Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

[Cyber Liberty]

RIV,  I recognize the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the safety of us all.   But if there's a problem in this country with Muslim-owned businesses refusing commerce with non-Muslims, I'm not aware of it.   

Maybe it's because you haven't looked, or it hasn't been spooned to you?  I dunno.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/3/video-muslim-bakers-points-double-standard-gay-wed/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-do-muslims-get-to-ignore-the-same-laws-used-to-prosecute-christian-businesses/article/1034681

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

[Cyber Liberty]

Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):

Here's a link to the opinion itself:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf

So, in sum:

(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.

Them's the facts, jack.

Sounds like Sweet Cakes advertised.  Not sure that's the case at hand, but the principle you described certainly applies to Sweet Cakes.

No fear here, except of a government using its bureaucracy to force people to do things. 

If they did things to bring it on themselves, I guess that's their problem.  But I disagree that they should have small punishments.  Every time the other poster you like mentions any of the Christians in these stories, they're "bigots."  You have called them and posters on this forum who support them "hateful."  Seems to me that if they are that evil they should receive enough punishment to put them out of business, and the bureaucracies involved seem to think so too.

[Jazzhead]

I usually support your opinions as clear, rational and well thought-out.  Can't do it here or on this topic in general @Jazzhead .

There's a motivator to these posts that I'd rather not dissect. Let's just say it's your right to have this apparent prejudice and my right to disagree with it.  And let's leave it there.

No problem, RIV.  I usually support your opinions as well, and for similar reasons.   

I'm not sure what "apparent prejudice" you're referring to.   Is it that I'm prejudiced against Christians or prejudiced in favor of Muslims?   I think neither is accurate - my real prejudice is against the infection of identity politics and its increasing embrace by the right as well as the left.    To make America great again we need to return to the idea that we're a melting pot, not a mosaic.   

[goatprairie]

Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):

Here's a link to the opinion itself:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf

So, in sum:

(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.

Them's the facts, jack.

"(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding"

A manufacturer/business advertises to the general public that it makes  certain types of widgets.
A customer goes to the business and asks the manufacturer to make a different kind of widget. The business says it only makes a particular type of widget, and the customer is free to buy any of those.
The customer demands that the manufacturer make them a special kind of widget whether the business wants to make it or  not.
The business says it reserves the constitutional right to make whatever types of widgets it wants to make. Like every business has done since the founding of the country and before.
The customer sues and uses the force of the gov. i.e men with guns to force the business to make them a specially designed widget.
Them's the facts Jack.

[driftdiver]

Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):

Here's a link to the opinion itself:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf

So, in sum:

(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.

Them's the facts, jack.

What has the term 'wedding' meant for the last 200 years in America?  Legally and practically

[Jazzhead]

"(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding"

A manufacturer/business advertises to the general public that it makes  certain types of widgets.
A customer goes to the business and asks the manufacturer to make a different kind of widget. The business says it only makes a particular type of widget, and the customer is free to buy any of those.
The customer demands that the manufacturer make them a special kind of widget whether the business wants to make it or  not.
The business says it reserves the constitutional right to make whatever types of widgets it wants to make. Like every business has done since the founding of the country and before.
The customer sues and uses the force of the gov. i.e men with guns to force the business to make them a specially designed widget.
Them's the facts Jack.

No, the analogy is inaccurate.   The customer asked for exactly what the baker advertised to provide - a cake for a wedding.   The baker's services weren't limited to cakes for only weddings his religion approved of - and the customer placed no artistic demands whatsoever on the baker before service was refused. 

Litigation is such matters is unfortunate, but there should be no mistake regarding who has been victimized here.   The customer didn't ask for a "special kind of widget",  but the same exact kind of widget the baker said he made.  And service was refused for no other reason than the customer said she wanted a cake for her own wedding.     

[Cyber Liberty]

I'd like to point out the case under discussion is NOT about "Sweet Cakes" bakery, which was introduced in this argument as a result of my questions. 

This case being so well defined does not apply.

