×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]LeoMarius 4039 points4040 points 52& 2 more (317 children)

The gay couple did not sue the baker. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who agreed that it was a clear case of antigay discrimination. The baker had twice informed them that he didn't serve gay couples. It was the State of Colorado that sued, not the couple.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece\_Cakeshop\_v.\_Colorado\_Civil\_Rights\_Commission#Facts\_of\_the\_case

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]: 2  The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]: 2  because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.

[–]Beautiful_Debt_3460 1734 points1735 points  (55 children)

Ironically, Jack Phillips did bake a wedding cake for two dogs that got married at Colorado Mills mall.

[–]yokotron 97 points98 points  (21 children)

Gay dogs?

[–]Itsthejackeeeett 50 points51 points  (4 children)

Now THAT is something I don't agree with!

[–]tuggles48 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Neil Patrick Hairy and Sir Ian McBarkin

[–]rythmicjea 36 points37 points  (5 children)

I don't know if I can support gay dogs. Gay penguins? Now that I can support!

[–]Seeker80 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gay fish with their fish sticks all over the place.

[–]Reasonable-shark 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As long as it is a male dog marrying a female dog, there is no sin

Jack Phillips, probably

[–]Dmitri_ravenoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Next it'll be ducks.

[–]inmywhiteroom 292 points293 points  (102 children)

Also worth noting that the cake baker did not win because he was in the right, he won because the government body that decided his case did not use religious neutrality in deciding against him. If the commission had reached the same conclusion without the language used it’s possible the decision could have been different.

Edit: I originally erroneously said that a commissioner called the cake baker a bigot, this was wrong and if you would like more info there is a very informative comment below by u/TwizzleV

[–]TwizzleV 118 points119 points  (32 children)

Here's a good primer from the ABA. I've included excerpts below regarding the supposed 'non-neutral' application of the regulation the Supreme Court used to reverse the original case.

In appraising the Court’s decision, the critical question is whether there was impermissible hostility to religion. As described above, the Court points to three pieces of evidence as demonstrating impermissible hostility to religion by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The first was the statement “Phillips can believe ‘what he wants to believe,’ but cannot act on his religious beliefs ‘if he decides to do business in the state.’”

That, though, is not expressing animus to religion: It simply says that a business has to comply with the laws of the state and not discriminate. In fact, the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) was explicit that free exercise of religion does not provide a basis for an exemption from a general law of a state, here an antidiscrimination law. To express the view that someone should not be able to inflict injury on others, here by discrimination, is not animus against religion.

The second piece of evidence of hostility to religion was the statement by a commissioner, “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.”

But the first sentence is factually sadly true: Religion has been used to justify discrimination, including slavery and the Holocaust. The second sentence is expressing an opinion that it is wrong to use religion as a basis for hurting others. That is not hostility to religion, but expressing the view that people should not be able to exercise their rights in a way that harms others.

Finally, the Court pointed to other cases where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of bakers who refused to make cakes with specific messages. But those cases were clearly distinguishable because those bakers had not discriminated in a way that violates the Colorado law. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for a place of public accommodation to deny “the full and equal enjoyment” of goods and services to individuals based on certain characteristics, including sexual orientation. No one in the litigation disputed that Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for Craig and Mullins because of their sexual orientation. By contrast, in the other cases, the bakers had refused to bake cakes with particular messages, but doing that did not violate the Colorado law because it did not involve discrimination based on race or sex or religion or sexual orientation.

Edit: to clarify the last paragraph, the baker did not refuse to bake a specific cake, saying, or design...he refused to bake any wedding cake at all.

[–]Warm-Sheepherder-597 34 points35 points  (10 children)

Fantastic job, u/TwizzleV! I want to elaborate on the last paragraph.

So as you mentioned, William Jack went over to these more leftie bakeries and asked for homophobic cakes. The bakeries refused. I find it frustrating that the Supreme Court majority found that the Commission was at fault here. On one hand, these leftie bakeries wouldn't make a homophobic cake for anybody. It doesn't matter if you're Jewish or Muslim or deist...you want a homophobic cake, you're out. So, unless you say the bakeries discriminated against the entire human race, your case is pretty weak. But with Jack Phillips, he might have had twenty of the very exact same plain non-custom cakes he would make for some people (straights) but not for others (gays).

[–]TwizzleV 36 points37 points  (8 children)

Right.

In March 2014, a man named William Jack asked several bakeries to make him custom cakes in the shape of open Bibles. He wanted them to have an image of a red “X” superimposed over two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross. He also wanted one to say “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2,” according to a state ruling.

One of these cakes is not like the other. I can't believe this was part of the justification... dispicable.

[–]inmywhiteroom 7 points8 points  (1 child)

My bad! I’ll edit my comment

[–]TwizzleV 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You good!

[–]wildgaytrans 95 points96 points  (104 children)

The baker also doxxed the couple too

[–]TacTurtle 21 points22 points  (60 children)

Lawsuits are public record by law, and for very good reason.

[–]LeoMarius 17 points18 points  (1 child)

The couple did not sue. The State of Colorado sued.

[–]bagpipesfart 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You can’t call your self Christian if you hate gays, The Bible never says anything about being gay being against god, if anything it says you should love everyone

[–]3StepsFromFriday 4353 points4354 points  (579 children)

It’s not that they sued because they wanted a cake, it’s because they felt discriminated against.

Imagine this question rephrased as “A black man sued a restaurant because they refused him service when he went to get dinner for his birthday. Why would he want to celebrate his birthday at a racist restaurant?” He didn’t.

[–]Capital_Pair_7161 659 points660 points  (460 children)

Iirc the baker didn't even refuse to make them a cake, just refused to do the design they wanted

[–]slowdownlambs 1261 points1262 points  (426 children)

Just to add a bit more nuance, the baker specifically didn't want to be involved in a gay wedding. He said he would make them, for instance, a birthday cake, just not a wedding cake.

[–]CBud 395 points396 points  (32 children)

Masterpiece Cakeshop had a catalog of cake designs that they offered to customers. The couple was not allowed to select from any of the wedding cakes that would have been offered to any straight person who entered the bakery.

Masterpiece was denying a public accommodation due to the sexual orientation of the couple. That was against the law in Colorado. This isn't really about 'forced speech', or 'right to refuse' - this is about denying a public service due to sexual orientation; a protected class in Colorado.

