Sunday funnies 4-26-15
Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Lisa Benson at GoComics.com…
by (liberal) Nick Anderson at GoComics.com…
by Steve Kelley at GoComics.com (included partially because I think “bimbo” was misspelled? or was that intentional?)…
by Steve Benson at GoComics.com
by Glenn McCoy at GoComics.com…
[polldaddy poll=8826237]
Apr.26, 2015 7:16 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
#1. Beheadings and genocides in the growing Islamic violence. Loss of livelihood for Christian family businesses in America.
The Christians are like the children…. innocent, helpless, and easily killed for profit or gain.
“Loss of livelihood for Christian family businesses in America.”
????
I’m voting for #2 this week.
Yes Michelle you can put your stupid sign down. I’m sure Boko Haram was very moved by your efforts and its only a matter of time until they stop raping and likely killing these schoolgirls.
Ex-GOP says:
April 26, 2015 at 11:41
“Loss of livelihood for Christian family businesses in America.”
????
Remember Memories Pizza, in small-town Indiana. They told a reporter that they would likely refuse a request to bake pizzas for a hypothetical same-sex wedding party. They were closed for a few weeks (death threats and all), but have since reopened.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/9/memories-pizza-walkerton-indiana-reopens-after-gay/
In states where religious freedom is not respected or protected, gently refusing to bake a cake for a gay-wedding ceremony has put families out of business, and even forced them into bankruptcy. This week, from Oregon:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/24/state-says-bakers-should-pay-135000-for-refusing-to-bake-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/
There was also the threat of closing businesses and charities by fines due to the HHS Mandate, but federal courts have protected us from that (thus far) in accord with federal RFRA.
Sorry Del – I can’t put the two in the same sentence.
In some countries, Christians are literally losing their lives because of their faith.
In America, some Christians believe that the best way to live out their faith is selecting who they should and shouldn’t make overpriced baked goods for, and in some cases, have been fined.
I had to put extra lines in between the two statements – they aren’t even close.
And yes, I remember the stupidity of some individuals on Memories Pizza. I bet Mathew Sheppard’s family wishes he could have been one of the outraged individuals.
Sheppard was killed over drugs not anything to do with gayness. But I know, gotta stick to the narrative…
We could also turn that around and point out that while some who nations prosecute and execute gay people, their comrades in the West whine about carbohydrates.
9ek
Is that a fact you are stating or an unfounded theory?
whole nations, not who nations, oops :>)
Hi Ex-GOP,
It is not unfounded theory. It has been known for years.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685
Mathew Sheppard was killed during a hate crime….
So we have to punish Christian family businesses for declining to participate in gay-weddings.
Forgive me if I can’t follow the logic.
=========================
Persecution is a spectrum.
Economic and verbal persecution of Christians in America is related to the bloody, genocidal persecution of Christians in the Middle East.
Del: So we have to punish Christian family businesses for declining to participate in gay-weddings.
I think it would matter how much the degree of “participation” really is.
To expect the bakery to positively affirm things against their beliefs – I’m thinking writing certain things on the cake, for example – would likely be seen as too much.
If it’s just making a darn cake, though, they can’t discriminate against the buyers, then. They are offering their goods to the general public, and they can’t pick and choose who they will sell to.
Doug,
It seems we had this discussion before. If the neo nazis want me to bake a cake to commemorate the birth of Hitler, do I have to do so?
I would consider this a tremendous dishonor to the memory of my father.
No writing, just a large sheet or layer cake, maybe decorated with certain colors or symbols. Can I say I want no part of it?
Now, if I have sheet cakes on display, like many stores and bakeries do, and the NNs want to buy one and decorate it themselves, then I agree I have to sell it to them.
Vendors should have a sacred right to pick and choose whom they wish to sell to. I don’t understand why we have forgotten this. It’s as simple as a person choosing whom he wants to talk with, or not.
Sometimes, there is a systematic injustice in a society… such as apartheid in South Africa, or the treatment of Untouchables in India, or the case of Negros in southern US before the Civil Rights era. In such cases, there is a need for government to protect a class from systematic injustice in the culture.
But for the most part, we should respect the right of a private family business to choose their clients, and not force them to be slaves to the public.
Mary, the thread – 3 weeks prior, April 5 – had our discussion. My last post:
Mary: Come on Doug, “Hate speech”. What constitutes “hate speech”? We have freedom of speech, however repulsive any of us may find it. Don’t neo nazis and the KKK have this same right? Is their freedom of speech being violated by the baker? It seems that you want certain laws to take effect when its your sensibilities that are being offended. How convenient.
No, not my sensibilities. “In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.”
Thus, the baker is not going to be legally compelled to put a swastika, for example, on the cake against his will. That’s past the point where most people would draw the line, and past the point where the hate speech laws would take effect. A different thing than the baker, again, for example, not wanting to give little Billy a cake with red icing, red being Billy’s favorite color, because the baker says that “red is a Nazi color.”