[Restored]

If the bakery owner condemned homosexuality while denying the order, that is clearly discrimination so long as he knew the customer was a homosexual. It would be similar to refusing to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple.
If the bakery owner disagreed politically with the order, that is not discrimination because their sexual orientation is irrelevant in the matter. That's no different than refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. If a homosexual had asked for the swastika cake, their sexuality would be irrelevant.

[goatprairie]

No, the analogy is inaccurate.   The customer asked for exactly what the baker advertised to provide - a cake for a wedding.   The baker's services weren't limited to cakes for only weddings his religion approved of - and the customer placed no artistic demands whatsoever on the baker before service was refused. 

Litigation is such matters is unfortunate, but there should be no mistake regarding who has been victimized here.   The customer didn't ask for a "special kind of widget",  but the same exact kind of widget the baker said he made.  And service was refused for no other reason than the customer said she wanted a cake for her own wedding.   

It doesn't matter one g-damned difference what if the business didn't specify it didn't make certain kinds of widgets. It can make whatever it wants to make without being told to make one by a customer.
Let me repeat: A CUSTOMER HAS ABSOLUTELY NO G-DAMNED RIGHT TO TELL A BUSINESS HOW TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS!!! Is that clear enough for you?

[Jazzhead]

If the bakery owner condemned homosexuality while denying the order, that is clearly discrimination so long as he knew the customer was a homosexual. It would be similar to refusing to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple.
If the bakery owner disagreed politically with the order, that is not discrimination because their sexual orientation is irrelevant in the matter. That's no different than refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. If a homosexual had asked for the swastika cake, their sexuality would be irrelevant.

Agreed.   Political ideology is not a protected classification.   That's probably why the coffee shop owner could, legally if rather obnoxiously, refuse service to customers who had been distributing pictures of aborted fetuses.     

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

See, that's one of the things that really bugs me about this story:  The dearth of evidence.  I'm of the belief these fellows most certainly targeted the bakery (In this case and in Colorado).   Even that other poster does not dispute this.  What bothers me is the fact that none of these "customers" did the slightest evidence gathering to support their cases, that I know of.  Where are the pictures of the advertisements we keep hearing about?  Screen shots?  And why on Earth would these fellows go through all this trouble and not record their interactions with the bakery staff, either video or audio?

We'd be seeing the ads and video, if they were detrimental to the bakeries, as we have in the story I linked about the coffee shop.  But we're not.  Nothing.

The dog didn't bark.

Agree 100%.

[Jazzhead]

Let me repeat: A CUSTOMER HAS ABSOLUTELY NO G-DAMNED RIGHT TO TELL A BUSINESS HOW TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS!!! Is that clear enough for you?

And the customer at issue made no such demand.  She made no demand to affix same-sex wedding toppers, no demand to create a rainbow flag out of icing, no demand to affix a slogan offensive to the baker's religion.  All she wanted was a cake - the same wedding cake the baker advertised to provide.  Her sin was to state that the cake was for her own wedding, to which the baker arbitrarily objected. 

[goatprairie]

If the bakery owner condemned homosexuality while denying the order, that is clearly discrimination so long as he knew the customer was a homosexual. It would be similar to refusing to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple.
If the bakery owner disagreed politically with the order, that is not discrimination because their sexual orientation is irrelevant in the matter. That's no different than refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. If a homosexual had asked for the swastika cake, their sexuality would be irrelevant.

But the bakery DIDN'T refuse to bake a cake, it refused to bake a cake to a customer's wishes. That is right reserved to any business to make or not make their product.
For the same reason I can't order my cable tv company to put on the shows I want. I can only go to another cable or satellite tv business.
Bigotry has nothing to do with it.  It's irrelevant (or should be) in all legal cases.  The right of a business to manufacture what it wants to manufacture should be inviolate.
If bigotry were a legal consideration, then any business that makes racist articles could be sued out of existence. They can't be.  They have the right to be bigoted, racist, jerks, whatever.  The customer has the right to not purchase something from the bigoted, racist business. That's how freedom works.

[txradioguy]

I'd like to point out the case under discussion is NOT about "Sweet Cakes" bakery, which was introduced in this argument as a result of my questions. 

This case being so well defined does not apply.

The only way it does apply is the fact that in that Colorado case the DoJ stepped in on the side of the bakery being targeted.