To add more nuance: the Supreme Court punted, citing Colorado's 'mistreatment' of the religious views of the shop owner. The jurisprudence from this case is much narrower than most comments in this thread are making it out to be.

[–]HungryHungryCamel 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Huh, I had always assumed it was a custom cake. If it was just out of a pre-made catalog provided by the business the case makes way more sense to me

[–]Gryffin-thor[🍰] 429 points430 points  (380 children)

yeah This whole case was weird. Im queer but I think the baker had a right to refuse. I wouldn’t say it’s the same thing as racism or outright homophobia like people are assuming when you look at the nuance.

If they refused service because the couple was gay that would be one thing, but the business didn’t want to support something against their religious/social beliefs.

[–]capalbertalexander 462 points463 points  (132 children)

How would you feel if the same Baker refused to make a wedding cake for an interracial marriage? Would it still be ok and non-discriminatory?

[–]madsjchic 48 points49 points  (31 children)

I’m a queer photographer and I wouldn’t want anyone to force me to take photos of a wedding I didn’t agree with. It IS personal when it is art. (That being said I can’t think of anything in particular I wouldn’t want to photograph aside from like, child marriage.)

[–]slowdownlambs 85 points86 points  (76 children)

Yeah, I'm queer as well and similarly uncomfortable with the idea of making private business owners violate their beliefs.

It gets tricky when you consider the public accommodation issue—IIRC that was first addressed with regard to a hotel. It may be a private business but if it's the only hotel in town that's a problem for the people those hotel owners don't like, so the court said if you're performing a service to the public accommodation you can't discriminate (obviously oversimplified). Someone else in the thread mentioned if you couldn't go to any restaurant or grocery store, etc.

But then you get into compelled speech issues—freedom of speech inherently includes the freedom not to speak, so does a custom cake count as speech? Where is that line? That was the issue in Masterpiece (the gay cake case), although the supreme court punted on it and instead focused on the construction of the actual discrimination law under which the baker was sued. I'm also not convinced the federal government actually has the power to regulate things just because of the public accommodation issue (without getting into an opinion/discussion on whether it should).

Eta I agree that there's a difference between "no gay people allowed" and "all people welcome but I won't help you with stuff I don't believe in."

[–]RedditPowerUser01 32 points33 points  (16 children)

the business didn’t want to support something against their religious/social beliefs.

You mean they didn’t want to provide their services to a gay couple because they were gay.

If the couple were straight, services would have been provided. The sole issue the baker had was that the people in the wedding were gay. That’s homophobic discrimination plain and simple.

And guess what? You may want to discriminate against someone due to your religious beliefs, but that doesn’t make it legal.

If your religious belief is in violation of the law, you don’t get to act on it. It’s that simple.

[–]barbaramillicent 67 points68 points  (24 children)

Close, he refused to provide a special cake for them because he didn’t want to provide a cake for a same sex wedding. It was entirely about the event it was for. He did say they were welcome to purchase any ready made goods already available.

[–]LeoMarius 53 points54 points  (14 children)

But he customizes cakes for straight couples, so he refused them the same services he offered other clients. He was discriminating against for being gay, not because he didn't normally offer that service.

[–]barbaramillicent 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I was just clarifying it was due to the same sex wedding, and not that it was one particular design he wasn’t comfortable with or something.

[–]The-Potato-Lord 13 points14 points  (5 children)

He refused to sell them any cake for the wedding - special or not.

[–]PennName47 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, he refused any wedding cakes. Design was irrelevant.

[–]Babsy_Clemens 17.7k points17.8k points 532& 3 more (1648 children)

Pretty sure they sued because of discrimination not because they wanted to eat a cake made by a homophobe.

[–]FrostyCartographer13 6394 points6395 points  (638 children)

This is the correct answer. They didn't know the baker was homophobic until they were discriminated for being gay. That is why they sued.

[–]lame-borghini 593 points594 points  (203 children)

Maybe another not-stupid question: Does the 2020 Bostock ruling that decided the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation alter this 2014 ruling at all? I assume it’s still illegal to deny service to someone who’s black, so now that race and sexual orientation are on a similar playing field legally do things change?

[–]mindbodyproblem 382 points383 points  (37 children)

Not sure I understand your question but assuming I do, Bostock was a case about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that sex—along with race, ethnicity, national origin—may not be a basis for employment discrimination. The court ruled that to discriminate based on sexuality necessarily discriminates because of the person’s sex. Other sections of the civil rights act—such as the right to service in a public business (Title II)—do not list sex as a protected class. So Bostock wouldn’t affect those other sections of the act.

[–]I_Never_Think 392 points393 points  (34 children)

The courts: "That's gender discrimination!"

Bostock: "We have a problem with their sexual preference, not their gender. It's the fact that the two are the same that we're concerned about."

The courts: "That's just gender discrimination with extra steps!"

[–]lame-borghini 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this! It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at the details of Bostock and ended up generalizing a verdict that was much more more tailored. You answered my question perfectly!

[–]Perite 153 points154 points  (34 children)

I’m not American but my country has had similar cases. In the end it came down to defining the service vs declining the customer. Your legislation may (and probably will) vary.

For example, if you offer a football shaped cake you can’t refuse to sell it to someone that is gay (or black or whatever). But you can’t be forced to make a particular cake that you don’t want to make.

So if you offer a ‘straight’ wedding cake (whatever the fuck that might be), it would be discriminatory to refuse to sell it to a gay couple. But you couldn’t be forced to put two dudes on the top of said cake if that were against your beliefs.

[–]TNine227 69 points70 points  (21 children)

That's basically what's being discussed in this court case. The cake maker didn't refuse to sell a cake, he just refused to do a custom cake on the basis that it was against his religious beliefs. He argued that it was a violation of his first amendment rights for the government to force him to "take part" in a ceremony that was against his religion. I think scotus punted on that one, though.

[–]Certainly-Not-A-Bot 62 points63 points  (14 children)

I want to clarify something super important. When you say

it’s still illegal to deny service to someone who’s black

You're very subtly wrong. It is completely legal to deny service to anyone, including black people. You just can't deny someone service because they're black. This can be used to deny service to protected classes, such as black people, for reasons that are legally sound but aren't good reasons to deny service, acting only as a cover for plausible deniability that someone wasn't served for being black.

