Dough Unto Others
If I were any more "gay-friendly," I'd have a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend, yet I don't think any business should be forced to serve anyone if it's against the businessperson's principles.
A Christian baker told two lesbians getting married in Iowa that her religious beliefs wouldn't allow her to bake their wedding cake. That should be her right -- to not bake them a cake because they're lesbians or to not bake one for me because I don't believe in god. (And again, I say that about the cake for the two ladies getting married as somebody who's pro-gay marriage and a staunch supporter of gay rights.)
In yet another example of state overreach, it turns out that it's illegal for her to deny to sell to these ladies according to the Iowa Civil Rights Act. (Never mind protecting the rights and freedoms of the religious.)
From Care2.com, the cake lady, Victoria Childress, explained:
"I didn't do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner. It is my right, and it's not to discriminate against them. It's not so much to do with them, it's to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for."
But, then, there's this:
A quick scan of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, expanded in 2007 to extend protections on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, says that a refusal of services based on sexual orientation is actually forbidden unless the service provider is a "bona fide religious institution":...Childress is a person of faith who, based on her video interview with KCCI.com, appears to truly believe she wasn't discriminating against the couple. In fact she contends the issue is not about the couple at all but rather her being able to express her religious convictions about their "lifestyle," and however objectionable we may find that set of beliefs it does appear she never intended to hurt Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers. However, unless she would contend she is a bona fide religious institution, it would seem Childress is incorrect that it is her automatic right as a business owner to refuse to serve the couple.
Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers have said they found the experience degrading but it is unclear at this time whether they will file a legal suit.
However, what might have appeared to be a rather trivial matter about a wedding cake -- and one with an easy remedy: just go to another bakery and spread the word that Childress isn't providing services to same-sex couples, letting all who find that offensive protest by also not using Childress' services -- has now turned into a civil rights versus religious exemptions battle, reminding us that the question of how far religious privilege should extend is an issue that, we are increasingly finding, can no longer be sugarcoated or skirted.
I guess the obvious question is how would you feel about a restaurant that refused to serve blacks or a company that would not hire jews? Both of these things are illegal under the same civil rights laws.
I understand the pure libertarian principle of your point, but the counter-argument is that public businesses benefit from government amenities (police, monetary system) and are thereby subject to certain rules of society.
I would agree that the law should not require her to make a cake any differently than she ordinarily would (I'm not sure what a special lesbian cake would entail...), and additionally, if it was me I would not want to fight to patronize someone like that, I would use my own freedom to let people know about this and buy a cake from someone who wanted to serve me.
For right now, however, civil-rights laws are a good thing, if only as a counterweight to years of laws that actively discriminated the other way. (and I know, two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm saving my outrage for the TSA...)
clinky at November 15, 2011 11:20 PM
I don't know of a better example of the destruction of that fundamental right of freedom of association - an individual right, without which other discussion of rights is meaningless.
Forcing one person to do another's bidding by government isn't quite what anyone expected, is it? Yet here it is, because no one could imagine the law applying to them.
Radwaste at November 16, 2011 2:08 AM
Replace "gay" with "black". Still going to make the same argument? In the eyes of the Iowa law, they're both protected classes. And why not? Either this logic applies to all protected classes (ie. we should abolish the concept entirely) or you need to come up with a reason why race should be protected but sexual orientation not.
Jason at November 16, 2011 2:34 AM
"We retain the right to refuse service to anyone."
What happened to that? Do the rights of the couple override the rights of the business owner?
For the record, I have no problem with people getting married regardless of sex, race, religion nor do I think the government does either. But you can't claim to be equal on this side of the law, but special on the other.
If she doesn't want you as a customer because you're ugly, does that count?
DrCos at November 16, 2011 3:34 AM
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or even for no reason at all."
Anything else is slavery.
damaged justice at November 16, 2011 5:07 AM
Yes, Jason, I think people should be allowed to refuse service on race. And I say that as someone who's husband and kids are very dark skinned hispanics. The government should not be able to tell private citizens who they must service. Period. I am against protected groups, period. The fact that who person choses to fuck makes them protected? Beyond insane.
momof4 at November 16, 2011 5:32 AM
How come any incidents involving so called homophobia always involves lesbians? I rarely hear of anything involving gay men. Is it that this country as usual is listening to the crappy imaginary woes of women while ignoring even the real woes of men?
@Jason
You need to come up with a reason why race should be protected but sexual orientation not - I'll tell you why. Race is a physical attribute, sexual orientation is a mental one. That is why one should be protected, the other not.
Redrajesh at November 16, 2011 5:34 AM
I think that kind of openness works if the bigots are a small minority, but historically it has led to all sorts of shit.
NicoleK at November 16, 2011 5:41 AM
"I think that kind of openness works if the bigots are a small minority, but historically it has led to all sorts of shit."
Maybe, but I'm still not sure that justifies a law. What was the Great State of Iowa doing with the Iowa Civil Rights Act? If you believe not serving customers based on race, sexual orientation, whatever, is jerk-like behavior, then you're passing a law against being a jerk. That's all well and good, as long as you're the one who gets to define what jerkiness is. Not so fun if you're the one defined as a jerk. Isn't it enough not to give the jerks your business?
But here's another way of looking at the question: Can a hospital run by a private institution, say, a religious order or secular charity, deny emergency treatment to patients based on race or sexual orientation? I know, this is a slightly different question, and probably delineated by a whole separate set of laws, but would anyone be willing to make that argument?
Old RPM Daddy at November 16, 2011 6:16 AM
"...but would anyone be willing to make that argument?"
Well, what you're arguing is that if a doctor doesn't want to treat someone, they should be forced at gunpoint to do so, and shot if they refuse.
