• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You decide: the wedding cake issue.

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,899
Reaction score
7,314
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?
 
Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

The problem is no matter the exact situation an inflammatory complaint can run so fast through the Internet and national news that it can destroy a small business before the truth is even found out.
 
The problem is no matter the exact situation an inflammatory complaint can run so fast through the Internet and national news that it can destroy a small business before the truth is even found out.

Which is, or should be, perfectly within legal bounds, just as protesting outside the business for refusing to provide their service/product for any reason should be within legal bounds. An inflammatory complaint doesn't even have to be true to ruin a business. A customer could just be in a pissy mode and not like the way a worker there looked at them. They then go off and make a big deal on how the worker said, "Here's your product, you f****** n***** c***! I hope it kills you!" The worker never said it, but your right, the business could be ruined before the truth ever got out.

However this thread is about whether it is a right to refuse to provide services/product for a given event, while still providing such otherwise to protected groups that could be involved in same said event. e.g. Providing a birthday cake to a gay but not a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.
 
These laws violate our basic human rights to liberty and property and should be abolished.

ANY reason or excuse someone gives to not adhere to them is more than adequate.
 
Which is, or should be, perfectly within legal bounds, just as protesting outside the business for refusing to provide their service/product for any reason should be within legal bounds. An inflammatory complaint doesn't even have to be true to ruin a business. A customer could just be in a pissy mode and not like the way a worker there looked at them. They then go off and make a big deal on how the worker said, "Here's your product, you f****** n***** c***! I hope it kills you!" The worker never said it, but your right, the business could be ruined before the truth ever got out.

However this thread is about whether it is a right to refuse to provide services/product for a given event, while still providing such otherwise to protected groups that could be involved in same said event. e.g. Providing a birthday cake to a gay but not a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's a right(which I would say it is) or not the political climate these days makes it impossible for a small business to take a stand of any kind.
 
Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

I have no issue with a baker in a bakery, one which offers a wide array of goods and services, denying service for a specific good or event. And, you are correct by stating that as long as he serves the person of color, sexual orientation, etc in other ways, those which are not good or event specific, by treating them as equals and selling them whatever else they want, he is not really violating their rights.

In fact, I'll say it is a dick move for someone to demand a wedding cake from someone who does not want to bake a cake for their wedding, regardless of the reason for them not wanting to do it. But...

It gets hairy when the business is in business specifically for weddings, like say a wedding planner. I do not see how such a business can legally discriminate against interracial, same sex or even pluralistic wedding ceremonies. But, thinking about it is not something that keeps me up nights.
 
Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

It hasn't anything to do with gay marriages. Thinking it does, misses the point completely. That is only incidental.
 
The problem is no matter the exact situation an inflammatory complaint can run so fast through the Internet and national news that it can destroy a small business before the truth is even found out.

Destroyed by some bigots and a liberal court with no regard for the Constitution.
 
I have no issue with a baker in a bakery, one which offers a wide array of goods and services, denying service for a specific good or event. And, you are correct by stating that as long as he serves the person of color, sexual orientation, etc in other ways, those which are not good or event specific, by treating them as equals and selling them whatever else they want, he is not really violating their rights.

Practicing your right to association and property by denying someone your commerce is never a violation of someones rights.

In fact, I'll say it is a dick move for someone to demand a wedding cake from someone who does not want to bake a cake for their wedding, regardless of the reason for them not wanting to do it. But...

Isn't it a dick move to demand someone serve you at all?

It gets hairy when the business is in business specifically for weddings, like say a wedding planner. I do not see how such a business can legally discriminate against interracial, same sex or even pluralistic wedding ceremonies. But, thinking about it is not something that keeps me up nights.

There is no valid reason they don't have a right to decide who they will trade with. This idea that because they do wedding that they must agree to all weddings is without merit.
 
I have no issue with a baker in a bakery, one which offers a wide array of goods and services, denying service for a specific good or event. And, you are correct by stating that as long as he serves the person of color, sexual orientation, etc in other ways, those which are not good or event specific, by treating them as equals and selling them whatever else they want, he is not really violating their rights.

In fact, I'll say it is a dick move for someone to demand a wedding cake from someone who does not want to bake a cake for their wedding, regardless of the reason for them not wanting to do it. But...

It gets hairy when the business is in business specifically for weddings, like say a wedding planner. I do not see how such a business can legally discriminate against interracial, same sex or even pluralistic wedding ceremonies. But, thinking about it is not something that keeps me up nights.

Yep. That is just about right. If it weren't for the fact that the court let commercial law supercede the Constitution through the back door it would only be a case of normal bigotry. The court finding makes it to a grave issue.
 
Practicing your right to association and property by denying someone your commerce is never a violation of someones rights.



Isn't it a dick move to demand someone serve you at all?