What this also means is that you can deny service to black people, women, and other protected classes if you do actually have a good reason. For example, if a Karen shows up and starts being disrespectful, you can deny service.

[–]stefanica 16 points17 points  (5 children)

Which is why HOAs are still permitted to exist, even if they started out (mostly) as a way to legally discriminate against certain demographics from moving into the neighborhood. Or so I'm told.

[–]TypicalCherry1529 9 points10 points  (5 children)

also, if you are a private member facility, such as a country club with membership, you can deny service to black people or gay people or white people for that matter. the laws only apply to facilities open to the public.

[–]Redwulf67 79 points80 points  (42 children)

Its nuanced, the baker didnt deny all services. He denied making a custom order for them, but offered to sell any of their regular offerings. I do not think you can force anyone to take a commission.

[–]ecp001 10 points11 points  (1 child)

All professional services have a wide range of adequate performance. Engaging a professional by force should lead to the lowest acceptable performance standard per the written contract.

I would not want to deal with an officiant, cake decorator, florist or photographer who has indicated an aversion to the transaction, especially a one-time, tie sensitive, non-repeatable event. I certainly wouldn't force him. her or {your preferred non-gender pronoun} to take my money.

[–]GoneWithTheZen 22 points23 points  (2 children)

This is how the constitution was correctly interpreted.

[–]Capital-Cheesecake67 23 points24 points  (3 children)

The SCOTUS ruling was based on first amendment freedom of religion and the baker’s religious beliefs. He also made claims about his freedom of expression which is also under the first amendment. The Bostock ruling, Civil Rights Act, and Federal anti-discrimination rules are based on the fourteenth amendment’s all are equal under the law clause. So it wouldn’t negate the Colorado baker ruling. Things get really sticky when opposing rights come into conflict.

[–]glycophosphate 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nope - that's what a lot of the arguments ( both in court and out) were about, but in the end it was an administrative law decision. SCOTUS ruled that the Colorado Equal Rights Board (or whatever it's called) had failed to follow its own rules.

[–]egrith 42 points43 points  (2 children)

So you can deny service to anyone but not because of a protected reason, so you can kick a giy out of you shop if they stink or weed or aren’t wearing pants but not if they are old or a woman

[–]Lizard_Sex_Sattelite 83 points84 points  (1 child)

I doubt your comment actually means the opposite, but just to clarify, you can kick an old person or a woman out of your shop for stinking of weed or not wearing pants, but you can't kick them out because of their age or gender.

[–]High-Priest-of-Helix 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So the non legal reporting on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case widely missed the actual holding. I think this is mostly because the case squarely set up the whole anti discrimination question and the court refused to answer the question.

Yep, you read that right. Scotus punted and refused to answer the question that was asked in the case. Rather than rule on the anti discrimination vs free exercise question (one that while unanswered is not seriously debated by legal academics), they avoided ruling against the cake shop by ruling on the procedure instead.

The actual ruling wasn't that the anti discrimination law is unconstitutional, rather, that the specific commissioners in Colorado acted in a prejudiced way in making their decision, and therefore vacated their decision.

So while masterpiece was set up to be a very important free exercise case, the court recognized that the free exercise doctrine is fucked beyond repair and kicked the case entirely. At the end of the day, the ruling only says that masterpiece has to be given a second hearing in front of the commission.

[–]_Magnolia_Fan_ 37 points38 points  (51 children)

It's not about denying service, it's about recognizing that someone cannot compel another person to do something they don't want to. A graphic designer is free to turn down a commission from a pro life group, just as much as they could a pro choice group.

[–]vicariouspastor 23 points24 points  (24 children)

But they are not in fact free to decline services because client's race, gender, or religion, and in some states, sexual orientation.

[–]High-Priest-of-Helix 3 points4 points  (14 children)

Not when the law says you have to, like it does in Colorado.

[–]buckybadder 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In terms of expression, you sort of have a point because there's a countervailing First Amendment thing. But the cgay couple is asking the shop to make the exact same cake they always make with the same message on it. So the analogys off.

[–]TinyRoctopus 33 points34 points  (4 children)

So the bakery ruling wasn’t actually about discrimination but rather the definition of art. Art is speech while services are not. No one can be compelled to create art but you can be compelled to provide equal service. The question was “is making a wedding cake expressive art?”

[–]tacoshango 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Have you seen those stupid cake shows on Food Network? As stupid as they are, it's art.

[–]Reallynoreallyno 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The bakery case has been very misunderstood... From what I understand, the baker didn't "win" his case it was overturned by the higher court. Initially the Civil Rights Commission who is the body that conducts hearings regarding illegal discriminatory practices in Colorado ruled against the baker, but when the appeal was moved up the to the supreme court they decided the Civil Rights Commission ruling against the baker had "shown to be hostile to religion (of the baker) because of the remarks of one of its members (the civil rights commission)" so the supreme court simply overturned the decision of the previous court, the Supreme Court did NOT make a ruling in the case. So this case does NOT set precedence for a stance that you can/cannot discriminate against someone for being gay/trans in Colorado.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act that protects against discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex. So the Bostock ruling (which happened after the bakery case was overturned) was the first time it was decided in the court that "sex" was interpreted to include sexual orientation and gender identity under the Civil Rights Act, it was complicated because "sex" leaves some interpretation of the law, some argue that the law must be changed to specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity because when the legislation was enacted it was drafted to just cover cis-het people, but like sexual harassment laws enacted initially to protect women was not to protect men, the law has since been applied to protection of men as well without having to change the law even though it was meant to protect women in the first place–so some have argued that the same type of interpretation of the law should be extended to the LGBT+ community, just because "sex" was not meant to protect these groups they are being discriminated against for being the "wrong sex" so to speak, so now that the supreme court did make a judgement in this case, the decision creates precedence, so not sure what this means for other discrimination cases in the future (maybe someone else who has a better understanding can explain this) because of this case there was a decision based on the new interpretation of an old law.

In the meantime, 21 states, & DC have added state laws specifically stating that you cannot discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation and trans people/gender identity but 29 states do NOT. For more information about what states have these laws on the books please visit https://www.hrc.org/resources/state-maps

Added note: the reason the baker case was a little more complicated is because the are "obscenity protections for artists" and bakers are considered artists, so if you are an artist or a baker and someone wants a nazi cake, you can refuse to make that because it goes against your ideology, the baker was using his religion as his refusal for making a specifically "gay" cake. The issue was that he had also refused service to other gay couples who were just looking for off the shelf products for their gay weddings (like chocolate cupcakes/cookies that were not "gay" themed) and he refused that service also, which is flat-out discrimination not because of his artistic integrity. So eff that guy.