The KKK and Neo-Nazis most certainly do have the right of free speech, but it is not without limit.
I agree, the baker cannot deny service. He does not have to involve himself in the lives of his customers or violate his conscience in any way.
The problem is that a good bit of the intent behind the “religious freedom laws” is to facilitate discrimination, under the guise of “not violating the conscience.”
I overlooked sexual orientation though I pointed out in a previous post that Adam and Steve cannot be denied service. The neo nazis can’t be denied service. So I’m sure you would support a baker being forced to bake a cake commemorating Hitler’s birthday, right?
Once again, it depends on just what is requested to be on the cake. If somebody wants a cake on April 20, no problem. If the cake is supposed to have swastikas on it, and say “Death to Jews!” then there is a problem. Almost everybody, and the courts included, would draw the line somewhere in-between.
As far as me supporting the baker not being able to turn down the request, what exactly do you mean by “commemorating Hitler’s birthday”?
Doug,
Really? Except one person’s “hate speech” may simply be another’s person’s freedom to express an unpopular opinion. Who makes the call? A real gray area here Doug.
Who says the swastika is hate speech? Who “draws the line” and at what point is it drawn? Slurs? Well what if the baker has no problem writing slurs, maybe he’s an NN himself. Is that OK then?
So the NN freedom of speech is not without limit. Well none of ours is without limit.
I think commemorating HItler’s birthday is quite straight forward. Let’s see. A few swastikas, red and black. A picture of der fuehrer and the year of his birth. Maybe some writing celebrating his life.
How’s that Doug?
Now tell me, should I be forced to dishonor the memory of my father by baking and decorating this cake? Adam and Steve might be among my favorite customers. I am well aware they are a gay couple. However because of my religious convictions I cannot in good conscience bake and decorate their wedding cake. I would hope Adam and Steve would be as respectful and tolerant of my convictions as they ask me to be of their lifestyle. I’m sure you would agree that tolerance is a two way street.
You do agree tolerance is a two way street, right Doug?
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/gay-businessmen-apologize-for-co-hosting-ted-cruz-117524042391.html
You do agree tolerance is a two way street, right Doug?
Sure, Mary, but you can’t be too surprised by that deal with Cruz. Would you expect black civil rights leaders to want to host a dinner, at home, for Harry F. Byrd, Sr. and George Wallace? ; )
Really? Except one person’s “hate speech” may simply be another’s person’s freedom to express an unpopular opinion. Who makes the call? A real gray area here Doug. Who says the swastika is hate speech? Who “draws the line” and at what point is it drawn? Slurs? Well what if the baker has no problem writing slurs, maybe he’s an NN himself. Is that OK then? So the NN freedom of speech is not without limit. Well none of ours is without limit.
As I’ve said all along, the line will be drawn somewhere. By no means is it all a real “gray area,” though. Our courts and Congress itself have defined hate speech, as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And they say the swastika is hate speech. There still has to be an element of the usage being offensive and hostile, i.e. if a Neo-Nazi baker makes a great big, honkin’ swastika cake for another Neo-Nazi, then no laws are getting broken.
Who draws the line – we all do; we’ll all have our opinion. As to the law and the courts – there will be clear-cut cases on both ends of the spectrum, i.e. either obviously hate speech or obviously not. Then there will be more “iffy” deals where it’s impossible to forecast what a court would decide.
I think commemorating Hitler’s birthday is quite straight forward. Let’s see. A few swastikas, red and black. A picture of der fuehrer and the year of his birth. Maybe some writing celebrating his life. How’s that Doug?
The swastika alone is enough that if the baker does not want to make that cake, then he’s not going to be penalized for refusing.
But if somebody comes in and just wants a cake on April 20, then they get the cake.
If anything – and this is just me thinking – I’d say that service can be refused to people when there are demonstrable and sufficient grounds for refusal, as with the swastika. But service cannot be refused on the mere basis *of who the customer is* – black, white, neo-Nazi, gay, etc.
Now tell me, should I be forced to dishonor the memory of my father by baking and decorating this cake? Adam and Steve might be among my favorite customers. I am well aware they are a gay couple. However because of my religious convictions I cannot in good conscience bake and decorate their wedding cake. I would hope Adam and Steve would be as respectful and tolerant of my convictions as they ask me to be of their lifestyle. I’m sure you would agree that tolerance is a two way street.
Mary, you were relating your father to the Nazis, correct? If so, then you’re not expected to make a cake with a swastika on it. But if a neo-Nazi comes in and wants a cake, per se, then you sell him one.
Your “religious convictions” are not enough to deny service to gay people, the same as service can’t be denied to white people, or black people, or Asians, even if the baker thinks this-or-that group is “a plague on the earth,” and “a plague among humanity.”
Adam and Steve are not asking you to make a cake saying, “Gay marriage is the greatest thing ever.” They just want a cake.
Come on Doug,
What it really boils down to is who’s ox is being gored, right?
