways.

Nobody would suggest that a baker, photographer, or painter should be compelled to create a product based upon a naked couple engaged in a sex act. And I imagine many would applaud these people if they refused to participate in creating works depicting a man butchering a majestic buck shot by a hunter ("Add a lot of red icing where his intestines are spilling out."). Like gay marriage, these are all legal, but none is an activity anyone is required to support or participate in against their will. The hunter has a constitutional right to own a weapon. The activities that stem from that right are not themselves a universally protected right.

I doubt anyone would question the photographer, artist or baker's right to refuse to participate in such based upon their conscience. Having sex, killing and butchering a buck, and having a gay wedding are all legal, but none is considered a basic human right. And unlike food, medical service, housing and other life-essential services, they are not something the government should compel one citizen to facilitate or provide for other citizens.

You keep ignoring settled law. It's called the Public Accommodation Law. No one has asked someone to do a lewd act.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 02:59PM by Devoted Exmo.

> Artisan cakes are art. That is why they are called artisan.

From Merriam Webster:

"Definition of artisan
1 : a worker who practices a trade or handicraft : craftsperson a skilled artisan
2 : a person or company that produces something (such as cheese or wine) in limited quantities often using traditional methods —often used before another noun artisan breads"

and

"Did You Know?
Artisans aren't the same as artists, but it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference. In the Middle Ages, artisans organized themselves into guilds. In every city each group of artisans—weavers, carpenters, shoemakers, and so on—had its own guild, which set wages and prices, kept standards high, and protected its members from outside competitors. In America, however, most artisans have always been fiercely independent. Today, when factories produce almost all of our goods, artisans usually make only fine objects for those who can afford them. And we now even include food among the artisan's crafts, so you can buy artisanal cheeses, breads, and chocolates—but probably not if you're watching your budget."

Watching your budget.....or if your gay.

To all those who've been coming up with reasons making it OK for this baker to do what she did:

How is this ANY different from refusing to do business with someone because of their race or gender?

"Artist" or not is irrelevant.
"Referral" or not is irrelevant.

Give me a good reason this is different from discriminating because of skin color or gender.

I'm all ears.

Try reading the courts findings lol

You do realize that there have been several court cases with different rulings, right?

And this is just one in a small town in California, not the Supreme Court.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 03:47PM by Devoted Exmo.

Which court?

Oh and that court got it so wrong. And to put my typing where my mouth is. When this ruling is upheld in the appeals process I promise to never post in RFM again.

Skin color and gender are in no way about deliberately doing something stupid.

Marrying someone of your own sex is about absolutely nothing BUT deliberately doing something stupid.

I suspect this thread is going to descend, but let me be the first to say.

The fuck?

At least Louis E. is the first one defending the baker to be honest.
He's OK with this discrimination 'cause he thinks gay people are STUPID.
That's disturbing, but honest.

The other posts are disturbing, but not so honest. They're playing word games to try to avoid admitting what they think about gay people.

I don't see any problem handling the disagreement; this isn't an issue of convincing one side it is in the 'wrong', unless of course you're answering to a higher power, who has told you something is wrong. Then all you have to do is get the rest of your society to agree with you.

For instance, Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 SCOTUS decision (which has never been overturned, just legislated out of significance) held that segregation was fine and dandy, so long as the facilities for the two entities being kept separate were equal. As in, the water at both fountains was equally wet...

I see one side as being exclusionary, based on "beliefs", and the other side being inclusionary, based on logic and common sense. It is likely that both sides will find ways to carry out their tendencies, because we all like to have our way. It doesn't really matter what decision SCOTUS comes out with later this Spring, supporting Judge Lampe or de facto overturning his decision, neither side is going to change. Each side is certain as to the probity of its decision(s). Despite Wade v. Rowe, the number of abortion clinics in the south continues to decline, which creates the impression that in order to exclusionary types to be successful, they just need to relocate.