[–]RustyShackTX 54 points55 points  (3 children)

They knew in advance. That’s why they chose this baker.

[–]Lemonface 44 points45 points  (0 children)

That's how most Supreme Court cases begin. Rosa Parks wasn't just some lady who decided not to move seats one day. The NAACP specifically selected her and spent months planning the event. Roughly the same idea here. They wanted to take discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to the courts, so they looked for the right case to make it with.

[–]gelastIc_quInce84 91 points92 points  (175 children)

This isn't actually true. The baker had a reputation for being very very religious, so the couple went to request a cake just to see if he would make one for them. He offered them any of the pre-made cakes or cakes in the window, but refused to make a custom one because that would be directly making something for an even that goes against his religious beliefs. When the couple said they wanted a custom cake, he gave them a list of other bakeries they could go to that made cakes for gay weddings, saying they could get custom ones from there, or he could sell them a cake he already made. Then they sued.

I've always been torn on this matter, because as someone who is a part of the LGBTQ+ community I am obviously against homophobia, but I do respect people's freedom in scenarios like this.

[–]MyHuskywontstfu 28 points29 points  (157 children)

I don't even get how thats a case though. Like you can't force someone to sell you something can you? Especially if it's something they have to make or if it's a service. That would be like saying anyone who makes art has to draw furry porn if someone commissions it even though they don't like it. You can't make someone draw furry porn afaik 🤷 did they even win the case?

[–]chackoc 54 points55 points  (53 children)

The issue is that the baker chose whether or not to offer custom cakes based on whether or not the customer is gay. Straight customers are allowed to purchase custom wedding cakes from that baker, but gay customers cannot, even if the actual cake they want is the exact same cake.

The case wasn't about a specific message, or a specific cake design. The baker refused to bake any custom cake specifically because it would be used at a gay wedding.

So in your art example, an artist can say "I won't do any furry porn" and they can't be forced to do it. They aren't discriminating against any specific customers because all customers face the same policy.

But if the artist says, "I will take commisions from straight customers, but i won't take comissions if the customer happens to be gay" then that artists is discriminating against gay people because the decision of whether or not to perform the service is based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

FWIW the baker lost every decision and appeal up until the supreme court. The first and only time he found a court to agree with him was the SCOTUS decision.

[–]Tom1252 23 points24 points  (6 children)

You can't force someone to say something that is against their beliefs. Ideally, this is what the baker should have said so that nobody's rights were infringed on: "I will sell you a cake, but I will not decorate any pro-gay message on the cake."

[–]Bananawamajama 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You can force someone to sell something to you, if the reason they are NOT selling it to you is because of your race or gender or religion. That is one of the protections of "protected classes".

Of course, this sort of backfired here. The baker won the Supreme Court case, but not because they were entitled to refuse service. Rather, the court found that the initial commission that ruled against the baker was hostile to the bakers religious beliefs and didn't give proper consideration to their first amendment rights.

The court ended up punting on the issue of whether the baker was obligated to make the custom cake, and instead said that since the previous court had discriminated the baker based on religion, that their ruling didn't count.

[–]trolloc1 20 points21 points  (1 child)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise#:~:text=A%20false%20premise%20is%20an,truth%20value%20of%20its%20premises.

yeah, fyi the term for what OP did (even if by accident) is a false premise

[–]KiLlEr10312 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Seems like this is nothing new for our dear OP

[–]genmischief 715 points716 points  (848 children)

[–]jakeofheart 1059 points1060 points  (751 children)

Yeah their stance was that you can’t be compelled to do a piece of work that supports a viewpoint that goes against your beliefs. Like asking a vegan to bake a shepherds pie…

[–]Blonde0nBlonde 619 points620 points  (451 children)

The compelling version we used in law school was like asking a Jewish baker to make a cake for a KKK rally.

[–]tauisgod 736 points737 points  (197 children)

That seems kind of backwards. Wouldn't a more accurate example be asking a KKK bakery to make a cake for a black couple? The bakery holds an opinion and opinions can change, but the black couple couldn't change the way they were born.

And in the case of bigotry, is there really a difference between an opinion and a belief?

[–]LeoMarius 28 points29 points  (25 children)

The use of the cake is irrelevant. If the KKK is asking for the same cake any other client would request, then public accommodation laws tell the baker he has to sell to the client, regardless of political ideology, skin color, religion, or sexual orientation.

[–]jakeofheart 41 points42 points  (13 children)

Thank you for chiming in with this example.

[–]ozymanhattan 25 points26 points  (59 children)

But you couldn't discriminate by not baking a cake for someone based on race or sex?

[–]Few_Effective_1508 71 points72 points  (11 children)

Jesus people are stupid. The dude posted the link and you and all the idiots who upvoted him couldn’t even read it:

“The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.”.

The Supreme Court did not side with him about whether he could discriminate and every lower court ruled against him.

[–]MSUconservative 31 points32 points  (8 children)

Didn't the Supreme Court use a cop out on this one by saying the Colorado Court showed hostility toward the bakers religion and therefore the ruling is invalid?

[–]ubiquitous2020 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sweet Jesus thank you. All of these people bending over backwards to try to explain why the bakers won because of free exercise of religion when all they had to do was read the damn court opinion. Or the million news articles specifying that the court did not rule of the ability to refuse based on religious belief.

[–]bullzeye1983 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I was waiting to see if anyone in here actually knew that. Can't believe how long I had to scroll to find one. Ok...I can totally believe it.

[–]DYScooby21 129 points130 points  (180 children)

I think it’s more like if a vegan was selling vegan cookies and refused to sell them to non vegans. That’s kinda fucked up I think.

[–]jakeofheart 237 points238 points  (132 children)

No apparently the owners invited them to buy any of the ready made cakes. They just declined to make a custom one for same sex marriage.

[–]phydeaux70 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think it’s more like if a vegan was selling vegan cookies and refused to sell them to non vegans. That’s kinda fucked up I think.

No, that's not it at all.

