Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

[Sacntus_Incendia]

Hey guys! I've been going through the posts, and while I am not prepared to make a legal decision on the matter, I'd just like to point something out. I notice a lot with subjects such as this that the gay civil rights movement tends to get grouped in with the african american civil rights movement. I haven't noticed it too much on this but there has been a tad bit of leaning towards this. So just for clarification, I guess, I'd like to point out how the two are different.

The African American civil rights movement had to do with the appearance of a person, so is related to physical, tangible things. The gay civil rights movement, however, is not a movement involving tangible things but rather intangible things; morals. Whereas the former had to do with plain prejudice, the latter is actually a moral struggle. They are two different matters and therefore should be approached in different ways. Just wanted to point out the difference as to not clump the two together.

[ChickenSoup]

There are some differences, yes, but in a way they both boil down to wanting equal rights as human beings.

[Ultramania]

Personally I'd serve cakes to the homosexual couple, I'd make sure it was the best cake they'd ever tasted because that's what Jesus would do. On the other hand everyone has their own opinions on something and they should be forced to change their views.

[selderane]

No person or business should be forced to provide goods or services to anyone they don't wish to. It's an infringement upon their liberty and a form of slavery.

So, yes, this means they too ought to have the right to not serve someone because of their race, gender, religious affiliation, or the hat they're wearing. If they truly own their time and property then no one has the right to force them to act in a way that violates their conscience or will.

That's how liberty works.

In turn, however, should individuals find those actions distasteful they too are free to never darken that business' doorstep.

That's how the free market works.

And let's be clear: This baker wasn't objecting to serving homosexuals cake. I'm sure had they come in and asked for a dozen donuts the baker would have served them happily. No the baker objected to putting their stamp upon an immoral act. Should they in turn be forced to provide goods and services to KKK or Neo-Nazi events?

The logic that says they must serve individuals regardless of their sexuality also holds they must do the same regardless of ideology. But "Baker refuses to serve Klan members" isn't as sexy as what we're talking about, is it?

[ChickenSoup]

It's an infringement upon their liberty and a form of slavery.

wat

[selderane]

It's an infringement upon their liberty and a form of slavery.

wat

Are you truly unclear about I'm trying to say or are you simply being sarcastic? There seems to be a lot of the latter going on and a fair amount of butt hurt is incurred when one gets called on it.

I'm going to assume you're unclear and try to elaborate.

When an individual is forced to perform any action they do not wish to, for whatever reason, they are necessarily stripped of a degree of their personal liberty. There are numerous reasons why this could happen, some are even reasonable, but the net effect is that you are less free than you were before.

When your freedom is taken from you that is called slavery.

So the argument being put forth now is that it is better for one private citizen to be stripped of a degree of his freedom than to deny another private citizen a service they have no right to demand from anyone. This suppression is enabled by the threat of force by the state.

[Wildebear]

It's an infringement upon their liberty and a form of slavery.

wat

Are you truly unclear about I'm trying to say or are you simply being sarcastic? There seems to be a lot of the latter going on and a fair amount of butt hurt is incurred when one gets called on it.

I'm going to assume you're unclear and try to elaborate.

When an individual is forced to perform any action they do not wish to, for whatever reason, they are necessarily stripped of a degree of their personal liberty. There are numerous reasons why this could happen, some are even reasonable, but the net effect is that you are less free than you were before.

When your freedom is taken from you that is called slavery.

So the argument being put forth now is that it is better for one private citizen to be stripped of a degree of his freedom than to deny another private citizen a service they have no right to demand from anyone. This suppression is enabled by the threat of force by the state.

Indeed.
If the person had been employed in government service(i.e fireman, policeman etc.) it would have been a "sworn" duty to protect or assist other people, but this baker is under no oath or authority.

[selderane]

Indeed.
If the person had been employed in government service(i.e fireman, policeman etc.) it would have been a "sworn" duty to protect or assist other people, but this baker is under no oath or authority.

Correct. Public servants are just that, servants of the public.

