Interesting ruling out yesterday in California finding in favor of a bakery sued for refusing to create a cake for a gay wedding.

Essentially, the court said that specially-made goods should be considered a speech issue for an artistic item, and nobody should be compelled to use their creativity to create a something for an event that goes against their conscience.

It was a closely parsed decision that notes that no merchant would be allowed to refuse to sell any in-stock item for any reason to any person. (No "Straight People Only" signs allowed) But likewise, no person can be compelled to use their specific artistic gifts in service to another if that service violates their conscience. So, want to buy cookies from my cookie case for your gay marriage? Fine. Want me to create special gay-themed cookies for your gay marriage? Not required.

The court noted that while the baker owner cited their personal religious beliefs for refusing service, they referred the gay couple to a competitor. The service was readily available from another source.

The Supreme Court is ruling on a similar case this session, so it remains to be seen if this California Superior Court ruling will ultimately align with what the SCOTUS finds.

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/business/article198654304.html
https://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/judge-rules-in-favor-of-california-baker-who-refused-to-design-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple

That's because Bakersfield is the butthole of california,full of

low IQ racists who want to sit on their porch and drink and watch

their weeds grow and belive themselves superior to gays, and

people with a skin color darker then their own. Its not the

brain trust of california, its not even pretty there.

Bakersfield is the Twilight zone of CAlifornia.

Well, superior court judges are little ghawds in their courtrooms, and when they have an axe to grind, there's no one can stop them.

Here's are two excerpts from a service that "grades" jurists:

http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=2456


Litigant
Comment #: CA10342
Rating:1.0
Comments:
170.6 Immediately if you get the chance. So biased, ignorant, rude, and impatient. Rumor is that he has a chip on his shoulder because he's not smart enough to be on the appellate panel. Has relationship with certain "local counsels" that will severely handicap you if you aren't one of them. Go for the other two judges if you can, Chapin or Clark, and you will much more fair hearing or trial.
View Detail Send e-mail to this poster 11/29/2016 5:51:42 PM

Civil Litigation - Private
Comment #: CA2889
Rating:2.1
Comments:
This guy is a FOOL with a capital F.
View Detail Send e-mail to this poster 10/15/2012 11:00:27 AM


This article has a photo of the judge, and some more details:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/02/06/california-judge-rules-christian-bakery-shouldnt-forced-make-gay-wedding-cake-598921


Here's what I think is the keystone to the judge's position:

“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”

So imagine the baker is a doctor, or an attorney, or any of a myrid of practitioners who carry their talent in their brains... Can they refuse, on the grounds of religious belief, not to use their talent on behalf of a client/customer whose existence violates a religious tenet?

"...that cake hadn't been baked yet..." The defendant was purposely hurting the plaintiffs based on a religious stand. The fact that the cake wasa available elsewhere is akin to "use another drinking fountain; this one is for _____"

The plaintiff attorney implied they'll be appealing...

I am indignant! Alert The Times! The London Times, not that upstart rag in NYC!

It appears the Judge has a spelling/grammar problem as well...

Quote from his ruling:

"retail tire shop may not refuse to sell tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about tire."

Damn you, Hie.

That judge has problem with English language and need editor.

(your note of his spelling/grammar was more clever, even if later than mine!)

Well what do you want, my friend, speed or elegance?

:)

Actually attorneys deny clients based on sex all the time. There are attorneys who only take heterosexual divorce cases because they are more familiar with the circumstances. This however is not discrimination against homosexuals simply because the attorney is a professional trying to take cases he thinks he can do a good job on.

If the attorney believes that he will not win the case because he is unfamiliar with the circumstances of a homosexual couple then he is completely within his professional right to refuse to represent the client from the beginning.

If a home builder was given a design for a building they didnt think they wanted to build or thought they couldnt build then they have every right to refuse to build the building. That is just common sense.

I like how saucie threw down the gauntlet with every over the top accusation from the beginning with all the zeal of a religious mantra. Way to start out strong!

...in none of your examples are the "professionals" denying business to someone because they're gay.

So they're nothing like the baker in this case.

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's because Bakersfield is the buttonhole of california,full of low IQ racists who want to sit on their porch and drink and watch their weeds grow and belive themselves superior to gays, and people with a skin color darker then their own.

>Its not the brain trust of california, its not even pretty there. Bakersfield is the Twilight zone of California.


