Comparing this to race is silly imo. Has been throughout. In the 60s when a black man was completely barred from a bakery is way different than if a business today that openly serves African Americans and all races refuses a specific cake with a political movement supported by a black customer. My guess is this baker wont make a "divorce" celebration cake for a hetero couple either. But nah... Lets brow beat this guy into submission to the "tolerance" party. Thats America in 2022.
This is the leap that starts all of our troubles. African-Americans were and are discriminated against based on the color of the skin THEY WERE BORN WITH! That struggle cannot be compared to a movement to force people to treat you as something THEY WERE NOT BORN WITH! The two causes couldn't be more polar opposites.
I did not read the article but based on the headline the baker is being a jerk for refusing to make a cake for someone (again) and the customer is being a jerk for trolling the baker (I assume the customer knows the baker's history).
Even if they are, it's not the same thing as people being discriminated against for the color of the skin they were born with. I really wish people would stop conflating the two things. They are not equals on any scale. If you want to make it a civil rights issue, be my guest, but don't ride the coattails of racial bigotry, because the two are nothing alike and I am very confident based on conversations I've had over the years that many African Americans would agree with this. Equating race and gender dysphoria is simply inaccurate. Two totally different things.
Correct, this cake refusal is NOT about race, it's about a message that the pastry artist refuse to allow a customer to commission. He refuse to paint or draw those words on his own cakes.
Race is just a dishonest front for them to push their agenda, because after all, who can argue against the blacks and the Civil Rights movement? It's a dishonest take, if there ever was one. Want your civil rights movement? You need to do so on the merits of your actual fight, not ride the coattails of a totally unrelated movement.
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the target of that discrimination. If this were a burger joint and he refused to serve a customer based on his reasons, all this “it’s not really discrimination” logic goes completely out the window. Again, I’m sympathetic to the idea there are grey zones as far as compelling speech, I just don’t see evidence he’s being forced to do that. Seems some are applying sanctimonious values to… cake, because it neatly fits into their agenda.
I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but from a First Amendment standpoint, if we permit businesses to opt out of anti-discrimination laws based upon their claimed religious objections, what basis is there to have an exception for race only? People certainly made religious arguments against interracial marriage.
That's simply not true. I could discriminate against a woman, because she doesn't look good enough for me to date. Happens all the time. Discrimination is not always a bad thing. We all discriminate in our daily lives in one manner or the other. If it was all the same, then we'd be up Shit Creek without a paddle, but it's not. Whether for right or wrong, there are different forms of discrimination. They are not all equal and they are not all bad. Not baking a cake for someone solely based on the color of the skin they were born with, yeah, that's wrong. Not baking a cake for someone who wants to advertise their gender confusion? It's just not the same. Even if I was 100% on board with the trans agenda, it's not the same thing as racial injustice.
There is always going to be nuance with the Constitution. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, but the 1st amendment says you have free speech. There's always going to be a line drawn. Someone being discriminated against because of what they were actually born with is a totally different thing than someone being discriminated against for something they were not born with. I'll leave it there.
Yeah. Even if it said something like "Happy Transition Day" I'd say there would be a justifiable speech argument. But when the baker himself would consider the cake content neutral until he knows the identity of the purchaser, it's pretty clear what the problem is.
Well they were born with a condition that makes them feel like they are not the gender listed on their birth certificate. So it's cool with you if people refuse to do business with people like that?
Yes, lines have to be drawn, but I think we need a compelling reason to make such distinctions when it comes to constitutional rights such as religious liberty and free speech. It's true that people don't choose their race. (I would also argue that people don't choose their sexual orientation). People do choose whom they marry. That was an issue in Loving v. Virginia - the argument that the law was not discriminating on the basis of race because it prohibited both the Black and White races from marrying the other race. I find that similar to same sex marriage - the argument that the objection is not to the customer himself but to the marriage that the business is arguably being asked to recognize or celebrate.
I say “discrimination is discrimination” no matter the target, you say “not true”, and for your example you offer a different example of discrimination, and then explain why discrimination can be good? Mmkay. What is true that in your private life, yes, you can discriminate all you want. Even the most vile racist can choose to only associate with their own kind. I assume most people engage in at least some low level discrimination. It’s essentially an animal herding instinct. Selecting a mate essentially falls into this category and nobody calls that discrimination in the context we are talking about here. Further, if a person states they are primarily only attracted to their own race or women with a nice rack, I don’t think most would consider that racist or discriminatory (maybe a bit sexist on the nice rack). The problem arises when people try and interfere in the lives of others. Kim Davis trying to block gay marriages from her county clerk position and this guy refusing to bake cakes are essentially two peas in a pod. Both trying to interject themselves and their values with whatever power they have over their “customers”, yes the govt official doing this is far worse, but both are discrimination and I find both repugnant. Public facing businesses cannot discriminate based on Race, Color, Religion, Sex, National Origin per the civil rights act of 1964. Unfortunately this left the door open to a few more categories of people to remain targets of so-called conservatives to deny their equality under the law. So here we are with more “baker” nonsense.
You can scream with all caps all you want, but it doesn’t make it more true. Almost all researchers, physicians and psychologists agree that sexual orientation has a major genetic component. Your confident conclusion seems likely to be wrong. Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality | BU Today | Boston University https://www.researchgate.net/public...litative_study_of_the_source_of_homosexuality Further, you are positing that if you are not born with a “condition” that creates discrimination, then discrimination is ok. So someone who is crippled by a drunk driver is fair game. Or a converted Jew is fair game, just like a transgender person. Unpersuasive. Finally, discrimination based on gender is illegal under the law because, like black people, gay people have been and still are discriminated against. 40-50 people are killed annually in the us in “gender hate” violence. https://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/a-crisis-of-hate-january-release.pdf. Whether nature or nurture, discrimination against somebody based on who they love is wrong. And thankfully illegal unless our scotus wants to overturn the existing law and public opinion. Thankfully, like with Dobbs abortion opinion, doing that will enrage the majority of Americans who are not bigots and believe in human rights.