So yes, I am quite willing to argue against that.
damaged justice at November 16, 2011 6:21 AM
@Jason - Either this logic applies to all protected classes (ie. we should abolish the concept entirely)...
You can stop right there. Why the hell should we have "protected classes" in a supposedly free and equal society? So yes, let's abolish the concept entirely. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to whomever they wish, for whatever reason.
JDThompson at November 16, 2011 6:23 AM
Well that begs the question RPM, which do we value more highly, the certainty of maximum freedom? Or the rare instance in which life depends upon us being less free?
In a manner of speaking your question has already been answered, parents are free to choose or refuse any treatment for their children. This has lead some parents to prove darwin right, by treating deadly but treatable conditions with quackery and wishes. Otherwise known as homeopathy and prayer, rather than established and proven methods.
The cost of allowing this has been that some people have died, some children who are to young even to understand that they're the offspring of well meaning morons.
However if we were to sacrifice some of that freedom, and MANDATE that certain types of treatment against the wishes of the parents, we are placing government in the place of overseer, defacto big brother, akin to the role of "Father" in ancient Rome wherin they held absolute authority even over grown children.
Do we sacrifice freedom of all to save the lives of a very tiny few? Every life has value, but so too does every freedom, and if we sacrifice freedom to preserve life, eventually we will ensure we do not have control over our lives at all.
So you see, while I consider the possibility you suggest, that some doctor might refuse treatment to a black or gay patient in dire need, certainly something that may happen at some point if it were allowed, I consider it far worse a world in which the authority of our leaders is so absolute that they can force us to serve where we would choose not to do so ourselves.
There is a word for forcing people to work against their will. And I'll not see us reduced to it.
Robert at November 16, 2011 6:31 AM
"Why the hell should we have 'protected classes' in a supposedly free and equal society?"
Unless I'm misreading his comment, I think that's kind of what Jason was getting at.
Old RPM Daddy at November 16, 2011 6:35 AM
The whole concept of protected class is lunacy. More by being defined on the state level. In the peoples republic of Mass I am a protected minority, while in most states I'm not. So in mass I'm special but in NY I'm still a member of the oppressive white majority?
As long as the business does not get tax payer support not sure the government should have any say on any topic with maybe the exception of health and safety.
While I find the women an offensive bigot it's precisely that type of speech the first amendment. I can has Cheeseburger does not not need first amendment protections. I would not patronize her store, associate with her or even piss on her if she were on fire. That however that is it, I should have no other recourse.
vlad at November 16, 2011 6:36 AM
Why is this news?
In a sane world, rather than running to a lawyer or a news outlet, people would, upon facing something like this situation, say "I see," leave the store, and tell everyone they knew.
They would then find a different baker, tell that baker the story, and the baker would probably get a bright idea and put up a sign in the window that says "We do ALL weddings," probably with a giant cake with some little sculpted gay couples, interracial couples, that kind of thing, and get a lot more business. Problem solved and no damn headline- or ambulance-chasers.
The Original Kit at November 16, 2011 7:03 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769390">comment from vladAgree with vlad (except that I don't feel unsure about this -- even if you don't want to serve me):
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 7:08 AM
"Race is a physical attribute, sexual orientation is a mental one."
No, it's not. But don't get mad - you just haven't used due diligence in investigating this. That's common because of the "ick" factor for many people.
But you can fix that if you want. Start with mild commentary here, but be prepared for some disturbing, real pictures at the links found in that article.
In summary, physical gender is not binary, and so you should not expect external cues to identify gender. You do not doubt that the way you are built internally makes you prone or resistant to injury or disease. This is the same thing.
The evidence is everywhere. It's just not sought by those who find the subject unpleasant. It's actually simpler than the picture painted by activists on both side of the issue.
-----
Now - do not confuse this with "rights". You cannot deny a citizen a right in the USA, but you do NOT have the RIGHT to the services of another person, professional or not. The issue has been clouded by appeals to emotion and the search for power, as government seeks to enforce behavior in the licensing process.
Radwaste at November 16, 2011 7:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769415">comment from RadwasteYou cannot deny a citizen a right in the USA, but you do NOT have the RIGHT to the services of another person, professional or not. The issue has been clouded by appeals to emotion and the search for power, as government seeks to enforce behavior in the licensing process.
Raddy is correct.
Nobody should force you to create a cake (or punish you if you won't) for gays, Jews (me), atheists (me), redheads (me), the Chinese, or anyone else. I will not patronize your business and I will urge others not to if you discriminate against gays or against people on the basis of race, but I think it is absolutely your right to discriminate if you so desire.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 7:24 AM
I'm not saying that I disagree with the general idea that one should be able to serve or not serve anyone as they choose, but even if not, there's still a difference between serving in a way that faciliates the act with which the person disagrees.
What I mean is, this baker didn't refuse to bake any cakes for any lesbians, but refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, something with which she found immoral. (I don't agree with her on that, BTW.) Presumably, if a woman who was known to the baker to be a lesbian came in for a birthday cake, she'd probably serve them without question. (Maybe not, but probably.)
There's not really a comparison to race there. I guess you could refuse to bake a cake for a black power get together, or maybe even a MLK day celebration, but that'd be pretty far-fetched. And if a baker did that, it would seem pretty clearly protected speech. But what I'm saying is that she didn't necessarily refuse the customer because she was gay, but refused to serve something intended for her gay wedding.
(Another analogy might be that I would certainly refuse to offer any services in my profession (I'm an attorney) that would assist someone in getting an abortion, which I'm strongly against, even though that person could easily seek out another attorney, so I'm not actually preventing the abortion. But I wouldn't refuse to provide services on some other unrelated lawsuit because the client had had an abortion. Though, if someone wanted to make that refusal, I think they should have that right, but you can see the difference.)