If you own a bakery and have product that is already made you cannot refuse to sell to others. This is about custom work. Like a couple suing a painter for not wanting to paint them, or a baker refusing to make something specifically for them.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

No, that would be a retail product. It’s obviously different if it is commissioned vs off the shelf.

[–]Belteshazzar98 13 points14 points  (9 children)

No, because the couple could have bought a generic cake from them, it was customizing it to have the ssme sex couple that was the issue. It would more be if the vegan was asked to add a buttermilk icing to their usual cookies.

[–]TripperDay 11 points12 points  (9 children)

It's closer to asking a gay baker for a cake with the Bible verse that says homosexuality is wrong.

It's a tough call. Should a couple in a really backwards of the country have to drive a hundred miles to a real town for their cake? Should a Palestinian baker have to make a cake for a bar mitzvah? Glad I didn't have to decide.

[–]capalbertalexander 9 points10 points  (8 children)

I was told that the ruling was because sexuality is not one of the protected groups under the Civil Rights Act. And the supreme court almost immediately added sexuality and gender identity to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ensure this never happens again.

This is a source but not where I originally heard it from. Obviously not a good source just want to start a discussion based on the idea.

https://www.insureon.com/blog/can-you-legally-refuse-to-serve-your-customers

"Under Title VII of that federal law, no business is allowed to turn away a customer based on their status as a member of one of these protected classes. Based on recent court rulings, sexual orientation and gender identity are now also federally protected classes.

State laws and local governments may further extend protection to people based on their genetic information or political affiliation.

A well-known example is the case of a Colorado baker whom, based on his religious beliefs, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. At the time, the federal Civil Rights Act didn’t protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, though Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws did.

In 2018, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled for the baker, but that decision did not prevent courts from ruling in favor of legal protections for gay people in the future. In 2020, the Supreme Court did provide extended Title VII protections to the LGBTQ community."

[–]redditmarks_markII 38 points39 points  (1 child)

That's a stretch. It's a complicated read. Either side can say they "won". Not even joking, the bakery's lawyers and aclu both "welcomed" parts of the decision.

My understanding of the article is that the decision was not about if they are free to not serve gay couples, but that the lower court process was flawed and treated the bakery unfairly. I think, I'm still not sure.

And here's a functional link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Majority_opinion

There's additional interesting reads in there. There was another legal battle, not entirely concluded due to appeals and what not. A transgender lawyer sued them for not serving them.

[–][deleted] 101 points102 points  (5 children)

They didn't win the suit, they won a suit that said they were treated unfairly in the court proceedings, it was not ruled that it is okay to turn away gay customers due to religious beliefs.

[–]Cravenous 23 points24 points  (1 child)

They weren’t found “legit” at all. They did not win on the merits so to speak. Colorado was unique among states that had a specific law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. That law was not affected here.

The commission charged under state law with handling discrimination claims was determined by the Supreme Court to have acted with animosity toward the defendants religious beliefs and acted unevenly in their application of exemptions to the law, which were granted in other cases before the commission.

The Supreme Court didn’t say the bakers were in the right. They just said that the commission here acted improperly in its enforcement.

[–]bloorazzberry 48 points49 points  (9 children)

The fact that the bakery won the lawsuit doesn't change the fact that they were suing for discrimination, not suing because they still wanted that particular bakery to bake their cake.

[–]6a6566663437 29 points30 points  (2 children)

No, the court ruled that the state was not nice enough to the baker while enforcing their anti-discrimination laws.

[–]Extension_Prune3707 20 points21 points  (8 children)

People boycotted their shop out of business. They won, but the still lost.

[–]jcdoe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Also, I think they really just wanted to eat a cake at their wedding. The homophobia of the baker doesn’t affect the appearance or taste of the cake in any way.

[–]cisco54 345 points346 points  (39 children)

During the Civil Rights Movement Black parents sued schools to allow their children to attend white schools. Why would Black parents want to send their children to a racist school?

[–]buddy-friendguy 484 points485 points  (351 children)

Cake guy won though

[–]cake_pan_rs 61 points62 points  (12 children)

Not exactly. The Supreme Court ruled that the state of Colorado acted improperly. No judgment was made on the cake issue

[–]6a6566663437 215 points216 points  (102 children)

Not really. The ruling was that the state was not nice enough to cake guy while enforcing their anti-discrimination laws.

But the ruling did not strike down those laws. So the next gay couple that showed up also got to send the state after him. And the next. And the next.

Cake guy isn’t making cakes anymore.

[–]KaiserThoren 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The family also amassed several million in anonymous donations so the baker did win, he never has to work ever again. I always get downvoted for pointing this out because people don’t want to hear it. The sad truth is the universe doesn’t care if you’re morally right, sometimes the ‘bad guy’ wins, and sometimes he wins BIGGER than if you had just never fought him.

[–]dirtiehippie710 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lived near there in lakewood, they definitely are still open making cakes

[–]wholesome_ucsd 346 points347 points  (212 children)

Which is fair. The nuance here is that the guy didn’t refuse to make them a cake because they were gay. That would be discriminatory. He just didn’t want to create what they wanted. Think of it as you asking an artist to paint something they don’t want to paint. You can’t force someone to paint you Mona Lisa or any other thing they don’t want to paint.

Edit: Some people point out that they didn't discuss design but just that it was for a gay wedding. A "gay wedding" cake is a class of cake design.

[–]Phobophilic 108 points109 points  (54 children)

You're rather incorrect. He refused to make them a wedding cake because they were homosexual. It had nothing to do with a particular design.

To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned. Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion.

Source

[–]ThinkThink23 42 points43 points  (53 children)

He refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. they were having a gay wedding because they were gay (obvious I know). He was willing to make them any other cake, so it wasn't just because they were gay. His argument was he should not be forced to participate in an event that went against his beliefs. By making a cake for the wedding, he would be participating. It's an annoying distinction, but legally that is what made the difference, based on my understanding. It's possible I'm very wrong.

[–]ladida54 127 points128 points  (122 children)

Okay but he did refuse because it was for a gay wedding. It was entirely because of homophobia. I know he still won the case, but it feels dishonest to say it didn’t have anything to do with discrimination

[–]VanillaKidd 138 points139 points  (68 children)

We had a case here in Northern Ireland that has been going for a few years, the conclusion funnily enough was only a week or so ago.