“Obviously hate speech”. By who’s standards? I listen to vile hate speech in some rap music, yet this is defended as artistic freedom.
So since the swastika offends your sensibilities and that of others, including me, then you agree the baker should not have to put it on a cake. Great. Now, what if gay marriage offends the baker’s sensibilities?
My father served honorably in WW2. I certainly don’t “relate” him to the Nazis, whom he loathed. Right. I have cakes made and for sale, any customer can buy them. What they do with them is not my concern.
I didn’t advocate denying service to gay people. I advocated the right of the baker to adhere to his religious convictions and not make a gay wedding cake. He can respect Adam and Steve’s decision to be a gay couple. They can respect the baker’s decision to adhere to his faith.
Also, nothing stops them from buying a cake and decorating it themselves.
So bottom line it seems like – Del and Mary – you’d be fine with a bakery refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, but you’d be equally okay with vendors not selling to that bakery because of their beliefs – correct?
EGV,
How would you feel about a baker refusing to bake a cake for neo nazis that commemorates Hitler’s birthday?
How would I feel about it? I’d probably say good for the baker – neo nazis certainly aren’t, and shouldn’t be a protected class of people – and if they sue, it will probably go bad for them. I’d also be surprised the neo nazis are big fans of cake.
So you’d be fine with vendors not selling to a bakery who refuses to make a cake? What about if a baker is morally against inter-racial marriage – you okay with them refusing to make a cake?
EGV,
Oh, so when its your sensibilities being offended…that’s different.
What do you mean by vendors not selling to a bakery that refuses to make a cake?
What if the baker who is against interracial marriage is a Black Muslim, a member of Louis Farakkan’s organization? Should he be forced to bake the cake?
There’s the story of a printing franchise owner who has refused to print wedding invitations for a lesbian couple. As has been pointed out – “And I’m sure that when a heterosexual couple comes in to get wedding invitations, A…. makes sure that neither of them have been divorced, right? Because the Bible very clearly calls that a sin as well. Oh, and he better also make sure that the bride-to-be is a virgin. If she isn’t, I’m sure he’ll gladly print up the invitations to the public stoning the Bible demands for her (but not for the man, of course).
And if a Muslim or Hindu group comes in to get invitations to an event, he turns those down too, right? Because those people are violating the very first commandment by worshiping other gods. And I’m sure he refuses to print business cards for a business that is open on Sunday. That violates one of the Big Ten as well. Wait, he doesn’t do those things? You mean he’s singling out gay people as special sinners? How entirely unsurprising.”
Mary: Come on Doug, What it really boils down to is who’s ox is being gored, right?
No – my point is that we’re not going to allow discrimination on the basis of who the customer is.
“Obviously hate speech”. By who’s standards?
Frequently, by the standards of our gov’t and courts. There is a legal definition for it.
I listen to vile hate speech in some rap music, yet this is defended as artistic freedom.
Well now that’s a surprise. Just how much rap do you listen to, Mary? : P
So since the swastika offends your sensibilities and that of others, including me, then you agree the baker should not have to put it on a cake. Great. Now, what if gay marriage offends the baker’s sensibilities?
Nope, it’s not dependent on my sensibilities at all, unless you are just asking my opinion of it. If gay marriage offends the baker, then he’s not expected to write on the cake, “I, baker Fenstermaker, love gay marriage, am in favor of it, and may even give it a go myself.” He’s just expected to sell the cake.
I have cakes made and for sale, any customer can buy them. What they do with them is not my concern.
We certainly agree there.
I didn’t advocate denying service to gay people. I advocated the right of the baker to adhere to his religious convictions and not make a gay wedding cake. He can respect Adam and Steve’s decision to be a gay couple. They can respect the baker’s decision to adhere to his faith. Also, nothing stops them from buying a cake and decorating it themselves.
The baker’s beliefs do not justify discriminating against Adam and Steve because they are gay, same as if they were white, black, Native American, or because they were playing rap music in their car as they drove up
When you say, “a gay wedding cake,” – this is where the rub will be. What, exactly, is that?
Doug,
I agree there shouldn’t be discrimination on the basis of who the customer is.
Our gov’t and courts. What do they say about some of the rap music I’ve heard? How much have I heard? Enough.
Sure the baker can sell the cake. But he does not have to be involved in baking and decorating it for a gay wedding.
Doug, let’s say your baker has just informed you he has joined the Nation of Islam where interracial marriage is discouraged and he cannot in good conscience bake a cake for you and your black fiancee’s wedding. Is he within his rights to refuse?
I’m glad we agree the baker cannot discriminate against his customers. We should also agree the baker has the freedom of religion/conscience. Whether he is the Christian/Muslim baker who opposes gay marriage or the Nation of Islam baker who opposes interracial marriage.
Where he’s asked to bake and decorate a cake specifically for a gay wedding.
Mary: Our gov’t and courts. What do they say about some of the rap music I’ve heard? How much have I heard? Enough.