Lyssa at November 16, 2011 7:32 AM
Time for the Islam test. What if this were an Islamic-owned business refusing to make the cake for a Lesbian couple? Clearly the government has no interest in protecting Christian beliefs - quite to the contrary - but if it is Islamic?
Or what about a white person going to a black carpenter and expecting for them to build a cross for a Klan rally. Or going into a Jewish business and asking them to sew a Swastika flag. Or expecting a gay film maker to work on a documentary or film that condemns homosexuality. Or...Or....Or....
Personally, I would favor a private business being able to refuse service, and then reap the results via the marketplace as customers vote with their feet and dollars. But dammitttt - there are still complications, like denying home loans to (otherwise qualified) minorities.
Facepalm!
Just a Guy at November 16, 2011 7:36 AM
It's well recognized in the lesbian community that a significant proportion of women who describe themselves as lesbians do so entirely by choice. They've had, or continue to have, heterosexual relationships and are not exclusively attracted to women. So for many people, it's a label that they've chosen to assume. It's not descriptive of anything more innate than their desire to affiliate with a certain group.
This fact highlights an obvious flaw in Iowa's approach to civil rights legislation - that it's arbitrary and non-ascertainable. The only reason that these women have special protections, and the ability to coerce services from other people, is because they've chosen to declare themselves as Lesbians for the purpose of procuring those services.
jolly rick at November 16, 2011 7:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769447">comment from Just a GuyTime for the Islam test. What if this were an Islamic-owned business refusing to make the cake for a Lesbian couple? Clearly the government has no interest in protecting Christian beliefs - quite to the contrary - but if it is Islamic? Or what about a white person going to a black carpenter and expecting for them to build a cross for a Klan rally.
That law applies across the board.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 7:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769450">comment from jolly rickIt's well recognized in the lesbian community that a significant proportion of women who describe themselves as lesbians do so entirely by choice. They've had, or continue to have, heterosexual relationships and are not exclusively attracted to women.
Oh, please. People who say such things generally have no experience in the "lesbian community." A guy who calls himself "jolly rick" probably isn't hanging out at lesbian bars, and knows...how many lesbians?
People are religious by choice, and if you want to not serve me because I think it's silly and gullible to believe there's a big man in the sky who cares that you said nothing when the cashier gave you back too much change...well, have at it.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 7:55 AM
Look, the whole argument behind the creation of "protected classes" was a strawman from the beginning.
The color barrier wasn't broken in baseball because of civil rights laws or government intervention. It was broken because the manager of the Dodgers realized that there was a lot of untapped talent in the Negro Leagues and decided to start scouting for players there. He signed Jackie Robinson, and the rest is history.
I should be able to refuse or accept business on any terms I like. You should be able to patronize businesses as you see fit.
@JaG - The only time the government has any business getting involved is if there is collusion to lock a group of people out of a market based upon irrelevant factors. However, the government ALWAYS fucks this up. The CRA (which was supposed to end redlining) is the proximate cause of the housing bubble and financial meltdown. The Law of Unintended Consequences is a stone cold bitch.
brian at November 16, 2011 8:00 AM
Next up: government protections forcing Christians and Jews to serve menstruating women, cheeseburger aficionados and people who wear cotton-polyester blends (see Leviticus).
mpetrie98 at November 16, 2011 8:06 AM
@mpetrie98
Shows what you know about Christians.
brian at November 16, 2011 8:14 AM
Yes, brian, the sad truth is people who arent christinas know more about their mythology and 'sacred' texts the active practitioners
lujlp at November 16, 2011 8:31 AM
>> Oh, please. People who say such things generally have no experience in the "lesbian community.
I obviously don't have experience as a Lesbian, but I am friendly with a bunch of women who do.
Do you have a lot of experience in the Lesbian community? If so, why aren't you familiar w/ this issue. Ever heard the term 'hasbian'?
jolly rick at November 16, 2011 8:38 AM
"Replace "gay" with "black". Still going to make the same argument?"
Yup. You can put in white, red or yellow. Same answer.
See how easy freedom actually is for people like me, not interested in making people into better people?
Ms. Alkon, regarding female sex preferences over time, I believe people are conducting studies now which suggest that relative to males, females do experience more fluid sex preferences. Put another way, while guys are gay or straight for their life (with some significant portion of gay men initially calling themselves bisexual and another smaller percentage who actually are bisexual), women can more commonly experience attraction across or within genders. In short, guys are more firm (ahem) for a particular gender preference, compared to women who find gender a bit more negotiable.
Spartee at November 16, 2011 8:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769528">comment from Sparteefemales do experience more fluid sex preferences.
The studies suggest that women have a wider range of sexual attraction. The fact that an MRI shows the brain lighting up...what, exactly, does that mean? Just had this talk with an epidemiologist I'm friends with last week. People make all sorts of conclusions.
Some of the research found that women are turned on not only by women and men having sex, but by bonobo chimps. Does this mean that the only thing holding us back from having relationships with chimps is our silly human prejudice against it?
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 8:50 AM
lujlp: "Yes, brian, the sad truth is people who arent christinas know more about their mythology and 'sacred' texts the active practitioners"
You really should put some more nuance in that. A calm Jesuit scholar will quickly deliver the intellectual equivalent of an MMA-beatdown to careless talkers who think benighted believers need to be set straight on mythology and history.
From my own anecdotal experience, the devout Christians I know have not only read the primary work, but they have also spent a great deal of time reading learned commentary on the primary work and discussing the primary and secondary works with similarly-inclined readers.