Since I happen to live in Bakersfield...yeah, I would say I could check off most of the boxes in your statement. LOL!! Except I don't have a low IQ, don't sit on my porch, and I don't have any weeds growing in my yard.

Normally I side with the gay couple on issues such as this but not in this case. As was mentioned they were referred to another baker who would do the job for them (kind of nice actually that the owner referred them to her competitor) and the couple was not denied a standard wedding cake...just not one customized (hence the "art" argument). They could have bought a standard wedding cake and customized it elsewhere or on their own. Also from what I heard, the couple came into the bakery seeking a cake SEVEN MONTHS AFTER their wedding. From all appearances the couple was looking for a patsy that they could stir up some trouble with. I can't support that.

Jaxson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As was mentioned
> they were referred to another baker who would do
> the job for them (kind of nice actually that the
> owner referred them to her competitor)...

Just a note on that:

They were indeed "referred" to another baker (a competitor).
However, there's no indication that baker would have done the job for them, as that baker was never asked. The baker who referred them didn't know the other baker would do the job, she simply suggested they go ask the other baker.

And I guess "kind of nice" is subjective. Me, I see it as:

"I'm going to illegally discriminate against you, but maybe this other baker will serve your kind of people..." I don't think that's nice at all.

My understanding, and what I heard, (and remember…I live here so am probably a little more connected than most) is that the referred baker had done similar jobs for other gay couples.

I’m not really seeing the discrimination. The owner did not deny them a wedding cake. She just denied them the customization of it that she considered offensive. Just as if a hetero couple would have been denied something customized that she considered offensive as well.

The gay couple had other alternatives but chose to make something out of this when they didn’t have to. I can’t support that.

Jaxson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My understanding, and what I heard, (and
> remember…I live here so am probably a little
> more connected than most) is that the referred
> baker had done similar jobs for other gay
> couples.

Could be. The court documents showed, though, that nobody ever actually asked the other bakery if they would/could do it.

> I’m not really seeing the discrimination.
> The owner did not deny them a wedding cake. She just
> denied them the customization of it that she
> considered offensive. Just as if a hetero couple
> would have been denied something customized that
> she considered offensive as well.

The baker didn't object because of "offensive content." The baker refused to do business with them because of who they are as persons.
That's discrimination.

> The gay couple had other alternatives but chose to
> make something out of this when they didn’t have
> to. I can’t support that.

The baker refused to do business with people because of who they are as people. It's no different than refusing to do business with people who have black skin, or with people who have brown hair. I can't support *that.* :)

And the way we hold people accountable for their discrimination is by "making something out of" it. Not by letting them continue to do it.

Wrong on all counts.

Do you REALLY want to argue that the other referred baker who had done similar cakes for other gay couples perhaps wouldn't do one for them either? REALLY?? Got any other nits to pick?

The baker didn't refuse service because they were gay and continues to make the claim that she will sell to ANYBODY (straight, gay, Martian, etc.).

“I am very happy to serve everything from my cases to anybody,” she said.

The dispute arose from the creation of a cake that celebrated what she felt went against her artistic and religious standards. Hell, she had no problem with who or what they were. She would have sold them a wedding cake out of her case with no problem. The couple went in to her business with an agenda. I can't support that.

Again,the plaintiffs FALSELY CLAIM that it's a matter of "who they are as people".Any opposite-sex friends of a same-sex couple would be refused the same way,I am sure,if the cake they asked for was to celebrate that same-sex couple's wedding.

This is about nothing but the baker's right not to be part of what the people involved are deliberately doing,no matter how loudly or self-righteously they pretend it's about "who they are".

Is that you, judge?

ificouldhietokolob is wrong on this issue. If a heterosexual customer asked for the same cake to be created for the same purpose then they would have been refused just the same. Therefore the discrimination was against the use of the cake / creation of the cake for that use not the sexual orientation of the customer.

If a heterosexual customer asked the baker to create a cake for their friends gay wedding then they would have been refused. Ergo the discrimination was against the creation of the cake not the customer.

bakemeacakeasfastasyoucan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ificouldhietokolob is wrong on this issue. If a
> heterosexual customer asked for the same cake to
> be created for the same purpose then they would
> have been refused just the same.

Since that didn't happen, you don't know that.
To claim it would have happened, when you have no idea if it would or wouldn't, is rather dishonest.

> Therefore the
> discrimination was against the use of the cake /
> creation of the cake for that use not the sexual
> orientation of the customer.

No, it wasn't. It was because they were gay.
Those are the facts of the case.

