Man Sues Bakery

[catcul]

A man is suing a bakery for not putting anti-LGBT messages and images on a cake. You knew this stunt was coming. There is a huge difference between refusing a cake because you don't believe in gay marriage and refusing put hate speech on a cake. This is nothing more than a stunt for the Religious Reich to advance their "We're being oppressed," narratives.

These people make me sick.

Simply put, the bakery has the right to refuse putting "God hates fts," just like they have the right to refuse to put, "Death to the nrs," or "Happy Birthday, Adolf Hitler."

Denver's Azucar Bakery Under Investigation For Allegedly Refusing To Bake Anti-Gay Cake

I should add that he's suing because he says they discriminated against him because of hie religious beliefs.

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, the bakery was absolutely fine with baking the cake. They just refused to decorate the way he wanted. Hell, they even offered to give him icing to spew whatever hateful messages he wanted, but what he really wanted was to have his day in court.

[gremcint]

half expected it to be that asshole who named his kid adolf hitler. anyways I can now recommend a bakery in denver.

[HYHYBT]

I think that one's in Florida.

[fireheart17]

half expected it to be that asshole who named his kid adolf hitler.

Didn't those kids get removed from the parents?

Also, that made the news over here for a brief period of time before being topped (heh) by a work experience kid putting the map of Australia the wrong-way around on a cake.

[Hyena Dandy]

This one I actually feel vaguely conflicted on. I agree the guy's a dick, but I don't know if he has a point... I mean, to put it this way - Would I be cool with a baker saying "I won't write "Happy Wedding James and Dave," but I'll give you cake and a froster to do it yourself" or would I find that one to be unfair? I really want to make sure I'm holding my allies to the same standard as my enemies...

[Shangri-laschild]

This one I actually feel vaguely conflicted on. I agree the guy's a dick, but I don't know if he has a point... I mean, to put it this way - Would I be cool with a baker saying "I won't write "Happy Wedding James and Dave," but I'll give you cake and a froster to do it yourself" or would I find that one to be unfair? I really want to make sure I'm holding my allies to the same standard as my enemies...

But there's a difference between refusing in general to write statements you don't agree with and refusing to write discriminatory hate speech. Refusing to write the happy wedding one would fall in the first category and would be discrimination against the customer in my opinion. Refusing to write hate speech however is different and I don't see a problem with that. If it was pro religious but not hate speech and they had refused to write it, then I would put it in the same category as not making the gay wedding cake.

[Ghel]

Here is a good take on this case. Basically, the customer would have to prove that the bakery discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, not on the basis of the message on the cake he wanted them to make.

[Andara Bledin]

Here is a good take on this case. Basically, the customer would have to prove that the bakery discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, not on the basis of the message on the cake he wanted them to make.

That's the long and short of it. The refused to serve him based on non-protected criteria, and that is what matters. The bakery who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple fell afoul of anti-discrimination laws that called out sexual orientation as one of the specifically protected classes.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Long story short, it's whether he can prove it is his religion or not. Religion is a protected class but I'd imagine you'd have a hard time with a jury of even 12 Christians convincing them that message is in any way supported by religion.

But yea, if he can prove he was denied service based on a sincere religious belief, the bakery has a problem. But they would have had the same problem either way. If the person posted what the baker had put on the cake if the order had been filled, they'd be getting it from the other end. It just sucks to be a business owner in the middle of shenanigans like this.

[HYHYBT]

But yea, if he can prove he was denied service based on a sincere religious belief, the bakery has a problem.

Impossible to prove, since it's proven false by the willingness to sell them any product they liked so long as it didn't have that message written on it.

Which is the opposite of the other situation, where once the bakery found out it was for a gay wedding, they refused to make any cake whatsoever.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I know that sounds right, but legally that's a non-starter. The product was a decorated cake which is something they sold. They attempted an accommodation which might fly, but since it's accommodating based on denying the protected religion, that might be flimsy. To draw a comparison, were I to not seat African Americans in my restaurant but I will in the kitchen, that doesn't fly either regardless of the fact I offered them food and a waiter.

When you're an employer (a different way this comes up) you're encouraged not to attempt to second guess someone asking for religious accommodation primarily because all they need to prove in a court of law is very little while you have to prove undue hardship which is tricky. All this ass needs to prove is that within his religious context he believes this stuff and attends services at a place that has those beliefs. That is it. The bakery would have to prove some kind of loss for baking the cake and decorating it. The former is much easier to prove than the latter.

Legally the bakery is on very iffy ground. Its only hope, provided this guy can prove he went to a church or otherwise believed these things on a religious level, is a jury willing to ignore the law which honestly could happen here although it would probably still get lost on appeal.

[Andara Bledin]

Legally the bakery is on very iffy ground.

They're really not. They can refuse service for any reason or no reason provided that they don't give a protected reason and it can't be proven that it's a protected reason.

Hate speech is not protected. "God hates homosexuality" isn't protected just because you threw the word "god" in there. That doesn't automagically make it a protected class because it's the "hate" that's being refused, not the "God."

This is a bunch of bigots trying to create a false equivalency for their fellow bigots who refuse to sell their wares to blacks gays.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

What they are is not the question. This guy IS a bigot and that still doesn't mean a thing since this isn't actually a free speech episode.

Refusing to provide a service which you normally provide while violating a protected class is. Yes, *I* think this guys religious logic is faulty. But the law is written such that legally the bar he has to clear is that he is sincere in his belief which might be as simple as a few witnesses and a provable pattern. It's not hard to prove unless you keep to yourself about your religion.

if the bigot can prove religious belief (big if), this really ISN't different than the other bakery episode except that the protected classes are different and I really don't like this guy. But that said, he's protected by the same law..

[Andara Bledin]

The guy proving religious belief is actually utterly meaningless.

He has to prove that the bakery refused serviced based on his religious belief.

That's a much higher bar and I suspect one that he can't hurdle.

As I said last time, it's not the "God" that was the problem, but the "hates fags" and no matter what authority you want to put before the latter, she would have refused the same. It's not a religious issue except in the twisted hateful mind of the person who brought the lawsuit.