:: laughing… ::
I don’t think music in the media is treated the same way, i.e. it’s much less impactful since hearing it is usually our own choice. There is, however, the radio censorship of many songs, a thing which I think is lame, childish, silly, stupid, and pathetic. Here’s an idea – if you don’t like what your radio is playing, turn it off or change the station…good grief.
Freedom of Speech is a powerful thing, and we are – rightly so, IMO – loathe to mess with it. When we are talking about the media, things are much more removed, i.e. it’s a recording, not like somebody physically confronting you and yelling things at you.
That said, the FCC has indeed been asked to address the issue of hate speech in the media.
Sure the baker can sell the cake. But he does not have to be involved in baking and decorating it for a gay wedding.
Yes he does – his business is open to the public and he can’t discriminate on the basis of who the buyers are. This is not to imply that he would be expected to personally affirm anything contrary to his beliefs.
Decades hence, this will have blown over, and it will just be one more silly chapter of superstition, fear, etc., passed down from a relatively few guys, long ago, finally blessedly gone.
Doug, let’s say your baker has just informed you he has joined the Nation of Islam where interracial marriage is discouraged and he cannot in good conscience bake a cake for you and your black fiancee’s wedding. Is he within his rights to refuse?
No. He’s not expected to overtly and positively affirm things against his beliefs, but he still bakes the cake and sells it to us.
I’m glad we agree the baker cannot discriminate against his customers. We should also agree the baker has the freedom of religion/conscience. Whether he is the Christian/Muslim baker who opposes gay marriage or the Nation of Islam baker who opposes interracial marriage. Where he’s asked to bake and decorate a cake specifically for a gay wedding.
He’s got his freedom of belief, but not the right to discriminate against buyers on the basis of who they are.
This is such and odd discussion! And clearly, common sense has lost.
The baker does not want to be part of the spectacle. Perhaps it is a gay-wedding, or a neo-Nazi commemoration of Hitler, or a divorce party at which a stripper wants to do some naughty things in the icing. Whatever! — It offends the sensitive conscience of the baker, and she doesn’t want to make a cake for it.
What right do we have to force her to make a cake for the event? Why do we think we should coerce her to do a thing that offends her?
All that RFRA hoped to do was to respect the conscience of the objector, ask some reasonable questions:
– Is there a compelling need for a cake? How badly is anyone hurt, if there is no fancy cake?
– Is there a reasonable effort to accommodate the conscience rights of the baker? Can another provider make the cake and leave the sensitive soul in peace?
We all have our limits. We all expect our limits to be respected. This public coercio is a very new thing in America. You’d think that this cake-and-pizza thing is akin to school desegregation!
It is akin to desegregation, that’s the point.
The baker does not want to be part of the spectacle. Perhaps it is a gay-wedding, or a neo-Nazi commemoration of Hitler, or a divorce party at which a stripper wants to do some naughty things in the icing. Whatever! — It offends the sensitive conscience of the baker, and she doesn’t want to make a cake for it.
Del, she’s not being asked to be part of the spectacle. If she doesn’t want to get nekkid and come a-bustin’ up through the cake, no problema.
But claiming “conscience” is no justification for discriminating against the buyers.
All that RFRA hoped to do was to respect the conscience of the objector, ask some reasonable questions:
Is there a compelling need for a cake? How badly is anyone hurt, if there is no fancy cake?
C’mon, mang…. When is there ever a “compelling need” for a cake? : P Just about nobody in the whole of the US “needs” a dang cake. What they need is less cakes and less refined carbos in general. : )
Cakes are bought not because there is compelling need, but because they are desired – that’s it, plain and simple. And regardless of who is wanting the cake, it’s not right to discriminate against them because of who they are.
Can another provider make the cake and leave the sensitive soul in peace?
As Reality noted, finding “another baker” is not the deal, i.e. “separate but equal” is inherently unequal.
Doug,
No, often the loud blasting of rap means you have little choice in having to hear what it says. We are often subjected to what we don’t want to hear.
Now let me ask you, are you saying that censoring the radio is bad, but the gov’t and courts telling us what we can say and determining what is offensive is fine?
Doug you can’t have it both ways. Now if the baker has to violate his religious convictions, be they Muslim/Christian/Jewish and bake the cake for the gay couple’s wedding, then do I have to bake a cake for the neo nazi celebration of something I consider abhorrent? You will have to answer “yes” on both accounts.
Now you may regard the baker’s religious conviction as silly and baseless. Not very tolerant of you. We have religious freedom and while I don’t share someone’s convictions, I can respect them.
So the NOI baker doesn’t have to go against his beliefs. But baking a wedding cake for an iterracial wedding does just that. So which is it Doug? He’s not discriminating against buyers. He sells his products to whoever comes in his shop. But to ask him to involve himself in something that truly violates his beliefs?? Why should he any more than the baker who won’t bake a cake for the NNs?
So as you can see this is really a very gray area. People of various religious and moral convictions. People who have the right to adhere to these convictions.
Can’t have your cake and eat it too Doug. No pun intended.