> If a heterosexual customer asked the baker to
> create a cake for their friends gay wedding then
> they would have been refused. Ergo the
> discrimination was against the creation of the
> cake not the customer.

There is no record of this baker ever refusing anything to any heterosexual couple, so you're simply making things up.
Why are you looking for ways to justify discrimination with made-up scenarios?

ok ificouldhietokolob. I explained to you in another post that attorneys are saying publicly and on their websites that they are only representing heterosexual couples in divorce court.

You responded that the attorneys are not discriminating against gays. You also believe that deny the customer the cake that doesnt even exist is somehow discrimination against gays.

Care to explain your twisted logic? Somehow your its just not discrimination response (with no explanation at all) just wasnt convincing in the other post.

You assert something for which you have no evidence and which is not at all clear. That is curious. It invites comparison to the judge's convoluted logic.

I've been there *LOL*

Yeah, I just imagine the weight that a Bakersfield bottom-level court ruling will have on legal precedent.


(that would be pretty much none)

:)

And you would be right my friend.

All wedding cakes are made to order, so essentially all bakeries are being given a pass to discriminate in violation of the public accommodation laws. Not sure this will survive an appeal.

in b 4 ~ "ban wedding cakes" ~

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I sort of agree with that. If they sell generic wedding cakes, say Kroger or something, that's one thing. But for the most part, I see wedding cakes as art and agree that you can't force someone to create art for you. Yeah, flame me, you'll have to stand in line today.

Art? So if the cake is only going to be looked at, its OK to not bake it for gay couples?

I think defining cake decorating as "art" and protecting it as such is the real stretch here. It requires some artistic skill, etc, but is it art? Not in my opinion.

What if the gay couple wanted a plain sheet cake, with white frosting and nothing else on it? It that art?

Not trying to flame you, just trying to better define "art." The only flames I want to see are flames in a wood fired oven, baking a cake for a gay couple wedding :)

If a well-executed confection can't be considered art then neither can about 98% of what passes for contemporary art today.

A wedding dress is art, for sure--when it's displayed on a professional model, a mannequin, or photographed. Is it still "art" when it's actually worn by a retail customer?

In the same way, a wedding cake is art, whether it is put on long-term display in the baker's window (getting stale), or on a table being cut up.

My two metaphors bring to mind Dickens' Miss Havisham. Ugh!

Jonny the Smoke is wrong. If it wasnt art then why would you need a professional baker to bake it for you? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Same reason I take a broken car to a car mechanic. It's not art. It's what they do professionally.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

The only thing that makes an artist "professional" is that they get paid for it. I was a professional artist for 4 years at BYU....head scenic artist for the theater dept.......lead guitar and vocals in a performing band. I played at events I didn't agree with, but it was my job and I got paid for it. I painted scenery that I didn't necessarily agree with but I got paid, it was my job.

I still play in a band...main songwriter, lead vocals, harmony vocals, 6 string guitar, 12 string guitar, banjo, ukulele, and sitar. I get paid for it. Is it OK for me not to play for christians if I don't want to? Should they be expected to leave the gig and go find entertainment elsewhere? I know a place up the road where they have live music they might be able to see. It's my art and I'm a professional.

And you can see my art in Newport Beach, Oregon, 16th Feb 2018 at Canyon Way, Club 1216, 6 - 8 pm. I don't use my art to discriminate against others I may disagree with.

Should a christian plastic surgeon be allowed to refuse to remedy the effects of a mastectomy because he feels the Lesbian patient is doing evil?

Isn't performing a surgery akin to a performance art? Some are as gifted as actors. Maybe they should be exempt from having to treat people they don't care for.

Sure, and allow people to not pay taxes to any government entity that violates the spirit of the person's beliefs!

"I'm not paying taxes to an evil government so long as they support Rowe v. Wade!", said somebody now cleansed of tangible possessions and awaiting the end of his/her prison sentence.

I don't understand the notion that if you are an artist then you cannot be compelled to follow a law you don't like.

What if you find a beautiful piece of real art in a gallery. You know---a painting or a sculpture that you just have to have. Only the gay gallery owner doesn't sell to straights?

Even if the cake were art, why should art be an exemption from bigotry?


And medicine. Medicine is not an exact science but an applied science and that application is an art. I hope when you need emergency medical assistance that who you are lines up with who the doctor will apply his art to.

This isn't about cake and and it isn't about art. It is about justification of bigotry.