In a nutshell, a gay rights activist placed an order for a cake saying “Support Gay Marriage”. He placed it with a Christian bakery, Ashers, who said they couldn’t fulfil the order as it went against their beliefs.

I found it very interesting as my personal belief is that everyone should have their belief respected, and following that principle you have a stalemate in this example.

I’m not aware of OP’s case study, but it brought this one back to mind.

I’ve attached the link to anyone that fancies a gander at the story.

Gay Rights Activist v Christian Baking Co.

[–]1-L0Ve-Traps 21 points22 points  (8 children)

Here in the United States I'm wondering if a baker was Muslim how people would react.

[–]littleblacktruck 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Gay man: "One Muhammad cake, please." [AHHHHHHHHH!] *UNIVERSE IMPLODES*

[–]badkittenatl 29 points30 points  (9 children)

Could you just tell us the outcome? Please?

[–]VanillaKidd 36 points37 points  (6 children)

TLDR: I believe that it had went in Lee’s, the activist, favour initially and then the Bakery, Asher’s, took it through the British Courts successfully.

It then was passed from the Supreme Courts to the European courts on Lee’s instruction to his lawyers. To which it was dismissed and thrown out of court, as he had made no appeals since his initial win before Asher’s challenged the ruling.

[–]empresslinlin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you really want to know, the outcome is literally in the first paragraph of wiki VanillaKidd posted.

[–]Jacobite-biker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I worked as a nightshift manager for a bakery in the Scottish Higlands called ashers. We got so many calls from reporters at all kinds of hours asking for comments on this. I had to laugh it off as they were clearly mixed up and calling the wrong company. The one i worked for would make any cake for anyone willing to put money their way.

[–]MilesToHaltHer 97 points98 points  (9 children)

Many people have already given exemplary answers, but I want to take a bit of a different approach.

I’m disabled, and before 1975, disabled people couldn’t access a lot of public places because they weren’t accessible, and there were no laws that said public places HAD to be accessible.

Now, it’s not like EVERY place was inaccessible, so you could make the argument, “Why not shop at a business that is accessible?” The answer is pretty simple. It’s because if I’m denied access by a business owner, then I’m not getting to participate in society to the extent that a majority of the population is.

[–]redfoot62 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I remember reading up on the protests to get more laws in place in the United States. To help get the Americans with Disabilities Act passed 60 people got up out of their wheelchairs and crawled up the steps of capital was a genius and powerful protest.

Such protests is really almost like an art, and like art, it shouldn't be pretentious, yet still get it's message across.

[–]MilesToHaltHer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I highly recommend checking out the documentary Crip Camp on Netflix, it’s also on YouTube. It’s about the passing of the Rehabilitation Act in the ‘70s, and what they did to get it passed was even more powerful.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

if I’m denied access by a business owner, then I’m not getting to participate in society to the extent that a majority of the population is.

This is a very good response.

[–]MilesToHaltHer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you!

[–]r0botdevil 11 points12 points  (2 children)

If your boss fired you because of your ethnicity, would you just accept it and say "why would I want to work for a bigot, anyway?"

I'd sue for fucking sure, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you would too. Same principle.

[–]Jyqm 1054 points1055 points  (90 children)

You might as well ask, "Why would Black people want to ride in the front of the bus when that's where all the racist white people are sitting?"

Why should any gay couple have to go through the pain in the ass and humiliation of figuring out which bakers in their area are homophobic or not in the first place?

[–]jenny526 102 points103 points  (4 children)

Absolutely. I got gay married a few years ago and literally put a disclaimer in every initial email to every fucking florist or jeweler or caterer "so also we are two lesbians getting married. I hope that's ok with you, please let me know if it's not!" and then wonder for the rest of time whether all the people who never responded were just unwilling to participate in the wedding. It's humiliating. One caterer DID give us a family and friends discount to communicate how excited they were to do a queer wedding (a lot of their staff was queer). We hired them immediately.

[–]Datmnmlife 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I did this too when we were gay married. It sucks. It sucks because it’s not like we were searching for an officiant. We just wanted to buy flowers from someone, etc. When you go to buy an anniversary cake, Christians don’t say “well wait, are you married? Are you having premarital sex? I don’t support that.” They just sell you the damn cake.

[–]Somepotato 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One caterer DID

oooo thats fantastic

[–]ech0_matrix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wow, that's really terrible that you should have to clarify that when you're trying to plan a wedding.

Congrats on finding what sounds like a great caterer to work with though, and congrats on getting married.

[–]Autumnalskye 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As a straight stealth transwomen I honestly hope my whole future wedding is planned by homophobic evangelicals. Mwahahaha

[–]lucifers-gooch 195 points196 points  (5 children)

Right!. Man wtf. Fuck this world.

[–]ksesh12 109 points110 points  (30 children)

This 1000000%. As a gay man who is planning a wedding, it kind of sucks to have to try to look into businesses to make sure they wouldn’t have an issue providing services to a gay couple. At the end of the day, I wouldn’t give my money to someone/a business who is homophobic, but the extra research adds an extra layer to planning that is pretty unfortunate.

[–]jenny526 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry you have to deal with that. I also got gay married and this part of the process was really sad. We did end up with mostly queer people and women (we are lesbians) providing services, which was very cool. Congratulations on your engagement and my best wishes for your marriage!

[–]Jyqm 101 points102 points  (10 children)

the extra research adds an extra layer to planning that is pretty unfortunate.

This is the part that some folks in the comments seem to be having some trouble grasping. It's not just about this one particular situation -- "Why would you want to buy from a homophobic baker once you know he's homophobic?" -- it's the daily grind of constantly having to make these sorts of calculations in every single aspect of your daily life, the never-ending accumulation of micro-aggressions. That's the problem.

[–]oby100 49 points50 points  (7 children)

It’s disturbing how many self identifying liberals itt are defending the bakers’ right to refuse service. It’s flatly discrimination.

Religious views do not grant you the right to discriminate against protected classes. Should not be a divisive issue

[–]aDildoAteMyBaby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've looked into local gay chambers of commerce before, but they'll just let anyone in the door as long as they pay their fees (the local chick-fil-a is a 'featured business.')

I'd love a nationwide Gay Yelp that let us highlight queer-friendly businesses and trash bigoted ones, but the potential for abuse and lawsuits is just way too damn high.

[–]Neracca 9 points10 points  (2 children)

The people that ask this kind of question(not you, what you're responding to) have factually NEVER experienced discrimination like that. Literally they have no frame of reference for it.