No, often the loud blasting of rap means you have little choice in having to hear what it says. We are often subjected to what we don’t want to hear.
Mary, you still have the choice to move away from it, unless you are physically imprisoned/forced against your will to remain and listen to it.
Additionally, there are already laws on the books in many places that address this. An example is in one of my former hometowns, where if music or “music” (heh) could be heard 75 feet away from the vehicle playing it, the driver could be ticketed. This has the widest application in response to “boom cars.”
I don’t know where the nation as a whole is on this, now. In 2012, the Florida Supreme Court struck down such a law, saying that it restricts freedom of expression. To me, this is silly – under the then-existing law, one was free to play whatever one wanted, so no loss of freedom of expression. The difference is that one was not free to play it at such a volume as to cause distress to other people, consistent with the principle that one’s rights end where the rights of others begin. IMO the law was fine.
Now let me ask you, are you saying that censoring the radio is bad, but the gov’t and courts telling us what we can say and determining what is offensive is fine?
No. IMO – radio being censored is bad. Gov’t and courts telling us what we can say is bad. Gov’t determining what is offensive is bad. So, all bad, right down the line.
Doug you can’t have it both ways. Now if the baker has to violate his religious convictions, be they Muslim/Christian/Jewish and bake the cake for the gay couple’s wedding, then do I have to bake a cake for the neo nazi celebration of something I consider abhorrent? You will have to answer “yes” on both accounts.
I’m not having it both ways. I and everybody else can have our beliefs, but we still can’t turn away customers on the basis of who they are. Nobody is saying you have to adorn the cake with swastikas, iron crosses, slogans saying, “Viva el Hitler!” etc., but if it’s just a neo-Nazi that wants you to bake a cake, then you bake it, sell it, and all the while you keep your same beliefs.
Now you may regard the baker’s religious conviction as silly and baseless. Not very tolerant of you. We have religious freedom and while I don’t share someone’s convictions, I can respect them.
Doesn’t matter what I think; whether I agree or not with the baker. It’s still a place of public accommodation, and the baker can’t discriminate against people.
So the NOI baker doesn’t have to go against his beliefs. But baking a wedding cake for an iterracial wedding does just that. So which is it Doug? He’s not discriminating against buyers. He sells his products to whoever comes in his shop. But to ask him to involve himself in something that truly violates his beliefs?? Why should he any more than the baker who won’t bake a cake for the NNs?
It’s the same in both cases. Neither the Islamic baker nor the Jewish baker is expected to hold the wedding reception or “Hitler birthday party” in the customer area of their stores. That level of involvement clearly goes beyond what anti-discrimination laws address. But they both are expected to bake the cakes and sell them; can’t discriminate against the customers on the basis of being “black and white” or “Neo-Nazi.”
So as you can see this is really a very gray area. People of various religious and moral convictions. People who have the right to adhere to these convictions.
No, it’s not a gray area. Not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of who they are.
Doug,
Well if you’re stuck in traffic and someone is blasting their rap, you’re going to be stuck sitting there listening to it, right? Happens all the time in hot weather. Also, people are not always considerate about keeping their “music” down to a roar. Lots of lyrics I find offensive and I don’t think children should listen to. Apparently some people don’t really care. We do have freedom of speech and expression do we not?
Glad we agree on censorship.
I and everyone can have their beliefs. Bingo. Does it mean we all have to agree with and like them? No. Can the baker turn away customers who want a box of donuts or an already baked sheet cake? No. Can he refuse to bake for an occasion that violates his religious/moral convictions? Yes.
Oh, so if the customer wants iron crosses and swastikas, I can refuse. But I thought everyone is entitled to their beliefs. What right have I to refuse to bake and decorate a cake, however the customer wants, for a NN celebration? If he just asks me to bake him a plain sheet cake, then it doesn’t concern me what he wants it for.
I think we’ve established this already Doug.
OK, then if the baker can’t “discriminate”, then he can’t refuse the iron crosses and swastikas, right?
Doug you’re going off the rails here. We’re not talking about celebrating in the store. We’re talking about the baker being forced to violate his religious/moral convictions and involve himself in the celebration of something, in this case baking and decorating a cake, for something that violates his convictions.
Now, if the customer just says I want a plain cake or I want to buy one already baked, fine. What the customer wants to do with it is his business. If the NNs request a cake specifically designed with HItler in mind, or the gay or interracial couple asks the baker to bake and decorate a wedding cake specifically for them, the baker, for whatever reason, be it moral or religious, has the right to refuse.
Should a Christian baker be able to refuse to bake a cake for a divorce celebration?
Well if you’re stuck in traffic and someone is blasting their rap, you’re going to be stuck sitting there listening to it, right? Happens all the time in hot weather. Also, people are not always considerate about keeping their “music” down to a roar. Lots of lyrics I find offensive and I don’t think children should listen to. Apparently some people don’t really care. We do have freedom of speech and expression do we not?