Non-Christians have, in my experience, by contrast--at most--read a few popular contemporary works regarding atheism, which contain some fairly common discussions of the Bible's originals. Beyond that thin reading list--along with some Church sunday school sessions as a kid--most atheists are much less familiar with Christianity's texts and doctrines than they think they are.
Despite that, I find it is atheists, not Christians, who are convinced that they are ready to unload some major intellectual beat-down on those poor, benighted souls who do not agree with them.
But for my part, I find the devout Christians are the ones who have done the reading. Not saying I agree with their conclusions, however.
Spartee at November 16, 2011 8:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769536">comment from jolly rickDo you have a lot of experience in the Lesbian community? If so, why aren't you familiar w/ this issue. Ever heard the term 'hasbian'?
Yeah, and it's about college women who experimented.
There are some women who try to be with women because of some issues with men, but they are women with psychological problems, not lesbians.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 8:55 AM
Say the lesbian couple owned a print shop. That same law would not allow them to refuse service to a right-wing Christian group. Even if the group wanted a bunch of posters printed with anti-gay messages, like "God made marriage for one man and one woman" and "Homosexuals are sinners". Those are religious beliefs, and private businesses can't discriminate against customers based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. Am I right?
Yeah, seems like a bad law.
YTS at November 16, 2011 8:58 AM
>> Yeah, and it's about college women who experimented. .. psychological problem.. not lesbians
oh STFU. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
jolly rick at November 16, 2011 8:59 AM
Exactly what is being sold feels like it matters here.
If a known lesbian walks into the store and buys a dozen butterflake rolls that seems like nothing but a retail transaction.
Making a cake special for a wedding does feel like some how she is participating in the wedding. Maybe I have a different view because in both of my brothers wedding who made the cake was a big deal.
I guess the differ boils down to refusing to do the wedding cake feels like an expression of a view point where refusing to sell rolls does not.
Ah, the wedding cake seems like it is an artistic expression. If the law forces her to make the cake, then it would also force an artist to do a commissioned artwork even if he/she didn't like the subject.
The Former Banker at November 16, 2011 9:23 AM
A calm Jesuit scholar will quickly deliver the intellectual equivalent of an MMA-beatdown to careless talkers who think benighted believers need to be set straight on mythology and history.
I'd be willing to bet he'd be more likely to beat down a less than critical thiest than an athiest.
And the sad fact is most christains dont know shit about their own faith. You may be luky in knowing the few capable of diging into their faith and still maintaining the cognitive disonace required to maintin their faith
lujlp at November 16, 2011 9:40 AM
Legally protected classes are a totally crazy idea. It's not as though those laws were passed in response to decades of legally enforced discrimination against a minority group or anything.
Christopher at November 16, 2011 9:48 AM
Cynical Advocate:
If you allow for the baker not to make the lesbian wedding cake as her right because the government should not force her to, then what is to stop the return of "Jim Crow". Granted, it was state governments enforcing it, so by legal recourse it was government to abolish it, but what about private citizens deciding on their own to follow Jim Crow?
hadsil at November 16, 2011 10:03 AM
If I were a guest at the wedding, I wouldn't eat any cake that the bakery was forced to bake.
MarkD at November 16, 2011 10:03 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769629">comment from ChristopherLegally protected classes are a totally crazy idea. It's not as though those laws were passed in response to decades of legally enforced discrimination against a minority group or anything.
Christopher, I am against the government being allowed to discriminate against anyone -- like gays, who are not allowed to marry. But, how outrageous and wrong that we would use the law to force private people, in business, to do business with anyone, whether they like it or not. Should we also force people to associate with people -- as in, you have to go to lunch with the lesbians, the Jews, or the KKK, or you go to jail or get fined?
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 10:25 AM
Bake them their cake but make it look so disgusting and ugly they would not want it. There is no accounting for quality control. Make sure you can document that the baker was drunk.
John Luke at November 16, 2011 10:36 AM
Well, it would appear that the Internets are punishing her more than the law ever could. Just Google "Victoria's Cake Cottage."
Looks like she's ended up with a pie (or perhaps, some "Santorum") in the face because of this.
sofar at November 16, 2011 10:37 AM
You fuckers are so wrong about all this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 10:42 AM
I agree that the baker should be allowed to not bake the wedding cake if it's against her principles. And if people object to her discriminating against same-sex couples, it is their prerogative to withhold their business. And ultimately, the baker will have to decide her principles are worth their business.
That said, why the hell would anyone bother to tell the baker that the cake is for a same-sex couple? Just order the cake, pick it up and put the figures on the top yourself...whatever they might be.
Patrick at November 16, 2011 11:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769704">comment from PatrickReally, it's ugly to have to hide that you're marrying another woman. Lesbians I know sure wouldn't patronize any business that had a problem with lesbians. I can't imagine any lesbians would want to.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 11:22 AM
> the baker should be allowed to not bake the
> wedding cake if it's against her principles.
And when the druggist doesn't want to sell you RU-487, or even birth control, because it's against his principles? Or what if pharmacist Alkon doesn't want to sell you Lipitor because it's against her principles?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 11:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2769714">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]What's to stop a drugstore from just not carrying birth control? I don't agree with that, but why should that be my decision?
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 11:31 AM
Golly, Amerz, this is, like, a wholesale refutation of everything you ever claimed to hold dear and dignified! Which is great! Hours of bloggy fun!
So, like, if you were a cute little teenage girl, maybe some kind of minority, and you went to the doctor and said "I got a sitch here, gimme some RU-486" and the doc said "I don't do that shit, and I don't serve your kind anyway, you little [epithet]", you'd be totally cool with it, right? Even if all the other docs felt the same way about it and/or you?