There is no valid reason they don't have a right to decide who they will trade with. This idea that because they do wedding that they must agree to all weddings is without merit.

I disagree on all three points. But, you'll only become to appreciate that if and when someone denies you service when you need it. Libertarians are really bad at understanding how discriminating actions feel to others unless it hits them first.
 
How about....just not telling the baker its for a same sex marriage?
 
Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

Taken literally, there is no such thing as a gay wedding. It's just gay people having a wedding.

Easier bypass might be to set up a private "wedding cake club" that only provides cakes to members. Then they can be arbitrary about the membership.

Trade-off being they wouldn't be open to the general public any more.
 
Yep. That is just about right. If it weren't for the fact that the court let commercial law supercede the Constitution through the back door it would only be a case of normal bigotry. The court finding makes it to a grave issue.

It actually makes sense. We can't very well live in a society where every proprietor decides who he wants to serve or not. Imagine you are in a pinch, call a lawyer to get you out of it, and he says, "Sorry, can't help you, I only serve Jews." It would be chaos.
 
Simply put, blanket ideas and solutions rarely, if ever, work. Force a business to cater to something that violates their religious beliefs and ideals? Wrong, obviously. But so is saying that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. Try being one of the few black guys in town who can't get a haircut because the barbers don't serve blacks. Or a pharmacist who won't sell condoms to gays, or birth control, or a cab company that won't serve Jews, or etc etc etc.
 
Simply put, blanket ideas and solutions rarely, if ever, work. Force a business to cater to something that violates their religious beliefs and ideals? Wrong, obviously. But so is saying that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. Try being one of the few black guys in town who can't get a haircut because the barbers don't serve blacks. Or a pharmacist who won't sell condoms to gays, or birth control, or a cab company that won't serve Jews, or etc etc etc.

Hair cuts? Anyone can cut hair. :lol:
 
Simply put, blanket ideas and solutions rarely, if ever, work. Force a business to cater to something that violates their religious beliefs and ideals? Wrong, obviously. But so is saying that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. Try being one of the few black guys in town who can't get a haircut because the barbers don't serve blacks. Or a pharmacist who won't sell condoms to gays, or birth control, or a cab company that won't serve Jews, or etc etc etc.

Yep, chaos.
 
It actually makes sense. We can't very well live in a society where every proprietor decides who he wants to serve or not. Imagine you are in a pinch, call a lawyer to get you out of it, and he says, "Sorry, can't help you, I only serve Jews." It would be chaos.

It would cause chaos if people could decide who they provided their labor, time, and property? The state will also appoint you a lawyer, so that argument kind of sucks.
 
It would cause chaos if people could decide who they provided their labor, time, and property? The state will also appoint you a lawyer, so that argument kind of sucks.

THe state? What are you now, a liberal?
 
I disagree on all three points. But, you'll only become to appreciate that if and when someone denies you service when you need it. Libertarians are really bad at understanding how discriminating actions feel to others unless it hits them first.

I'm really bad with the feeling argument in general when it comes to politics. :shrug:
 
I'm really bad with the feeling argument in general when it comes to politics. :shrug:

Let's say you call 911. Someone who knows you answers the phone. You say, "Hey, I think I am having a heart attack. Please send an EMT."

911 operator says, "Oh, you are that libertarian down the street. Well, **** you. Give me your credit card number first."
 
It actually makes sense. We can't very well live in a society where every proprietor decides who he wants to serve or not. Imagine you are in a pinch, call a lawyer to get you out of it, and he says, "Sorry, can't help you, I only serve Jews." It would be chaos.

Except your nightmare scenario wouldn't happen. Businesses don't operate that way. A successful business sees only green. But if I want to run a law firm that only takes on Jewish clients, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Chances are, if a lawyer was financial stable enough to limit his clientele that severely, you probably couldn't afford him anyway ;)
 
Yes, the state. It's been that way since forever.

Actually that's false. Free attorneys for the indigent is actually a new concept. Plus, another fallacy in your original argument that the state will provide an attorney is that you fail to understand that it only does so after a petition is filed requesting one and certain qualifications are met.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_defender_(United_States)#Background_and_History


Dude in a pinch trying to get a lawyer only to be repeatedly rejected because he is black, jewish, christian, or whatever would indeed be a hardship.
 
Last edited:
I disagree on all three points. But, you'll only become to appreciate that if and when someone denies you service when you need it. Libertarians are really bad at understanding how discriminating actions feel to others unless it hits them first.

Discriminating actions are not limited to business, so it in disingenuous to assume that a libertarian has not experienced such in their lifetimes. I have in many areas, so I do know what it is like. And while I know it I still not a good feeling, I still support the rights of those to do so over my own feelings.
 
Back
Top Bottom