Mary, we have freedom of speech and expression, but of course they are not unlimited. Most of the really loud cars are due to people wanting attention/to show off/to grief others.
Most places have noise ordinances, though enforcement will of course not be perfect. Taking it to an extreme, loud enough and things get lethal.
If you’re stuck in traffic, then unless you choose to leave your vehicle, you’re just plain stuck – probably no cop around when you need one, and even if there was, I doubt there’d be much emphasis on cracking down on the loud music. Life ain’t perfect.
I and everyone can have their beliefs. Bingo. Does it mean we all have to agree with and like them? No. Can the baker turn away customers who want a box of donuts or an already baked sheet cake? No. Can he refuse to bake for an occasion that violates his religious/moral convictions? Yes.
No he can’t, because the already-baked cake is no different, as far as the baker’s involvement, than one being ordered at the time. In the end, the baker bakes both of them. Again – we are not talking about words or symbols being requested to be put on the cake that would be clearly affirmations against the baker’s beliefs. Saying, “you can have this old cake, but I won’t bake you a new one,” is not going to fly.
Oh, so if the customer wants iron crosses and swastikas, I can refuse.
Yep.
But I thought everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Yep, they are.
What right have I to refuse to bake and decorate a cake, however the customer wants, for a NN celebration?
Your right of refusal would rest on what the requested decorations were, rather than him simply being a neo-Nazi.
If he just asks me to bake him a plain sheet cake, then it doesn’t concern me what he wants it for. I think we’ve established this already Doug.
Yep, exactly.
OK, then if the baker can’t “discriminate”, then he can’t refuse the iron crosses and swastikas, right?
He can’t discriminate against the person, i.e. can’t refuse to bake a cake because of who the customer is. Of course he can refuse to put certain words or pictures on the cake.
Doug you’re going off the rails here. We’re not talking about celebrating in the store. We’re talking about the baker being forced to violate his religious/moral convictions and involve himself in the celebration of something, in this case baking and decorating a cake, for something that violates his convictions.
Nope, we’re right on track. Celebrating in the store, against the baker’s wishes, is obviously not expected. Decorating the cake in certain ways is obviously not expected. But serving the customer, regardless of who they are – that *is* expected.
Now, if the customer just says I want a plain cake or I want to buy one already baked, fine. What the customer wants to do with it is his business. If the NNs request a cake specifically designed with HItler in mind, or the gay or interracial couple asks the baker to bake and decorate a wedding cake specifically for them, the baker, for whatever reason, be it moral or religious, has the right to refuse.
Mary, think about what you are saying. Is the baker going to be allowed to deny a cake to a couple, because one is black and the other is white? No way.
Doug,
Agreed about the rap music. The point is however vile, racist, sexist, and violent, no court or gov’t is going to stop it.
The baker can’t be forced to put on iron crosses or swastikas. That’s the point Doug. I’m saying the baker can’t be forced to decorate or write things on the cake that violate his beliefs. If any customer, whoever or whatever he/she is, wants a cake, or any other product that is on display, they can have it.
So the baker can refuse to decorate an NN cake but not the gay or interracial wedding cake if it violates the baker’s convictions?
The baker can’t be forced to put on iron crosses or swastikas. That’s the point Doug.
No it’s not, Mary – all along you’ve been arguing that, depending on who the customer is, the baker should be allowed to refuse them service, i.e. not make a cake for them:
Adam and Steve might be among my favorite customers. I am well aware they are a gay couple. However because of my religious convictions I cannot in good conscience bake and decorate their wedding cake.
Past a point, nobody is saying you have to put certain pictures or writing on the cake, as with the iron crosses and swastikas, above, and as you mention, below. But as far as just baking and decorating the cake, then you do have to do it – you’re serving the public with your business and you can’t pick and choose who to serve.
I’m saying the baker can’t be forced to decorate or write things on the cake that violate his beliefs. If any customer, whoever or whatever he/she is, wants a cake, or any other product that is on display, they can have it.
Nope, “on display” is not the deal. If they want a different cake or a newer cake, then the baker makes it for them, with the exceptions we’ve already noted.
So the baker can refuse to decorate an NN cake but not the gay or interracial wedding cake if it violates the baker’s convictions?
No, the baker can’t refuse to decorate any of them, with the exceptions we’ve already been over numerous times.
Doug,
Point out where I said the baker can refuse service on the basis of who the customer is.
Adam and Steve want a cake baked and decorated by the baker for their gay wedding. Gay marriage violates the religious convictions of the baker. He has a right to refuse. However if Adam and Steve just want an item the baker has on display, or just ask for a cake, then the baker cannot refuse service. Where did I argue otherwise?
So you agree then that since the baker cannot discriminate, then he must bake and decorate the NN cake, as well as the gay wedding cake.
I agree, if I just want a cake, yes the baker has to bake it.
OK, so the baker must bake and decorate the cakes for the NNs, the gay wedding, and the interracial wedding, even if this violates his religious/moral convictions, is that what you are saying?