And isn't that how you'd do Lipitor if you were a pharmacist?
"What's to stop?", you ask.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 12:35 PM
On one hand, if I wasn't prepared to treat all my customers the same, I probably wouldn't go into business. Especially these days, when it's so easy for an unhappy customer to let the whole world know they're unhappy, and why.
On the other hand, I would no more want to be told who I had to serve than I would want to be told where I had to shop.
But, really, I can't imagine sitting down with these women and telling them I just couldn't make them their cake. Probably because the Creator I believe in doesn't give a rat's ass about a lesbian wedding cake.
And on a final note, Lesbian Wedding Cake sounds like some kind of a threesome. I should e-mail that to Craig Ferguson.
Pricklypear at November 16, 2011 12:40 PM
As I have matured, I do not put as much weight on whether I think a law is a "good idea" and rather more thought on "how can this particular law be mis-applied most egregiously?" If I can live with the worst-case scenario, then I consider the other ramifications.
That being said, I agree with the comment of "why is this news?"
I guess I am a bit more pragmatic than some because had the baker refused to make my cake, I'd have just taken my business elsewhere. Plenty of folks would be glad for the custom. Give them the dollars.
LauraGr at November 16, 2011 12:43 PM
> Lesbian Wedding Cake sounds like some kind of
> a threesome.
Confections often overrated.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 12:43 PM
>> Lesbian Wedding Cake sounds like some kind of
>> a threesome.
>Confections often overrated.
Whoopie pie, anyone?
LauraGr at November 16, 2011 12:50 PM
"Lesbian Wedding Cake" sounds like an all-girl punk band. "Next on the Lollapalooza main stage, Lesbian Wedding Cake!"
There was a minor league hockey team in Macon, Georgia many years ago called the Macon Whoopie. Their mascot was a whooping crane.
Conan the Grammarian at November 16, 2011 1:13 PM
"What's to stop a drugstore from just not carrying birth control? I don't agree with that, but why should that be my decision?"
What if it's the only drugstore for 60 miles? What if it's the only hospital for 200 and, since it's private, refuses to provide the morning after pill for rape victims?
Not everyone has the option to take their business elsewhere or patronize a more friendly provider.
elementary at November 16, 2011 1:21 PM
Legally protected classes are a totally crazy idea. It's not as though those laws were passed in response to decades of legally enforced discrimination against a minority group or anything.
And that minority group would be??? Blacks! Who were enslaved and denied their most basic rights into the 1960's. Not women who've decided that they like to have sex with other women, but are otherwise totally indistinguishable from anyone else. It's risible and offensive to equate prejudice regarding a cake to hundreds of years of slavery and violent persecution. Honestly if your big grievance is access to cake, it's evidence that these laws have run their course.
molmo at November 16, 2011 1:31 PM
> There was a minor league hockey team in Macon,
> Georgia many years ago called the Macon Whoopie.
Golden!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 2:06 PM
But, how outrageous and wrong that we would use the law to force private people, in business, to do business with anyone, whether they like it or not.
Business transactions are not a purely private matter. Businesses are organized under the laws of a government and protected by a court system supported by everyone's tax dollars. Without some legal protections, it has been too easy in the past to marginalize outgroups economically through the sort of discrimination you would permit. In general, I prefer economic liberty over intrusive laws. In this case, I find the law prohibiting discrimination to be the lesser evil.
Christopher at November 16, 2011 2:06 PM
Not women who've decided that they like to have sex with other women, but are otherwise totally indistinguishable from anyone else.
It's not like homosexual acts were not criminalized in many places until recently or anything...
Christopher at November 16, 2011 2:08 PM
Golly, all you freethinkers... Is the BSA allowed to reject gay scout leaders?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 2:19 PM
The answer to that question, Crid, should be yes. A private organization should have the ability to accept or reject whomever they please.
Darin Johnson at November 16, 2011 2:25 PM
And can a private organization defer recognition of a same-sex spouse?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 2:32 PM
Is the BSA allowed to reject gay scout leaders?
Yeah, clubs can be dicks about who they include or exclude.
Christopher at November 16, 2011 2:40 PM
I saw macon Whoopie play back in college on a mission trip to Georgia. We all got shirts. Wish I still had it...
momof4 at November 16, 2011 2:41 PM
And can a private organization defer recognition of a same-sex spouse?
Yes. A private organization is free to be as bigoted as they would like.
Christopher at November 16, 2011 2:42 PM
"Not everyone has the option to take their business elsewhere or patronize a more friendly provider."
Real life's a bitch. That's true in a lot of places, worldwide.
You've just made the argument that a retailer be forced to carry what you might need, at any time.
-----
About "beatdowns": try the one cited here, by Augustine of Hippo.
It's only 1600+ years old.
Radwaste at November 16, 2011 3:33 PM
"Confections often overrated."
True. Many modern kitchens have added a microwave oven to compensate.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 16, 2011 4:03 PM
Radwaste -
Socks are not life saving. Medicine that requires a doctor's prescription and is deemed necessary by a medical professional should not be available, or unavailable, based on the whims of a merchant.
You're right, though. Real life's a bitch -- but typically, hopefully, less so in America. Truly deep thinking. So deep it seems you'd allow the hospital to turn your child away for treatment because he's a brat -- because under your life's a bitch system any reason for non-service is valid. Good luck with that.
elementary at November 16, 2011 4:27 PM
> Yeah, clubs can be dicks about who they include
> or exclude.
Dicks, principled.... They draw such a fine line with that stuff nowadays....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Yes. A private organization is free to be as
> bigoted as they would like.
And in this case, a "private organization" means a business. Therefore, if Mastercard decided 'Fuck the gays and all their faggot money', you'd be, like, totally supportive, right? Because you're a freethinker.