Which brings us back to the USA become a nation divided ...

ok elderolddog or we could respect our neighbors beliefs and not try to force them into doing things they find offensive. That would work to.

Civil rights laws have already addressed the fact that we are all equal citizens and deserve equal protection under the law. It was decided that any discriminatory action you want to take upon another person based on your religious beliefs are only allowed under private situations such as in a church or club. In all other public institutions, you are not allowed to discriminate against another based on religious belief.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 04:01PM by Devoted Exmo.

Except the baker doesn't find baking cakes offensive just selling them to those nasty filthy people. I cannot respect a belief that encourages discrimination.

There is absolutely NO "those nasty filthy people" issue here.

It doesn't matter who asks for a same-sex wedding cake made to order,she will not make a same-sex wedding cake to order for anyone.

What is a same sex wedding cake?

What the hell is a same sex wedding cake?

"Except the baker doesn't find baking cakes offensive just selling them to those nasty filthy people. I cannot respect a belief that encourages discrimination." Wrong.

In fact the bakery would have sold them any already made cake they had. In fact the bakery just didnt want to produce another cake for them because it would have a direct participation in the wedding.

I think this is the same as: I'm not racist, I have a black friend.

Yes, that is a useful argument and because you like it, it has value to you. Those of us on the other side of the argument, to wit: it is okay to legislate social behavior, such as desegregating schools, will not agree to behaviors that discrminate based on race, gender or social orientation and if Judge Lampe's ruling is overturned, please don't have a cow if the defendant in Lampe's case ends up having to shutter her store. Solice will be found in the extreme likelihood that her Go*fundme plea will make her a discriminating rich person.

It just seems extraordinary to me that words functioning as adjectives or predicate nomiaitives can change the way bigots treat another human being. In your eyes the phrase, "All men are created equal" has qualifiers that have nothing to do with your own personal safety.

All men are created equal? That phrase was about a class system that existed in Europe. The point of the phrase was that a person shouldnt be judged by who their parents are.

All men are created equal doesnt mean that you can force people to do things against their conscious. Get your history straight. Get a clue.

All desires are not equally worthy,all decisions are not equally wise,and treating all persons as equal must not mean pretending otherwise.

Go-fund-me has adopted a policy of discriminating against those in this baker's situation,didn't you hear about the lesbian competitor getting one's campaign shut down?

bakemeacakeasfastasyoucan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok elderolddog or we could respect our neighbors
> beliefs and not try to force them into doing
> things they find offensive. That would work to.

I don't see any reason to "respect" beliefs that discriminate.

Why can't the "neighbors" respect the law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (and race and gender and lots of other things that "beliefs" have considered justifiable over the years)?

I notice you didn't answer my question above, about how this differs from discrimination according to skin color.

I suspect that I don't see any reason that it does differ.
But those defending the baker do -- because they think "gay" is a choice, not what a person is. And that the "choice" is "sinful."

Am I wrong?

I asked you if a kosher bakery should be forced to bake a non-kosher cake. You said "is there such a thing as a non-kosher cake?" proving how you dont even know what kosher is. So answer my question.

Why cant they respect the law? They did respect the law. The court agreed with them. Your interpretation of the law isnt the law.

how this differs from discrimination according to skin color? I already said many times as the court said that artisan works are works of art. Artists can choose what art they want to make and what art they dont want to make. The artist wasnt discriminating against the customer but was discriminating against the work being requested. I already said that over and over again.

But do you know what kosher is because the way you talk about it sounds like you think it is something different.

A kosher bakery that made a non kosher item would no longer be a kosher bakery.

"A kosher bakery that made a non kosher item would no longer be a kosher bakery"

Would a Christian bakery that baked a cake for a gay wedding continue to be a Christian bakery then? Hmmmmmm.

Further cementing the thought that you have no idea what kosher is.

> I already said that over and over again.

Yes you did, like broken record. But you still haven't answered Hie's question, how is the art cake not sold to gays different than the diner that won't serve blacks?