Praxedes: Should a Christian baker be able to refuse to bake a cake for a divorce celebration?
Sorry, Praxedes – I missed this. Good, applicable question, and I’d say people will be split on it. To me, it seems ridiculous, but for those who advocate that the baker’s beliefs justify not serving people based on who they are or what they are doing, I’d say they’d have to say “yes.”
Mary: Point out where I said the baker can refuse service on the basis of who the customer is.
Fair enough, Mary – you never did say that that, and only that, is sufficient. However, once the cake is sold and delivered to the customer, then what they do with it is their business, not the baker’s. If they want to have it after a gay marriage, or after a fundamentalist church service, or just have a great big old food fight with it, it’s up to them – doesn’t matter what the baker thinks.
If we are to allow refusal of service on “religious grounds,” then somebody who is against most religion, who thinks it’s often for people who would rather give up freedom of thought in exchange for the dubious security of the “promises” made, who thinks it’s designed to prey upon peoples’ fears of the unknown, fears of death, etc., who thinks its origins lie with a group of sly people – the ‘priesthood’ – who figured out that they could get free food, clothing and shelter, at the least, just be getting people to believe that the priests were needed, or else bad things would happen to the people – this baking person could refuse to make or sell cakes to anybody that was religious.
Or – an even better example – if somebody with a Pittsburgh Steelers jersey comes into my bakery, well than they ain’t getting served! And some places you’d have to have Steelers stuff showing, or else “No cake for you!”
People feel more deeply about their sports teams than many people do about religion, believe me.
Adam and Steve want a cake baked and decorated by the baker for their gay wedding. Gay marriage violates the religious convictions of the baker. He has a right to refuse. However if Adam and Steve just want an item the baker has on display, or just ask for a cake, then the baker cannot refuse service. Where did I argue otherwise?
Okay, we have narrowed it down – per what you say, there, the deciding thing is whether or not the baker knows the cake is for a gay marriage. On one hand, this would argue that the customer would have to be secretive about it, and not tell the baker. This is, frankly, nonsensical, and this is one of the reasons that the courts are not going to allow such discrimination.
Even beyond that, it may not be a matter of Adam and Steve telling the baker or not, the baker may have just heard around town that the two guys are getting hitched. They come in, just ask for a cake, and the baker refuses. This is not going to be allowed by the courts; it’s discrimination, pure and simple, and going clear back to the Civil Rights Law of 1964, such is not allowed.
So you agree then that since the baker cannot discriminate, then he must bake and decorate the NN cake, as well as the gay wedding cake.
I agree, if I just want a cake, yes the baker has to bake it.
OK, so the baker must bake and decorate the cakes for the NNs, the gay wedding, and the interracial wedding, even if this violates his religious/moral convictions, is that what you are saying?
The professed beliefs of Neo-Nazis, the weddings of gay people, and the weddings of black and white people – all these are givens. They exist, whether or not the baker believes a certain thing. If the baker is offended by them, that fact is in evidence whether or not any certain people come into the baker’s shop.
The baker’s beliefs are already “violated” by the above; it really does not matter if a cake or not is involved. This is why the courts are not going allow this stuff about “religious objection” – it could lead to pretty much anybody refusing to serve people they don’t like and/or people who are doing something they don’t like.
Under your one scenario, Adam and Steve have to keep things a secret, evidently, to get a cake made for their wedding. Again – this is nonsensical – no court will side with the baker, there.
The Neo-Nazi has tattoos that prevent him from keeping his affiliation a secret, and again, no court is going to allow the baker to refuse service.
The black person and the white person walk into a Muslim baker’s place, and there’s an engagement ring on the woman’s hand. No court is going to allow the baker to refuse service.
Doug,
Thank you.
Essentially what I have been saying. The baker does not have to involve himself in the personal or political activities of his customers by baking and decorating a cake that violates his religious/ethical convictions, however absurd we may think his reasoning is. This is America. I remember as a child making fun of the children who’s religious convictions did not permit them to celebrate holiday. Thankfully I’ve learned to be a little more tolerant though I think they miss on a lot of fun.
What the customer does with any cake he buys or has baked is his concern, including throwing it in the nearest dumpster if that’s what he wants.
I am not talking about refusing service per se. Of course the baker cannot do that and I thought I established that long before now.
I may find the NNs repugnant, but I can’t refuse to sell them a box of doughnuts. If they serve them at their NN meetings or take them home to mom isn’t my concern. I can however refuse to decorate a cake in celebration of Hitler’s birthday.
Hi Prax,
Good point about the divorce. As far as I’m concerned if the baker has religious convictions against divorce, then yes he can refuse to bake and decorate such a cake.
Mary: The baker does not have to involve himself in the personal or political activities of his customers by baking and decorating a cake that violates his religious/ethical convictions, however absurd we may think his reasoning is. This is America. I remember as a child making fun of the children who’s religious convictions did not permit them to celebrate holiday. Thankfully I’ve learned to be a little more tolerant though I think they miss on a lot of fun.