But if the county courthouse said 'No marriage license for you', you'd be all upset in a way that wouldn't come to mind if I wanted to marry my little sister (who loves me very much).
Because you're a freethinker. Like Amy Alkon, who thinks people need to be "rational".
______________________________________
> Many modern kitchens have added a microwave
> oven to compensate
Sez you. I know a number of lesbians who are totally stovetop.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 4:47 PM
Condensed version: It's far too late in the day for Amy (et al.) pretend to be all live-and-let-live. You've staked as much control over people's private choices of association as anybody.
The way government gets this powerful and intrusive is that Americans LIKE IT THIS WAY.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 5:44 PM
And in this case, a "private organization" means a business. Therefore, if Mastercard decided 'Fuck the gays and all their faggot money', you'd be, like, totally supportive, right? Because you're a freethinker.
No, I'd not be supportive. See my previous comment at 2:06 pm, and I'll also elaborate a bit here.
Clubs/social organizations like the Boy Scouts or Rotary the Masons are not the same as businesses; what these organizations are built around is fellowship, not commercial transactions. I think it's not cool of them to prohibit gays or atheists or women from being members in their organizations, but they are free to do so.
Businesses are rightly held to a different standard. When the transaction is dollars for goods or services, discrimination is wrong. The lesbians' or evangelical's or jew's or blacks' dollars are as good as anyone else's.
Hang out with whom you like, don't fuck with commerce.
Christopher at November 16, 2011 5:47 PM
As "outgroups" is a term of sociology, I reject it out of hand. Dude, don't DO that.
OTOH, it's usually only the Commies who describe commerce as the sanctified realm.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 6:38 PM
No, elementary, that's not what I said.
By the terms expressed above, a pharmacy in Lancaster County, PA would be compelled by law to stock whatever thing you wanted.
Not "socks" - that's your straw man. RU-486, condoms, EPTs... the inventory would be specified by law, just in case you would feel discriminated against because you're not Amish and you have a RIGHT to those things.
-----
This is a subset of that larger question I've asked which nobody seems to be able to answer: to what extent should you, an individual, be empowered to COMMAND the effort of others - in the application of medical technology, for instance? It's a question you MUST answer if you insist that others pay for your care.
Radwaste at November 16, 2011 7:05 PM
> It's a question you MUST answer if you insist
> that others pay for your care.
Aren't you the self-important federal employee with the wicked set of bennies?
I hate it when you guys say "MUST". You too often mean it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 7:15 PM
Still an ass, I see. And still totally ignorant of what I do.
There. Your existence has once again been validated.
"You guys". Fair's fair. What group do you prefer I saddle you with - the perpetually slighted? The its-unfair-that-that-his-job-exists Association of Straw Men?
Sadly, No is packed with cluckers like you who continually embrace fallacies. I suggest you go hang out with them.
You Have A Retail Job And Are Therefore Superior To Everyone.
Not.
Radwaste at November 16, 2011 7:44 PM
Why would you want a cake from someone forced to serve you?
KateC at November 16, 2011 7:56 PM
> totally ignorant of what I do.
Government employees are snowflakes... Each is a totally unique cosmos of righteous self-interest.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 7:58 PM
Most of these arguments on sexuality here are as Crid so eloquently put, while actually addressing the other arguments, "You fuckers are so wrong about all this". No offense, I just liked the line.
Sexuality is fluid, sorry Amy, but it is, just not for all. Sexuality is more like a 2-D, maybe 3-D matrix. There are people who can't move from their sexuality, nothing wrong with that, and people who can and do, as well people who can but don't, whatever the reason. However, the "they have psychological issues" for those who do is just condescension. The societal prohibition on bisexuality is lesser for women than men, but maybe equal for male/female homosexuality, though my gut says its worse for lesbians. Perhaps for the same reason men are disposable but women aren't (think about culling herds).
There is experimentation in the younger years for a percentage before finally settling in with the sexuality that is comfortable or right. The numbers you see in sociological studies are for the ones who are set in their ways or identity. The last study I read had homosexuals at below 2.9% and bisexuals at about the same, but didn't clarify about a "bisexual moment" or "I am bisexual". There is a difference.
We have too great a tendency to think in binary, or sometimes ternary, terms on everything. Sexuality is like politics, Left and Right is a description for, well, fools or Talk Show hosts (but I really like Prager, for clarity, and Medved for history, after that...).
Ariel at November 16, 2011 8:03 PM
Now, as for the right of association, I'm really torn. Understanding the impact of Jim Crow (we should be more ashamed of Plessy v Ferguson than Slavery) as well the Gentleman's Agreement, I want to say the State should step in. The problem is the State rightly uses a sledgehammer on a rail spike when building the railroad, but still thinks the sledgehammer is necessary long after the railroad has been built.
As Amy points out, today many of us would ostracize a business that did not serve all equally, but those businesses should have the right to decide who they serve, and suffer the consequences whatever they may be. The concept of "public accommodation" worked well to end the hard Jim Crow of the South and the soft Jim Crow of the North, but once near ended is not the friction between "public accommodation" and "free association" so great that we shouldn't reassess?
Really, is it likely that if tomorrow the laws on this were gone, Jim Crow would be back? Really?
I use Jim Crow as a metaphor to include other groups, BTW, and I find the term "protected groups" disgusting because either the law protects all as individuals or it protects no individual.
Now, something I really dislike is the comparison of the struggle of Blacks with Gays. I don't have Gaydar, so it takes me getting to know a guy or gal awhile before I know they are homosexual, but I can spot a Black at the limit of my vision. So, I think just maybe there is a categorical difference regarding discrimination. I await...