If "artistic gifts" is the defining characteristic, could the cast of "Hamilton" refuse to perform in front of christians based on freedom of association and freedom of conscience?

Interesting or "interesting"?

I have seen into the future. It is going to be good for tattoo artists. All people will have to have a list of ingredients inked across their forehead to aid them in obtaining services from others.

Just like the back of a box of cereal that lists the amounts of protein, carb, fat, salt, and riboflavin, and whether or not the facility also processes nuts---humans will have an "ingredients' list with things like, religion, political party, vegan or carnivore, sexual preference, top or bottom, favorite flower, boxers or briefs, and Coke or Pepsi. Then a vendor can more easily decide whether to serve you or be horrified by you.

Sounds like a plan. No?

Either you are open to the public or you are not. Public means everyone. Period. Every. One.

Well there is the shirt and shoes thing. And of course children shouldn't be allowed in restaurants or movie theaters. And of course many are offended that women breast feed in public so let's tighten up those laws while we're at it. Why should anyone have to see that! Oh, and I'm sick of straight people kissing in public. And what's with this thing that black people can marry white people now? And why should men have to put with women being bosses? CEO's even. Geez. We've got a lot of laws to pass if we're going back in time to the early last century. Let's get cracking' folks. We got a lot of bigoting to do.

Good thing we're talking about Bakersfield and not Oildale--there are some times you just don't cross the Kern River....

Actually, for kicks on a night off, some gay folks at the theater I worked at (imagine that: gay people in the arts!) took me to 2 gay bars *and* a lesbian bar in Bako'...they were hoppin' it was a blast!

Is it a cake or is it art?

All depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Are some really at the point of being so desperate to hang onto their bigotry that it as come to this?

Everything going on in the world, and we are having a discussion about whether cakes are art because if they are ruled to be art then one can justify their bigotry, judgementalism, and small mindedness?

It still boggles my mind that someone would want to obligate a baker to bake a cake they don't want to bake.

All the baker has to do is create a bland or horrible tasting cake with sub par ingredients and make sure the decorations are ugly.

Instant ruined wedding.

Why not hire someone that wants your business?

Because in the big picture, people want civil rights. Black people wanted to sit at the lunch counter. Gay people want to marry. That's why.

The court didnt say they couldnt get married. They are already married. Kinda late for a wedding cake in my opinion.

They want to get married just like everyone else. Most people have a party with a cake. Quit trying to be dense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 09:45AM by Devoted Exmo.

Your attempt at excuses for the bigots is lame.

Lots of "ALREADY MARRIED" people renew wedding vows and get a cake for the event.

One of my friends got a wedding cake for their fiftieth wedding anniversary and had a renewal and a reception.

I'm not even married but if I wanted to go buy a wedding cake tomorrow I would expect to get it.

Perhaps someone needs a wedding cake for a commercial shoot and no one is getting married.


If you are open to the public you sell to the public. It's not rocket science.

Done & Done. You all are the ones spinning this and saying its a conspiracy to get gays, deny gay marriage, and other outlandish comparisons / conspiracy theories.

People are actually trying to compare not getting a cake made the way you want it with racial segregation. That is about as outlandish as you get.

I am not the 1 exaggerating things here.

.....but WHY would the same sex couple want to insist on giving their money / support to other people one who do not support their personal choices /preferences....

Why would people want to be treated with respect?

yah, people would generally like to be treated with respect, because it generally makes life easier, but even so that does NOT mean that desire is going to always translate into actually getting that desired respect.

After some one has made it abundantly clear that they have no respect for my personal outlooks or personal volition then forcing/compelling them to do business with me which then results in them also having to accept some funds from me really is NOT my most preferred outcome for the situation. In fact, I'd really prefer that they did not profit from the soured situation. In fact, I would really rather do my business with some one else.

Ok, forget "respect."
Let's stick with fairness. And according to the law.

In California, it's illegal for businesses to discriminate.
That law is based on simple "fairness": nobody wants to be discriminated against, so we make laws to prevent discrimination.

The baker in this case wouldn't want to walk into some business, and be denied being served because she's a woman. Or because of her skin color. Or because of her sexual orientation. Yet she's perfectly willing to deny service to people because they're gay.
The baker isn't acting fairly. She's not acting in her own best interest (because she's demanding that discrimination be allowed, apparently not realizing that doing so would make it OK for HER to be discriminated against). The baker in this case isn't being smart or fair, and she's not acting legally.