The baker is a private citizen and who he decides to serve is limited only by his choice. No other private citizen has the right to compel him to serve them in a way he doesn't consent to.

Again, when one person is compelled to perform a task for another person against their will that is the very definition of slavery. And if you want to enslave someone you'd better have a really, really good reason. Making a wedding cake doesn't qualify.

[ChickenSoup]

Except, not all actions that you're forced to do for others are equivalent for slavery. We're commanded by the Bible to do certain things for others, but that's not slavery. Your mom probably told you to eat your brussel sprouts, but that wasn't slavery. The FDA requires restaurant owners to properly sanitize their cookware, but that's not slavery.

I mean, it's great that you found a buzzword, but let's not let hyperbole rule our discussion. The "you can't discriminate customers" thing =/= slavery.

[selderane]

While you may dismiss my use of the word, it's entirely appropriate. Yes, you are a slave to your parents' will as a child (what happens when you don't eat your brussel sprouts?), just as you are a slave to Yahweh's will when you become saved:

1 Corinthians 7:22: "And remember, if you were a slave when the Lord called you, you are now free in the Lord. And if you were free when the Lord called you, you are now a slave of Christ."

Romans 7:25: "Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

When your will is supplanted by an outside force that is a form of slavery. Whatever you feel is discriminatory doesn't enter into the equation either. So long as the exercise of my liberty does not inhibit another individual to exercise their liberty I am to be unmolested. The moment this equation changes one of the two parties is enslaved to the other. Their liberty is curbed as to benefit another.

The gay couple's liberty to purchase a wedding cake is not inhibited by a baker's refusal to provide a service. But the baker's liberty to work for whomever he chooses is inhibited when the state penalizes him for choosing not to service a gay couple. You simply cannot make the argument that the baker's liberty isn't taking a back seat to the gay couple's desire.

So the baker is left with the choice of performing services against his will (slavery) or shuttering his business.

I would encourage you to read into the writings of our Founders, the thinkers they drew upon (Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a good place) and any number of libertarian publications (Matt Kibbe's Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto is user friendly) to come to a better understanding of individual liberty and how it's threatened by a death of a thousand cuts because of the policies we're discussing.

[Bruce_Campbell]

So wait. You want to diminish meaning of the word slavery while using the shock value of the word to bolster your argument?

[ChickenSoup]

Pretty much. Also:

When your will is supplanted by an outside force that is a form of slavery. Whatever you feel is discriminatory doesn't enter into the equation either. So long as the exercise of my liberty does not inhibit another individual to exercise their liberty I am to be unmolested. The moment this equation changes one of the two parties is enslaved to the other. Their liberty is curbed as to benefit another.

The gay couple's liberty to purchase a wedding cake is not inhibited by a baker's refusal to provide a service. But the baker's liberty to work for whomever he chooses is inhibited when the state penalizes him for choosing not to service a gay couple. You simply cannot make the argument that the baker's liberty isn't taking a back seat to the gay couple's desire.

Since when was Christ about liberty above all else? Just as a side point, because this discussion could also turn to whether or not welfare is okay (the state making you give money in taxes to support others, etc.).

[selderane]

So wait. You want to diminish meaning of the word slavery while using the shock value of the word to bolster your argument?

Since this is the only thing you've latched on to in the many, many words I've written on my argument, I respectfully thank you for your agreement to the larger point I'm making. Because I know you are not one to ignore the larger argument you can readily dismantle with a flick of the wrist to instead be a pedant and nitpick words.

You are trying to make me a better debater, and I salute you.

But in this case you need not worry! I am showing slavery has many uses and connotations and instead of succumbing to a base emotional reaction, one you are clearly in no danger of succumbing to, we ought not limit our language simply because some would have a Pavlovian response to what is a deeper point.

I am reminded of the Jewish idiom "Never Again" as it relates to Nazi aggression. Then I am reminded that groups like the Anti-Defamation League jump at anyone who would point to burgeoning tends today as we saw develop in the past. "It diminishes what happened to the victims of the past," they say.