Ariel at November 16, 2011 8:56 PM
Bake them their cake but make it look so disgusting and ugly they would not want it.
Or just piss in it like restaurant staff do if you are rude to them.
On a conceptual level, businesses often have dress codes - "no shirt, no shoes, no service" (personally I'm all in favour of lesbians eating out without shirts though). No one thinks that's odd or unfair.
I must admit, I can't disagree with Amy here. I would like to because the idea of "No blacks allowed" signs makes me squirm - but I have no good arguments against it.
As Mark Steyn has said, it's always good to know what people really think. If someone doesn't approve of a certain group, let them say so so we can all decide how we feel about it. It's better to know isn't it?
Ltw at November 16, 2011 9:08 PM
"I didn't do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner. It is my right, and it's not to discriminate against them."
Say what? Right or wrong, discrimination is absolutely what it is.
Lori at November 16, 2011 9:26 PM
> it's always good to know what people really
> think. If someone doesn't approve of a certain
> group, let them say so so we can all decide how
> we feel about it. It's better to know isn't it?
People shouldn't compelled to share their interior lives, and as Ariel notes, they shouldn't be rewarded for them, either. Race and preference aren't the same.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 9:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2771814">comment from ArielSexuality is fluid, sorry Amy, but it is, just not for all.
Sexual attraction has been shown to be fluid for women.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 10:59 PM
> Sexual attraction has been shown to be fluid
> for women.
It's fluid for men, too....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 11:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2771821">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Actually, in Meredith Chivers' study, women were even turned on by footage of bonobos having sex.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2011 11:09 PM
Tough room.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2011 11:10 PM
If you let businesses start discriminating against religions, orientation, etc you may end up with one group not being able to get access to goods and services. I think this is a road we shouldn't go down. We don't want a new NINA!
I agree with the above poster who differentiated between private clubs and businesses.
NicoleK at November 17, 2011 12:23 AM
On the other hand, Lytssa has a point:
What I mean is, this baker didn't refuse to bake any cakes for any lesbians, but refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, something with which she found immoral.
NicoleK at November 17, 2011 12:26 AM
> I agree with the above poster who differentiated
> between private clubs and businesses.
A "private club" ("No black lesbians, Man!") decides to expand from their one room meeting hall on top of the locksmith's shop into a full-block warehouse in a neighborhood of scarce space. They go to the city council and.....
?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 17, 2011 12:36 AM
Y'all keep bringing up Jim Crow.
Now I hate to play master of the obvious here, but Jim Crow was not about private citizens discriminating against anyone.
Jim Crow references laws that specifically made discrimination a LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
It was ILLEGAL to provide goods and services to certain people.
That is government mandated discrimination, not individual choice.
But can a private business decide that it doesn't want yours?
There was a legal case a long time ago, where a convenience store owner banned blacks from his store, because everyone he'd caught shop lifting from his place of business had been black.
In his eyes, the risk and cost of continuing to lose inventory to theft, was greater than a backlash and loss of customers for choosing to discriminate. I don't recall what the courts said on the subject, but I believe he lost the case.
Should he have? I believe he should have won, because the business was private property and owed nothing to anyone.
And to what extent should we be able to command the services of others?
To the extent that those "others" receive government funds, or function as part of the government itself.
If someone is a private citizen or private business and takes no public funding, nobody should be able to demand anything of them.
Robert at November 17, 2011 1:42 AM
Now there is one exception to that rule.
Example: Black couple goes to the beach, one of them gets caught in a rip tide, pulled out to sea a ways, and starts to drown.
Now there is a life guard on duty. Lets suppose that life guard is a grand dragon of the KKK. It doesn't matter how much he hates anyone else, his job does not allow for discriminating choices. He's hired to protect swimmers at that beach. He needs to do his job, and if he refuses to, he should be prosecuted for at the least, criminal negligence.
If someone refuses to provide services to people as a business owner, that is one thing. However an employee of that business is not there to set policy or support their principles, they accept the employer's coin, then they accept the employers rules. And if the employer does not bar blacks or gays or whatever from his store, then the employee doesn't have the right to refuse them.
He does have the right to quit that job. But not the right to change the employers standards for it.
Robert at November 17, 2011 1:54 AM
This has got to be November's most fucked-up comment thread... Maybe a contender in the Autumn '11 Semifinals. It started off inane, and then it spazzed out.
Maybe it's just cynicism... This is a cynical morning.
But I have this creepy sensation in the flesh of my extremities that says you guys aren't through being weird about this. That for some of you at least, the craptacular incoherence of your commentary reflects the years of tortured rationality within your immortal souls breaking free of the oppressive urgency to be a politically correct, loving, sustainable lefty-bot on this topic.
And there's a vibe that this rogue, toddling impulse isn't spent. So if anybody wants to keep going, shoot me an email or pick up the chatter right here in Amy's White Wine Parlour, and we'll commence to be a-bitch slappin' straightaways.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 17, 2011 9:55 AM
Crid, you have a touch of the Harlan Ellison about you. And I mean that in a good way.
Pricklypear at November 17, 2011 10:05 AM
Well, I dress to suit myself.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 17, 2011 12:00 PM
Remind me to care about science fiction someday.
Meantime— A couple of fun images, including an intimidating depiction of underboob.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 17, 2011 12:28 PM
For a minute I thought you were going to show a picture of Harlan Ellison's underboob.
Science fiction doesn't particularly move me, (I'm more a Pratchett/Gaiman fan) but he is my husband's favorite author, so I got him a copy of Bugf#ck yesterday, censored title and all.
Pricklypear at November 17, 2011 12:41 PM
"Sez you. I know a number of lesbians who are totally stovetop."