Do you just hate gay's"

Are you secretly gay and full of self loathing?

Are you a practicing christian that feels this type of thing is perfectly fine?

I'm just curious why you are so insistent and supportive about the topic.

Never seen a post from you before, but now your here in full force. Why?

"Are you secretly gay and full of self loathing?" That is an interesting question. hahahahha. What if I was? Would it be discrimination if a gay man refused to bake a cake for another gay man? LMAO. What if a person who is gay is against the idea of gay marriage and doesnt want to contribute to the gay wedding. Hmmmmm. Is that discrimination or is it only wrong when Christians do it?

You still didn't answer Hie's question, or mine.

You should run for political office :)

bakemeacakeasfastasyoucan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I asked you if a kosher bakery should be forced to
> bake a non-kosher cake. You said "is there such a
> thing as a non-kosher cake?" proving how you dont
> even know what kosher is. So answer my question.

Read the rest of it. I did answer your question.

Kosher bakeries don't make non-kosher cakes for anyone. They can do that. If they refused to make a kosher cake (part of their normal business) for blacks, or gays, or women -- that they can't do. That's discrimination.

> Why cant they respect the law? They did respect
> the law. The court agreed with them. Your
> interpretation of the law isnt the law.

Neither is yours.
The law, actually, is clear. This court's decision doesn't go by the law. It'll be overturned on appeal.

> how this differs from discrimination according to
> skin color? I already said many times as the court
> said that artisan works are works of art.
> Artists
> can choose what art they want to make and what art
> they dont want to make. The artist wasnt
> discriminating against the customer but was
> discriminating against the work being requested. I
> already said that over and over again.

That doesn't answer my question at all, it simply repeats the irrelevant "it's art!" argument (on which we don't agree).

Are you saying that an "artist" can refuse to do "art" for black people? That would never hold up in court.
Or that an artist can refuse to do "art" for a woman? That would never hold up in court.
So how is refusing to do "art" for gay people DIFFERENT?
You haven't answered that.

It's ok, you don't need to answer. I already know the answer that you refuse to admit...
Bigotry.

Wrong. In fact I gave you an example of an attorney refusing to represent homosexuals in divorce court. In fact many attorneys publicly say that is their policy. You responded in another thread that the attorneys werent discriminating against the homosexual couples by refusing to represent them in court. Many attorneys are very clear that they only want to represent heterosexuals in divorce court.

How is that not discrimination then?

Of course you're wrong,as is everyone who sides against the baker.
Pretending this is a case of "discrimination" is like saying prosecuting shoplifters is bigotry against kleptomaniacs.

It's completely irrelevant whether or not sexual orientation is chosen and completely irrelevant what the sexual orientation of the person requesting the cake is.

Somebody made a deliberate choice to have a same-sex wedding.
Somebody else has the right to decide not to be part of celebrating it if they think doing such a thing is a bad idea.

Louis E. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course you're wrong,as is everyone who sides
> against the baker.

Of course, I disagree.

> Somebody made a deliberate choice to have a
> same-sex wedding.
> Somebody else has the right to decide not to be
> part of celebrating it if they think doing such a
> thing is a bad idea.

Providing a business service isn't "celebrating."
It's providing a business service.

This baker makes wedding cakes as part of her normal business.
She refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
That's against the law.


Want to try again?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For instance, Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 SCOTUS
> decision (which has never been overturned, just
> legislated out of significance)...

Well...um...

"The doctrine of separate but equal was overturned by a series of Supreme Court decisions, starting with Brown v. Board of Education of 1954. However, the overturning of segregation laws in the United States was a long process that lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, involving federal legislation (especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and many court cases."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Would I be able to get some Italian Wedding Soup? It has the word wedding in it.

No! Soup is art!

While I might not personally refuse such service, I believe the judge is correct in that a person cannot be compelled to exercise their artistry to satisfy another person. Isn't that the basis of his ruling?