Its the same baker from a few years ago.
Interesting article. The twist this time is that the complainant only asked the baker to make a pink and blue cake. There is no mention of any words or overt imagery, as in previous cases. The baker refused to make the cake after being told by the complainant that the cake was intended to celebrate a gender transition.
While the complainant was definitely trolling the baker, I think she has a good chance of winning since the requested cake didn’t involve any speech. The same cake made for a kids’ birthday party would presumably have been okay. It is a brilliant move to out the bigot, and I hope it eventually ends up before SCOTUS.
If it goes to SCOTUS they’ll probably side with the baker.
Reminder that siding with the plaintiff is siding with slavery, which is defined as forced labor. We’ve already lost the thread when we ask questions like “Is the cake speech?”. Unless we want to actively support slavery, we have to let people refuse to work for other people, without purity tests on said refusal.
If you own a business that is open to the public you can’t discriminate based on certain things like sex, race, etc. I don’t think that counts as slavery.
The question is whether making this cake counts as speech.
I agree it doesn’t count as slavery, but it’s still an infringement on people’s rights to free association and voluntary agreement.
It does not
Do elaborate on how the government legally mandating association and business deals doesn’t violate people’s freedom to do those things (or not) of their own will
I guess I’ll have to explain it to you like 5 yo then. When you go into business, You’re there to make money. But the only argument you’re here to make is really a discriminatory one. You don’t actually have an argument. There is no argument to deny anyone our service that you provide and that’s free association. The bullshit that you’re trying to pander is just that, just bullshit and anybody who has two brain cells to rub together can see right through it
A shop puts up a “We don’t serve blacks” sign.
The government forces them to take it down and serve black people.
Was the shop’s freedom trampled?
Is forcing bakers to treat black people as regular customers “slavery” too?
Businesses that create custom works should be able to decide what they want to create, but they shouldn’t be able to limit who they’ll sell to.
Why not? Do you not believe that people have the right to free association?
Theres an argument that since he was told what it was for, and its still custom, therefore its still speech.
Im not lawyery enough to make that argument, but his lawyer seems to think so.
In any case, the Elegant Bakery is .2 miles away, so theres an argument for targetted harrassment.
targetted harrassment.
deleted by creator
Would you be saying this if the person was denied service because they were black?
deleted by creator
I’m asking if this was a case of racial discrimination, would you be asking the same question to undermine the prosecution’s case.
deleted by creator
No, I’m making a comparison.
If discrimination is ok when it on the basis of sexuality, how is racial discrimination any different?
How is this not an arbitrary line? Why is one type of discrimination ok, and the other isn’t?