It would be great if we didn't NEED laws against discrimination -- because everybody treated everyone else fairly.
Unfortunately, everybody doesn't treat everybody fairly. People have biases and act in bigoted ways, and don't think through their actions. So we put laws in place to try and make our society fair for everyone...and people who break the laws are held accountable.

As for this whole "why should they be forced" or "they could have gone somewhere else" nonsense:

Those exact same arguments were used when black people tried to eat at "white" lunch counters. Or go to "white" schools.
Where would we be now in civil rights regarding skin color if we had just told blacks to "go somewhere else," to "not try and force people to serve you?"

If 1900's segregation is the kind of society some people want, I don't want those people in my society.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 12:11PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I assume the baker uses a finite number of cake tins, and does not design and order a unique tin for each wedding cake that is ordered.

I assume the baker has a portfolio of cakes she has previously baked and decorated, from which prospective buyers may choose a cake, in fact, a combination of differing cakes if they wish, describing the colors, shapes and amount of decorations they wish to have on the cake.

The baker will assemble and decorate the cakes as instructed by the buyers. I would argue that each customer has a greater input as to the "design" of the cake than does the baker, who has done no more than copy the works of generations of weddings cakes, and hung a sign on a public street.

The baker is not "creating art." She is reproducing variations from molded tin pans, using the same techniques for decorating hundreds of cakes per customer specifications, and wouldn't be surprised to learn she uses a ready-made mix and icings. She refuses to assemble these ready-made things for customers who are gay.

Puhleeze. It's bigotry, not "forced atistic expression." Let her create hundreds of individual pie tins, unique to each "work of art," then we might have a discussion about "forcing her to create artistic expression."

I might have a litho on my wall of god's finger reaching out to Adam, but I know that I don't live in the Sistine Chapel. I know that the image depicted on the litho was originally created way, way after the first cake was ever created. I know cakes were not invented or created by a recipe known only to a baker in Bakersfield, Ca, in 2017, who lays her own eggs. I know that thousands of bakers the world over put the same little curly-q designs and flowers on their cakes, and that to show me an "original" cake would be a media event of vast proportion.

Please. "I will open my portfolio only if you fuck the opposite sex."

Sex-obsessed bitch, and shit-for-brains judge.

It is a confirmation for me that the "sacred texts" were written by sex-obsessed, dust-covered slaves, who weren't allowed to screw even the camels, lest they lose their heads. Overcompensation sucks.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! And plus a billion to infinity!

And this has me on the floor howling:

" . . . who lays her own eggs."

Everybody I ever knew chose a cake from a catalogue. They may have requested an extra frosting rose or something or ask for lilac instead of pink, but it's no different from choosing a pizza--"I'd like the Works but please leave off the mushrooms and pineapple. Oh, an extra cheese."

Pizza actually is an art though. :)

Pizza actually is an art though.

Actually it is, good pizza is so easy to make that we tend to devalue the art. Eating a good pizza and then a great pizza is like comparing a photograph to a Caravaggio.

Oh my! Speaking of cake, and art, your contribution was Delicious!

Can I use it anywhere? On anyone?

Who checks them (to make sure they are valid)?

Where do you get one? YOU can't! You're not a (real)/ an ARTIST.

M@t

I'm waiting for those trumpanzee christians to refuse to bake cakes for black couples.

Or mixed race.

Or gay mixed race Moslem. A hat trick!

How is this not clear to us? We should recognize the blatant bigotry here.

The church has done the exact same thing we have called it out for in its policy on LBGQ folks. "We love you but because my god says, you are equal expect for because my god says, your children can't participate but nothing is lost because at 18 you can become one of us if you disavow your parents because my god says". Despicable! Yet the uneducated and innocent in the church are fed twisted logic and words that are meant to sooth the troubled minds of those that are seeing a problem right there in River City.

The church can get a way with it because it is a private org and does not serve the public.

You serve the public. The public. It is one thing to take offense to say topping a cake with a plane flying into a burning building. It is something different to take offense to two loving beings holding hands on top of that same cake. The word offense is stretched beyond reasonable limits in this context IMO.

This case is exactly what elderdog said. It is sending folks to use the "other" fountain.

We should be able to see more clearly when the patina of verbiage makes a thing appear to be fair when in fact it is doubling down on unfair. Never mind the permission such a ruling will give those on the fence today who are looking for "guidance" to practice religious bigotry.

Lipstick on a pig people an gobs of it.