[BartSimpson]

Full title: "Judge rules bakery owner can refuse to make wedding cake for same-sex couples"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california ... x-couples/

$1:

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - A California bakery owner can continue to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it violates her Christian beliefs, a judge ruled.

The decision came after a lawyer for Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield argued that owner Cathy Miller's right to free speech and free expression of religion trumps the argument that she violated a state anti-discrimination law.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe agreed but said Monday his ruling was tied closely to the fact that Miller was being asked to make a cake for an event and that the act of creating it was protected artistic expression.

Lampe cautioned that freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act in other circumstances, the Bakersfield Californian reported.

"A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples," Lampe wrote. "No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification."

Miller said it went against her Christian beliefs to make a cake for a same sex couple. She told the newspaper she was overjoyed by the ruling and respected the distinction Lampe made between the sales of a cake and the creation of one.

"I am very happy to serve everything from my cases to anybody," she said. "But I cannot be a part of a celebration that goes against my lord and savior."

An attorney for Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio, who brought the case, was not available for comment.

The decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule in the high-profile case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

That baker, Jack Phillips, who grew up drawing and painting, said his cakes are personal artistic expressions.

"I serve everybody who comes into my shop…So in this case I would gladly sell you anything in my shop but this is just an event that I can't create a cake for," Phillips said.

But to the couple involved, it was discrimination. They filed a complaint against Phillips and won.

Good. This means you can't force people to sell a product that they don't wish to sell.

[Tricks]

California is an unexpected place for that.

[Tricks]

Bart, as a religious person, I was wondering if you could explain something to me. God is supposed to be responsible for creation. Why did he create a group of people that he subsequently wants his followers to condemn? This isn't a question of free will, as they aren't making the choice to be gay. So why willingly follow an entity that is responsible for the creation that it also wants you to condemn? Frankly he sounds like an asshole.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

California is an unexpected place for that.

It is. But it's still a strike for freedom.

The bakery remains obligated to sell their usual lineup of wares to anyone who wants to buy them but the court is justly ruling that a custom cake is an artistic creation and that the bakery doesn't have to make something they don't feel inspired to make.

Likewise, this also means that the GLBT bakery doesn't have to bake cakes for straight people, Christians, or Nazis.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

California is an unexpected place for that.

It is. But it's still a strike for freedom.

The bakery remains obligated to sell their usual lineup of wares to anyone who wants to buy them but the court is justly ruling that a custom cake is an artistic creation and that the bakery doesn't have to make something they don't feel inspired to make.

Likewise, this also means that the GLBT bakery doesn't have to bake cakes for straight people, Christians, or Nazis.

Where's the buck stop at that one? Walmart can say they won't print photos of a gay wedding? vistaprint won't print business cards for an LGBT advocacy group? Who decides to define what art is? How about performance art? Or art with Naked children, which I know you've commented on, but can't for the life of me remember what you said.

[BeaverFever]

So they’ll still have to sell to gay people just not for weddings?

[Thanos]

If a business wants to lose money in the name of all this religious nonsense then who am I to argue with their "reasoning". And it's not like there's a shortage of other businesses that will just take the money and keep their mouths shut like they're supposed to. The judge made it clear that the same argument can't be applied by other businesses:

$1:

Lampe cautioned that freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act in other circumstances, the Bakersfield Californian reported.

"A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples," Lampe wrote. "No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification."

That means they can't play the religious card to act like dickwads against others any time they feel like it. A sensible decision all around.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

Bart, as a religious person, I was wondering if you could explain something to me. God is supposed to be responsible for creation. Why did he create a group of people that he subsequently wants his followers to condemn? This isn't a question of free will, as they aren't making the choice to be gay. So why willingly follow an entity that is responsible for the creation that it also wants you to condemn? Frankly he sounds like an asshole.

We've had these discussions in the past and while I appreciate your earnestness I think we're better off leaving the broader topic of theology out of this discussion of civil liberty.

Let's start by noting that the people who can make an actual living at producing custom made cakes are artists. They make art with food.

Should they be forced to produce art that they do not feel inspired to produce?