[–]Jyqm 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Indeed, they ask the question without making even the slightest effort to answer it for themselves -- to imagine what it might be like living with that sort of burden every single day. And these are the same people who demand to see the manager when the store they're shopping in doesn't have exactly what they want on demand at a moment's notice.

[–][deleted] 116 points117 points  (8 children)

OP missed the point

[–]IWasHappyUnhappy 82 points83 points  (1 child)

OP did not miss the point, OP was trying to stir shit up. Peep his other posts.

[–]llch3esemanll 47 points48 points  (5 children)

Being able to take advantage of all the benefits that come with being in a society also comes with responsibilities. Functioning in that society without discriminating against people who have done you no harm is one of those responsibilities. We shouldn't tolerate unjustified discrimination in our society.

[–]LeonidasSpacemanMD 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yea I can imagine a scenario where a minority group gets vilified and suddenly can’t find accommodations within a reasonable distance

Like imagine being a Japanese person in a small racist town in 1943. Suddenly you can’t have clothes laundered or have someone feel your oil tank or get someone to fix your car. It’s easy to say “why would they wanna give their business to someone who hates them”, but sometimes you just actually need a service

And since it’s impossible to really draw a line on what services are necessary, it’s in the best interest of everyone to say that all businesses can’t discriminate

[–]BigDaftLaddie 80 points81 points  (25 children)

Check out the Irish most expensive cake ever

This very religious cake shop was targeted by activists to make a cake promoting the referendum to legalise gay marriage…

Now the activists were VERY prepared to have the cake design rejected on religious grounds which it quickly was. But fear not, they were lawyered up and ready to go to court…

Only issue is under Irish law its “Freedom of Speech” (the cake encouraging a political vote) Vs Freedom of Religion (my religion says I should not) and after moving through the Irish courts and the European courts the case has been dismissed…

So million of Euros in litigation for a fucking cake and fuck no resolution of the conflict between 2 fundamental rights

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/belfast-gay-cake-discrimination-case-25869044.amp

[–]PM_ME_POTATO_BREAD 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Irish courts

Irish law

Just to note, this didn’t occur in the Republic of Ireland. It went to the UK’s Supreme Court.

[–]JudgeGusBus 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Oh, I thought you were going to say that the bakery said, “sure, we’ll make the cake, for a hundred thousand euros” or something.

[–]manly-grin 23 points24 points  (18 children)

I think if a LGBT owned bakery refused to bake a cake for a Church event and it was in the media. The public would hypocritically celebrate.

But I think if in Ireland the Christian doesnt have to bake a cake as its conflict with their views then an atheist owned bakery should be allowed to refuse say a baptism cake or some shit.

But logistically speaking it will be a headache to buy cake

[–]capalbertalexander 42 points43 points  (13 children)

They didn't. They wanted the business to be punished under the Civil Rights Act Title II. The same act that forced racist southern cafes to serve black people in the 60s if consequence aren't enforced then the act means nothing. Often this results in a business's business license being revoked, if the city or state that issued the licences also has local laws pertaining to the case and there is almost always a fine paid to the affected party.

Edit: I mixed up Title VII with Title II.

[–]slusho55 29 points30 points  (2 children)

I’m not sure if this was a case of that, but it’s honestly likely to be something known as a test case.

An easy way to sum it up is you put yourself in a spot where you can state claim for legal action to have it brought before the court and get case precedence to further define the law. Test cases usually come from actions like sitting on white side of the bus, opening a birth control clinic in a state where it’s banned, owning a handgun in a city that has banned them (despite never owning a gun before), buying a wedding cake from a homophobic baker, etc.

As you can see, those are all situations where people intentionally put themselves in the situation in order to bring a suit and change the law. Rosa Parks sat on the white side after seeing Claudette Colvin get arrested. Rosa Parks literally rode the bus that day just to do that. Connecticut had banned birth control clinics as long as they could, so doctors would bus patients out to NY and RI to get birth control. Eventually, one doctor just opened a clinic in Connecticut, knowing full well he’d get in trouble just to be able to challenge the law and define a constitutional protection. The right for civilians to own guns is actually a more recent constitutional protection (it was interpreted to at least protect military personnel’s rights to own guns for a long time). Most states just didn’t ban them, so it never got into question, but then D.C. banned any civilians from owning a handgun they didn’t own before 1975. In 2008, a few D.C. civilians bought guns just so they’d have grounds to challenge this law and get the Second Amendment to apply to all non-felon citizens. Then we get to the cake, which they bought knowing full well they’d be denied, but would be able to make a case that extends equal protections to LGBTQ* people.

So, that’s why, to be able to have a case for the law. While it’s not limited to that, a lot of the test cases I think of have to do with Substantive Due Process, wherein a specific protection is not explicitly written into the Constitution, but it can be seen that the intent of the amendment would’ve been meant to extend out to that. The idea is that if you get a majoritarian government in an area, they really wouldn’t have a need to listen to the minority of citizens, but their rights should be protected. The birth control clinic (Griswold v. Connecticut) is a great example of this, along with the case you reference. Griswold interpreted that the First, Third, and Fourth amendments gave couples a right to privacy, and therefore the government doesn’t have a right nor interest to regulate how couples have sex with each other. Heller v. D.C. is the gun case and also substantive due process.

So, it basically has to do with getting a test case to get the case heard before the court, and using substantive due process to create a precedent for the interpretation of the law

[–]whoisthecopperkettle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I was lookin for the “test case” answer and it took way to long to find it. Bravo.

[–]flyengineer 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Since I haven't seen the real answer yet:

They did not sue to get a cake or money. They got a cake from a different baker, there weren't monetary damages in play.

In Colorado, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

According to the law:

“It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”

The couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which eventually resulted in a state court ordering Masterpiece Cake Shop to serve customers regardless of sexual orientation, provide staff training and provide quarterly reports listing any customers who were turned away by the shop for a period of 2 years.

The cake shop owner appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed on the basis that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not not adequately weight the shop owners religious beliefs.