The defendants in the Oregon...if their lawyer is even marginally decent...can take the Fed's amicus brief and use their words as evidence in his case to get the appeals court ruling in Oregon overturned.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

I don't have a clue how anyone could go about proving that,but I also believe it to be the case that they specifically targeted a Christia-owned bakery in order to gain a little fame and a lot of money.  Otherwise if all they wanted was their homo-specific cake, they would have just gone to a bakery that didn't care to have their cake baked.

It's somewhere in the legal transcripts.  Those kinds of important facts come out in discovery before anything goes to trial...when the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are deposed by the lawyers.

[txradioguy]

You and Jazz have both made the case that "The bakery has to provide services advertised," but nobody has produced any evidence of what was advertised.  According to the part of your post I underlined, the advertising here was word-of-mouth.  The baker was to be forced to bake the cake because he did so for the mother of one of them.

@Cyber Liberty at the end of the day this is a case dealing with contractual law.

And no one can be forced to enter a contract against their will.  The law is very plain on that.

[Oceander]

I'd like to point out the case under discussion is NOT about "Sweet Cakes" bakery, which was introduced in this argument as a result of my questions. 

This case being so well defined does not apply.

Actually, it does.  Sweetcakes is the Oregon bakery in question. 

[Oceander]

It’s amazing how many people are so afraid of the facts. Read the court’s opinion to find out exactly what the baker offered to the public: customized wedding cakes. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually, it does.  Sweetcakes is the Oregon bakery in question.

Yes, I got crossed up because there are so many cases headed to court at once.  I'm just going to sit out for awhile....

[Cyber Liberty]

It’s amazing how many people are so afraid of the facts. Read the court’s opinion to find out exactly what the baker offered to the public: customized wedding cakes.

These court things are not always because of fear to see facts.  Courts have become highly unpredictable to us regular folks, and it's become a matter of distrust, not fear.

[goatprairie]

And the customer at issue made no such demand.  She made no demand to affix same-sex wedding toppers, no demand to create a rainbow flag out of icing, no demand to affix a slogan offensive to the baker's religion.  All she wanted was a cake - the same wedding cake the baker advertised to provide.  Her sin was to state that the cake was for her own wedding, to which the baker arbitrarily objected.

Then the baker is still baking a special cake. The article has not yet been made. For the same reason I wouldn't bake a cake for a wedding of two avowed Nazis. Neither would you. Nazism is legal by the way. So is communism, Satanism, and a whole slew of other objectionable  behaviors.
They can buy whatever is present in the shop, but I wouldn't bake something special for them.
Hard to believe the happy couple didn't want something on the cake.

[Restored]

Let me repeat: A CUSTOMER HAS ABSOLUTELY NO G-DAMNED RIGHT TO TELL A BUSINESS HOW TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS!!! Is that clear enough for you?

And a business has no right refusing service to someone because of their race or religion.

[txradioguy]

And a business has no right refusing service to someone because of their race or religion.

Being gay isn't a race...and it certainly flies in the face of religion and religious teachings.

[Jazzhead]

Hard to believe the happy couple didn't want something on the cake.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.   We'll never know, because service was denied before any discussion of customization or artistry could take place.   

I keep coming back to this because I think it's crucial to resolution of the case.  If the customer had asked for an offensive message to be placed on the cake,  I'm sure all would agree that it was within the baker's right to refuse.   

[HoustonSam]

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.   We'll never know, because service was denied before any discussion of customization or artistry could take place.   

I keep coming back to this because I think it's crucial to resolution of the case.  If the customer had asked for an offensive message to be placed on the cake,  I'm sure all would agree that it was within the baker's right to refuse.   

Offensive to whom?  The entire concept of the ceremony was offensive to the baker, which is why the baker refused.  Who gets to decide what is offensive enough to enable the baker to refuse service?

The proposed cake was by definition custom because it had not yet been created but was to be discussed specifically, not as a standard item already in the baker's shop.  Anything already in the shop was not custom and was available for the homosexual couple to purchase; anything they needed to specify would by definition be custom, without regard for any specific message on the cake, whether or not such a message had been discussed.

Or is it your position that the baker could have legally refused once the customers had requested a specific message on the cake?