For instance, at my front door there is in our tile an inlaid cross. We chose a talented Christian tile layer to produce this work and he did an exceptional job of it.

Would it have been right for me to go out of my way to find a tile layer who was also adamantly opposed to Christianity and then employ the courts to force him to make a tile cross for me?

This ruling by the Kern County court says no. I stand by that decision and I agree with it.

This action protects everyone's right to express themselves artistically and it also protects the rights of everyone to be able to purchase the offered products of a business without discrimination.

Meaning a gay couple can absolutely order an ornate wedding cake from a Christian baker but one that has no adornments the endorse gay marriage. In this case the baker would be selling a wedding cake like they would sell to anyone else and it's none of his or her business what the couple does with it.

But you can't force the Christian baker to produce a wedding cake with a gay theme if they don't feel inspired to do so. Likewise, you don't get to force the Jewish bakery to produce a wedding cake with a cross on it, or the Muslim bakery to produce a cake for a bar mitzvah...unless they want to.

Make sense?

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So they’ll still have to sell to gay people just not for weddings?

Yup. This also means that if the bakery offers a 'standard' wedding cake as a stock product then they have to sell it to whomever asks for it.

But a custom cake of any nature that they do not feel inspired to produce then they do not have to produce it.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

That means they can't play the religious card to act like dickwads against others any time they feel like it. A sensible decision all around.

Exactly.

[ccga3359]

As an atheist I say well done, common sense rules out. I do question the art thing though, it's a bit of a stretch.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Bart, as a religious person, I was wondering if you could explain something to me. God is supposed to be responsible for creation. Why did he create a group of people that he subsequently wants his followers to condemn? This isn't a question of free will, as they aren't making the choice to be gay. So why willingly follow an entity that is responsible for the creation that it also wants you to condemn? Frankly he sounds like an asshole.

We've had these discussions in the past and while I appreciate your earnestness I think we're better off leaving the broader topic of theology out of this discussion of civil liberty.

Let's start by noting that the people who can make an actual living at producing custom made cakes are artists. They make art with food.

Should they be forced to produce art that they do not feel inspired to produce?

For instance, at my front door there is in our tile an inlaid cross. We chose a talented Christian tile layer to produce this work and he did an exceptional job of it.

Would it have been right for me to go out of my way to find a tile layer who was also adamantly opposed to Christianity and then employ the courts to force him to make a tile cross for me?

This ruling by the Kern County court says no. I stand by that decision and I agree with it.

This action protects everyone's right to express themselves artistically and it also protects the rights of everyone to be able to purchase the offered products of a business without discrimination.

Meaning a gay couple can absolutely order an ornate wedding cake from a Christian baker but one that has no adornments the endorse gay marriage. In this case the baker would be selling a wedding cake like they would sell to anyone else and it's none of his or her business what the couple does with it.

But you can't force the Christian baker to produce a wedding cake with a gay theme if they don't feel inspired to do so. Likewise, you don't get to force the Jewish bakery to produce a wedding cake with a cross on it, or the Muslim bakery to produce a cake for a bar mitzvah...unless they want to.

Make sense?

I stance makes sense, I've never said it doesn't. I wonder how the judge's ruling would go if it were someone saying they refused to make a cake with a black couple on it. I'd hope it would be the same, so it's consistent, but I'm genuinely curious.

[BartSimpson]

ccga3359 ccga3359:

As an atheist I say well done, common sense rules out. I do question the art thing though, it's a bit of a stretch.

This is an artistic wedding cake in case you have any further doubts:

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

I stance makes sense, I've never said it doesn't. I wonder how the judge's ruling would go if it were someone saying they refused to make a cake with a black couple on it. I'd hope it would be the same, so it's consistent, but I'm genuinely curious.

Arguably the argument could go the same way.

If you get a Jehovah's Witness or even a Muslim who makes wedding cakes they'd object to a portrayal of any couple on the cake because such a thing is a 'graven image'.

Note that many Muslims in particular object to man-made artistic portrayals of people or animals. Thus much of their art is geometric in nature or else expressions of intensely ornate calligraphy.