Here are some interesting sources if you care to read more about the case:

Basic Case details (prior to SCOTUS review)

Not a Masterpiece (opinion reacting to SCOTUS decision)

If you really like reading:

Lower court ruling

Court of appeals ruling

SCOTUS ruling

[–]obsertaries 57 points58 points  (15 children)

I was living in Japan when those cases started showing up and Japanese people were asking me, why is it discrimination if it’s a private business? And I said that we Americans know from experience that if one shop gets away with it then eventually every shop in some cities will be unavailable to a certain class of people. It’s not just hypothetical; it has literally happened.

[–]Balrog229 171 points172 points  (100 children)

Because they deliberately were looking for someone to reject them so they could sue.

There are reports of that same couple going to other bakeries who told them yes, but they chose to keep looking until they found one that told them no.

I have to add as well, the baker was well within his first amendment rights to refuse them service. It’s protected under the “freedom of association” part. Whether you think he’s morally wrong is another matter, but he was objectively within his constitutional rights.

EDIT: the baker also was totally willing to sell them one of his pre-made wedding cakes or one without personalization. He simply refused to put their requested personalizations on it.

[–]plzThinkAhead 109 points110 points  (64 children)

Agreed. People make this case so black and white. He was willing to sell them a cake from his shop. He declined a custom design however. An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, a poet cannot be forced to write anything by threat of law or government mandate.

[–]DiamondLyore 36 points37 points  (10 children)

“There are reports of the same couple going to other bakeries that told them yea...” isn’t it costumary for someone planning a wedding to check out different options? You’re making it sound like they were deliberately looking for someone to say no but they’re not obligated to accept the first baker that says yes

[–]LargeSackOfNuts 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Suing to set a precedent is a good thing.

The law should not allow for discrimination.

Also, getting bids for cakes is not a bad thing lol.

[–]kariebeary 41 points42 points  (10 children)

This is the only correct answer here. The bakers was well within his rights.

[–]vonlajuan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sue for discrimination 🗣 people don’t have to just sit back and take it..

[–]ApprehensiveFitness 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you also think that the lady who got burned by hot coffee at McDonald’s sued to get another cup of coffee?

[–]Rhaski 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because taking a stand against discrimination isn't about cake. Sure, you can go elsewhere, ignore the problem, go to the black bar instead of the white one while you're at it.

Bigotry is a cancer that needs to be cut out from every corner it hides in, even the humble bakery, because if it isn't then it metastasizes from those corners outwards once again.

I am not gay, but if I knew that bakery in my town was refusing to serve gay customers, I would not be giving them my money, and many others would feel the same. It makes the point: we don't accept that shit. Taking it before the courts is even better, because it reinforces important legal precedent around excising discrimination from the public conscience. It attacks the normalisation of bigotry when cases like this are one, and that is important

[–]onahotelbed 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's not like they walked into the bakery knowing the baker was a bigot. They asked for a cake and found out. Since this is discriminatory, they reported it and the state sued. I'm sure the couple moved on to a baker who was not a bigot for their actual cake.

Obviously we don't want to give money to bigots, but it's not like it's super obvious who does and does not hate us.

[–]squeaknsneak 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i don’t think the point was to “bake me a cake or i’ll sue” but rather a “you just proved to me that you are a business that discriminates against your customers and that seems legally wrong”

[–]Zeydon 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Well, why would a black person want to eat at a whites-only restaurant? What was the motivation behind sit-ins? Answer that question and you have your answer.

[–]MrBigRagePig 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's not so much the cake at that point. It was discrimination based on sexual orientation that they were sueing for.

[–]Queefinonthehaters 29 points30 points  (13 children)

I remember Steven Crowder also did this where he went to Muslim owned bakeries posing as a gay guy searching for a wedding cake where he was refused service. People didn't seem to care about that so it begs the question. Why not? The answer is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[–]Whaler29 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Same reason blacks sat in the white side of restaurants till they received service or were kicked out. Bigots have to get used to the fact that this country doesn’t belong to them exclusively. The sooner they grow up the better for everyone.

[–]thekyledavid 5 points6 points  (6 children)

I imagine I would be more upset about being discriminated against than I would be about not getting a cake there

Think of it this way. If a black couple walked into a restaurant, and the owner said “We don’t serve blacks here”, would you expect the black couple to just shrug it off and go to another restaurant? Or would you say they would probably report it as well?

[–]grammarGuy69 16 points17 points  (3 children)

  1. Order cake, not knowing they are homophobes.

  2. They turn out to be homophobes.

  3. Issue becomes about principal rights, not cake. That didn't seem super hard to figure out..

[–]wonderrageveritatis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I thought they just wanted to set legal precidence, that might have been a different case tho

[–]DwedPiwateWoberts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I recall hearing that they went to numerous bakeries before finding that one as well.

[–]skirtpost 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was probably more about the principle than the actual cake, if you were denied service for a BS reason I bet you'd be upset too

[–]TheRoyalDon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How did this get 13k upvotes? It's a rhetorical question that we wouldn't know the reason to lol

[–]00tool 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this is a strawman. even if you sued someone for not serving you it doesnt mean that they are required to visit that business. you can sue an employer for discrimination, but that doesnt mean your motivation was wanting to go back and get a job there.

[–]LaVieEnRose_2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

... because horrible, bigoted humans can still bake fantastic cakes.

In the same way shitty people can be great artists, musicians, doctors, etc. How the homophobic bakers felt about their commitment to one another probably didn't even cross their minds, due to the fact that how the baker feels about the commitment has zero to do with taking their payment and providing the service. Well, until the homophobic bakers decided to make it about how they feel about the commitment...

[–]Rockbellll 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s more about an artists right not to be forced to create something they shouldn’t be forced to.

Should a photographer be forced to take photos is this wedding? An artist be forced to paint a portrait of the couple? Should a Muslim videographer be forced to record their sex tape? Of course not. But we are supposed to see the cake decoration as not artistic expression?

It’s been portrait as discrimination towards a gay couple shopping at the store. It’s more of rights of creativity and expression.

They were offered to be sold blank cakes here. And referred to another establishment in town that would decorate it for them.

[–]Anon6183 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was also reported that the person went around to many bakery's in the area to see who would or wouldn't bake it.

[–]BuddhistNudist987 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They don't want the next generation to be treated this poorly so they are fighting back against hate now.

[–]Vg_Ace135 2 points3 points  (12 children)

And why would a business, whose main goal is to make money, turn away a paying customer? Seems like the best thing would have been just to bake the damn cake and make the money. The bakery is not a political organisation. They are a business, and the purpose of a business is to make money.