This is well said, Mary, and I agree with some of it, or all of it if you lay the “not involving” on the baker himself, rather than the customers. Much the same here – Youngstown, Ohio, many decades ago, Elementary school, and there was one girl whose family was some type of Eastern Orthodox, or Lithuanian something – I really do not remember, but she wasn’t supposed to get up in front of the class and “lead” or speak in that manner. Leah Kaminsky, a delicate thing, somewhat shy and reticent, but smart and plenty self-possessed, big eyes – I don’t know that I even ever spoke to her directly; now I wish I had, I wish I could talk to her and hear what her life’s been like.
What the customer does with any cake he buys or has baked is his concern, including throwing it in the nearest dumpster if that’s what he wants.
I agree, and now I think our argument is winding down… If all bakers, if all people whose business is serving the public, whose deal is “public accomodation, realized that it’s the customer’s business, not theirs, then all would be quite a bit better, IMO.
I am not talking about refusing service per se. Of course the baker cannot do that and I thought I established that long before now.
I may find the NNs repugnant, but I can’t refuse to sell them a box of doughnuts. If they serve them at their NN meetings or take them home to mom isn’t my concern. I can however refuse to decorate a cake in celebration of Hitler’s birthday.
I would agree with your last sentence if there were requested elements in the decorating that were clearly ‘offensive,’ offensive in a way that the courts would find reasonable grounds for refusing to do the cake. We are talking about swastikas here, anti-Jewish slogans, written words affirming Hitler or Neo-Nazi beliefs, etc.
If it’s mid-April and they come in and request a cake be made, then do you refuse them?
If there is no overtly offensive decorating requested, then I say you do not. Because from the baker’s point of view, it really cannot matter what the cake is for, not as a basis for refusing service.
Otherwise, you can claim you heard it was to celebrate Hitler’s birthday, whether or not that is true. The timing matches up well enough – ol’ Adolph came into this world on April 20, but here there would be a burden of proof on the customer to show that the cake was not to celebrate Hitler’s birthday, and no court is going to approve such a circuitous (and frankly, ridiculous) path.
Mary: As far as I’m concerned if the baker has religious convictions against divorce, then yes he can refuse to bake and decorate such a cake.
Not going to fly – again, the baker could claim he heard that a divorce was involved, regardless of the truth. Likewise, gay people could be refused on the basis of anything the baker could make up about what he thought or “heard” was the occasion. Muslims, if they are against mixed-race marriage or things in general, could claim they aren’t required to serve, etc.
Not sure how long before this is all settled – and in some states there will be iterations of the “religious” people trying to find ways to justify the discrimination, with the courts eventually finding their laws unconstitutional – but in the end it will quiet down, no such discrimination being allowed.
Doug,
If the baker has been requested to bake and decorate a specific cake for a specific occasion, and this violates his religious/moral convictions, he is within his rights to refuse.
He can’t just assume to “know” what people want his products for and refuse to sell them. He also can’t refuse to sell his products to a customer because of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, marital status, or political convictions.
If the baker has been requested to bake and decorate a specific cake for a specific occasion, and this violates his religious/moral convictions, he is within his rights to refuse.
Mary, as always – it depends on what, specifically, is requested.
Decorations that affirm beliefs opposite to the baker’s would not be expected. However, let us say it’s a cake with plain icing covering the entire thing. Then, even if the cake is to be used at a gay marriage, the baker cannot refuse service. I know you disagree that this is the way things should be, but that’s the way things are going – our courts are not going to allow such discrimination.
Doug,
Didn’t I say baking AND decorating the cake in violation of his religious/moral beliefs?
I have no problem with the baker being required to serve people with no regard to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, or political beliefs and have stated this repeatedly.
Didn’t I say baking AND decorating the cake in violation of his religious/moral beliefs?
Well, we’ve really got it zeroed-in now, Mary. So, what if the cake just says, “Adam and Steve”? Messages usually aren’t on wedding cakes, but what if it’s just their names?
Doug,
Yes messages are on wedding cakes. They are also decorated specifically for specific people. Again, if the gay or interracial wedding violates the religious/moral belief of the baker, he is within his rights to refuse to be involved in baking and decorating the cake. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant. Those who preach tolerance should understand its a two way street. There are other bakers Doug.
Mary, the thing about there being other bakers will not be supported by the courts – there is no question on this.
If it is only the fact of the wedding being between two gay people that is holding the baker back from baking the cake, I see no way that this will be held to be legitimate grounds for refusal.
No different than housing being refused to gay people, or unmarried people – “Ooh, they are living in SIN and it’s against my religion.” Not going to be allowed. The business owner is welcome to his belief, but there’s no way it’s justification for refusing service.
Whether we agree or not is irrelevant.
I’d rather think that that is what we are down to, here. The issue has not been entirely settled, and future changes will come. For now, we have separate opinions and there is no way to know exactly when and where things will end up.