Colorado baker sued again, this time for "gender transition cake"

submitted by WrongToy from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

My guess is that a majority of posters here would not have supported the two gay guys suing this baker, either. Not because we are not supporters and advocates of gay rights, but because of the particulars of that case and the conflicts between what the two gay men wanted & the baker's religious views. The baker didn't refuse the men service. He said he's happily bake them a cake, but couldn't in good conscience bake them a wedding cake coz of his religion.

I see what they did as akin to hiring a Kosher or Muslim chef/cooking company to cater a dinner party, then getting outraged when they say "no can do" to making roast pork. It's like getting pissed off - and taking it personally - over the fact that Indian restaurants don't serve any beef dishes coz of the Hindu belief that cows are sacred.

Most of the longtime LGB activists I know think that the way the two gay guys - and Colorado's heavy-handed "equality" authority - treated the Christian baker in the wedding cake case actually did more damage than good to the cause of gay rights and acceptance. Just as this trans person is now doing to the trans cause in the new case.

[–]WrongToy[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, the baker said he would sell them a premade cake, but would not make them a custom one, nor was he comfortable going to the gay guys' reception as a paid cake-cutter, giving the groom the cake to feed the groom and such.

And when he said no, said baker got harassed by self-described Satanists who wanted a dildo cake wedding or something.

Not every lane has to be for everyone. I would never go to someone strictly Orthodox and demand that he work on holy day and on top of it his staff turn on/turn off lights and all this shit, even though personally I think their customs are ridiculous! While I think much of religion is ridiculous, it is still a fundamental US Right. Not every single case is a religious person turning off the gas pump when you come or declining you water or a trip to the bathroom! Get over yourselves progressives!

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

For me it wasn' t really about respecting his religion, it was all about artistic and speech freedom: bakery is not just cooking, a wedding cake requires artistic skills, and if the creator didn' t want to use his skills for this specific message and celebration, it was absolutely his right to refuse doing it. Not to mention eventual writing on the cake itself that would have been, for all intents, a person being paid and forced to say/write something he didn' t want to say.

It' s like if I were a singer, an organization contacts my agency to hire me for singing their "we are awesome" anthem and I refuse because I oppose what that organization stands for.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, I think it was all these issues at once.

But in the scenario you raise, I think the issue would not be whether individual singers represented by the agency refuse to take a gig on grounds of artistic license and freedom of expression. The issue would be whether the agency says from the get-go that no, since we the agency don't agree with the message/meaning of the song, we won't ask any of our artists to consider singing it.

In the Masterpiece Bake Shop cases, the guy being sued is both the owner of a retail business - the bake shop - and the artist who creates what the retail business sells. That's very different to being an independent artist who relies on an agency for bookings. And it's very different to being an agency that serves as an intermediary between independent creators and artists and those who want to hire artists and creators for particular gigs/tasks.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Take out the agency then: I am a singer who is contacted by an organization and I refuse.

Point is, the art in question, be it singing/writing songs or baking a cake, is supposed to deliver a message. If I am against delivering that message, for whatever reason, forcing me to do it or making me pay for refusing to do it is a much serious thing that a gay couple having to find another baker or an organization having to find another singer.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that one of the issues in the Masterpiece case is compelled speech and artistic expression. But they went after this guy coz he has a retail store that's open to all the public and is therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws that say it must serve all the public on equal terms.

Independent contractors and freelancers can turn down any job they want for any reason, and without being obliged to say what the reason is.