That's hot.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 17, 2011 4:09 PM
That reminds me, it's time to pick up another copy of Hogfather for my Christmas reading list. I loaned my last one out and never got it back.
Conan the Grammarian at November 17, 2011 4:42 PM
Crid, speaking of craptastic, we now have this:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/11/tech/innovation/black-tech-entrepreneurs/index.html?hpt=us_bn1
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 17, 2011 4:42 PM
"Government employees are snowflakes... Each is a totally unique cosmos of righteous self-interest."
Basically, wrong again. As I have explained before (but it doesn't suit the storyline you've adopted), I work for SRR, a subsidiary of URS. You might as well be bitching about Lockheed or Boeing.
But I'm more satisfying. You need someone to look down on. And since there just isn't anybody there, you made the whole thing up.
But you have style. Pretty counts, doesn't it?
Radwaste at November 17, 2011 5:38 PM
Gog, I read something about it earlier in the week. The question 'How come there's no black Zuckerberg?' doesn't fire the lefty soul. Having the (petty) weaknesses of his ambition made into an Oscar-nominated film sort of vents the wind for that kind of whining. There were obviously a whole lot of forces, interior ones more than cultural ones, that were happening for Zuckerberg that weren't happening for others. We don't get the sense that anyone in the Valley ever cut him a special deal to make Facebook go over so well.
But that's not how our government wants things to work, is it? This, regarding the Solyndra testimony this morning, is the most depressing tweet you'll read this week. Carney (apparently) has coined a brilliant new term for the Democratic approach to commerce: Venture socialism.
> I work for....
First I've heard of it, still don't care.
> Pretty counts, doesn't it?
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful... There's nothing I can do about that. Hate me because I'm so very, very right: I could conduct myself as would a lesser man, but I choose not to.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 17, 2011 6:31 PM
Before this topic winds up....
Can I just say one more time how I think Christopher's November 16, 2011 5:47 PM comment is a piece of shit?
"Don't fuck with commerce" is not a gentle expression of well-bounded principle. The way people spend money, paying the prices they want to pay, is the quintessence of liberty. Marx was right about this and nothing else: Man is an economic animal. Deciding how much things mean to us is what living is all about.
When Christoper and Amy pretend to have modest ambitions by saying such things, we should all smell a rat. They want control and nothing less.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 17, 2011 9:34 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2773817">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]What I want is the antithesis of control.
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2011 11:11 PM
@Radwaste "physical gender is not binary" - if that is the case, how come men are not exempt from accountability the way women are exempt from it? And how come women are not expected to be accountable the way men are? How come a guy who dresses in a revealing manner is charged as a sex offender while a woman is encouraged to dress that way?
This is the way the whole of society works. So as per you, society should go beyond physical attributes to specifically create a certain set of accountable people(men) and unaccountable people(women) based on their internal gender. Or will this thing vary according to time so that some men can be irresponsible at certain times of the day/week/month/year and can dress like women during those times with no retribution and vice versa for women?
Actually, in Meredith Chivers' study, women were even turned on by footage of bonobos having sex.- man, how can women ever claim rape after this study? It should be easy to get them horny and willing...and so the whole woman claiming rape when having drunk sex should be thrown out the window altogether
Redrajesh at November 18, 2011 5:38 AM
Oh PUH-LEEEZZZEEEEE
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 18, 2011 6:50 AM
Amy: I don't think any business should be forced to serve anyone if it's against the businessperson's principles.
Same goes for hiring too, I presume?
Jim at November 18, 2011 2:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/11/16/dough_unto_othe.html#comment-2775499">comment from JimAmy: I don't think any business should be forced to serve anyone if it's against the businessperson's principles. Same goes for hiring too, I presume?
Yes.
Also, you can make laws against discrimination in hiring, but can you really prove that somebody didn't hire me because I'm an atheist and not for some other reason that would be considered legit under the law?
Amy Alkon at November 18, 2011 3:13 PM
Thanks. That's what I thought.
I disagree, which is why I'm a liberal/libertarian and not a pure libertarian. I like how Christopher put it above: I prefer economic liberty over intrusive laws. In this case, I find the law prohibiting discrimination to be the lesser evil.
And, regardless of how passionate pure libertarian types may feel about allowing businesses to discriminate in who they serve and who they hire, I'm positive the majority of Americans disagree so it's not something that's going to happen.
Jim at November 18, 2011 3:32 PM
I think you all have a too sunny and optimistic idea of humanity. I'm more of a pessimist.
I think if you let businesses start discriminating against people they will. In massive numbers in some places.
I think you'll end up with a situation where if a black person's car breaks down in a white town, they won't be able to get it fixed, or to eat anything while they wait. Or if a poor white person lives in the black part of town they won't be able to buy groceries. Or if a gay person lives in a homophobic town they won't be able to find a job or a place to live.
What could end up happening, aside from general suckiness, is because in some places the private sector will be unwilling to provide goods and jobs, the government will have to take over.
People are tribal. Even WITH anti-discrimination laws we naturally self-segregate.
NicoleK at November 19, 2011 12:04 PM
I really don't want you to be "gay friendly"for my benefit, I don't need friends like you. Thanks anyway. Businesses have to right to refuse service to who they don't want to service, I agree. But this woman uses her "beliefs" like a club to beat down what she sees as AGAINST GOD!
This same woman does not ask if other brides & grooms she bakes cakes for are virgins, ever been divorced, are Pagan, Buddists, Atheist which also go against her "religious liberty". God says all gay people should be stoned to death, so why didn't she do God's work and kill them when she had the chance as a good Christian would?
Skooter McGoo at November 23, 2011 5:57 AM
Leave a comment