Well, if we really want to make sure it "Never Again" happens how can we do that without pointing out the parallels? How can I expect to teach a child to not put a penny in an electrical outlet if I am denied to ability to talk about pennies and how they interact with electricity in some misguided deference to penny/electrical outlet victims of the past?

The worst kind of slavery rarely comes over night. It comes in increments, small steps. Usually reasonable-seeming steps.

The problem isn't that I'm using a shock word. The problem is that normalcy bias lulls people into thinking the great horrors of history could never happen to them.

Pretty much. Also:

When your will is supplanted by an outside force that is a form of slavery. Whatever you feel is discriminatory doesn't enter into the equation either. So long as the exercise of my liberty does not inhibit another individual to exercise their liberty I am to be unmolested. The moment this equation changes one of the two parties is enslaved to the other. Their liberty is curbed as to benefit another.

The gay couple's liberty to purchase a wedding cake is not inhibited by a baker's refusal to provide a service. But the baker's liberty to work for whomever he chooses is inhibited when the state penalizes him for choosing not to service a gay couple. You simply cannot make the argument that the baker's liberty isn't taking a back seat to the gay couple's desire.

Since when was Christ about liberty above all else? Just as a side point, because this discussion could also turn to whether or not welfare is okay (the state making you give money in taxes to support others, etc.).

I have zero idea what you're talking about.

And, yes, the state has no business taking my money and giving it to someone else. Again, another form of slavery: taking the sweat of my efforts and bestowing them upon a third party I did not consent to.

It's like you guys have never heard of the principles our nation was founded upon...

[ChickenSoup]

Ok, look. I'm not talking about Our Father's Most Chosen Country The United States of America. I'm talking about principles you believe or don't believe to be right. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, anyway, so there's that. Either way, why should we always have to consider what the founding father would have wanted? They're dead. They had some great ideas, but they also had some pretty bad ones. I would never put their written opinions on a level that is higher than what I believe to be right for the sole fact that "something something Founding Fathers something something America!"

Anyway, look. I'm not sure you're worth talking to. I don't want to trample your condescension party or anything, but I think I've got an idea of how you're going to respond to dissension to your opinion and I quite honestly see no point in discussion this further with you. You're sarcastic and dismissive, and it's painful to read.

Except, there's one last thing I have to address:

It's like you guys have never heard of the principles our nation was founded upon...

Well, some of the founding fathers had slaves. So... not to rain on your condescension parade, but maybe we shouldn't take the words of people who have been dead for 200 years as Gospel?

[Bruce_Campbell]

So wait. You want to diminish meaning of the word slavery while using the shock value of the word to bolster your argument?

Since this is the only thing you've latched on to in the many, many words I've written on my argument, I respectfully thank you for your agreement to the larger point I'm making. Because I know you are not one to ignore the larger argument you can readily dismantle with a flick of the wrist to instead be a pedant and nitpick words.

You are trying to make me a better debater, and I salute you.

Eh, I actually don't disagree with you--completely. I just think the term "slavery" is a good example of hyperbole, and I don't see any reason to trot it out except to get a rise out of people. Yes, I think it weakens your argument. More importantly, I don't really know where you stand. Do you think this is as bad as dragging someone away from their home and forcing them to work for you for the rest of their lives, or are you comparing it to a child having to obey his or her parents? It distracts from the issue. (Also, I was on my phone and too lazy to type out a more detailed reply. Sue me. :p)

Back to the original topic... this is a pretty big grey area for me. On one hand, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage. I also think that if you're running a public business then you should be willing to serve all of the public, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, whatever. On the other hand, I don't think people should have to participate in something they find morally repugnant, even if I believe that they are wrong. I've been a business owner myself, and as backwards as I personally think this guy is (sorry), he shouldn't have to do something that violates his personal convictions.

I mean, if he was refusing service to this couple only because they were gay, I think this would be a lot more clear cut. I agree that if they were just in there to get a dozen donuts this probably wouldn't be an issue. I think good arguments can be made either way, and I honestly haven't made up my mind.