Comments on: Liberty cake wrecks, cont’d

By: A&E/Duck Dynasty Fight Demonstrates How the Marketplace of Ideas Has Devolved – BrianGarst.com

Sat, 21 Dec 2013 03:25:25 +0000

[…] the courts or the left, which while cheering A&E’s self-destructive overreaction, also oppose the right of other businesses to choose their own clientèle, so long as those clientèle belong to a PC-approved victim group (hint: that excludes Christians). […]

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:34:56 +0000

That begs the question L.C. Burgundy, repugnant to whom? What is repugnant to you is fine with someone else and vice versa. I know it is hard for you to believe, but not everyone thinks the same way you do about what is and is not acceptable. Thus if others were to follow your lead we would have many different businesses being boycotted by different groups based on the perceived social/political/religious views of the businesses.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:11:20 +0000

I, on the other hand, am more likely to patronize a business that has taken a moral stance rather than bow down to the moronic and illegal pressure of others to force the business to do something.

If having principle and morals is “repugnant and/or stupid business sense,” then I would put forth that when you walk into a business that has no morals or standards in which they believe, you’d better watch your wallet.

By: L. C. Burgundy

L. C. Burgundy — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:25:49 +0000

I am content to see people with repugnant and/or stupid business sense go out of business. Pretending one is striking some sort of brave moral stance when one refuses to bake a commodity is pretty silly. I don’t think the government should force the issue. This sort of stupidity tends to flame out on its own.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:37:06 +0000

Let the world know the baker is a troglodyte, go patronize a baker that respects you, and run the troglodytes out of business.

So it is not the result that bothers you L.C. Burgundy, but who is doing it. Only people who agree with your views should be able to make a living?

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:30:00 +0000

I like Mannie’s example:
Should a gay baker be compelled to decorate a cake with “Homosexuality is an abomination?”

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:02:14 +0000

I think the wedding photographer case applies. From the amicus filed by Cato Institute, Dale Carpenter, and Eugene Volokh:

“This case is largely controlled by a United States Supreme Court precedent that the court of appeals never mentioned: Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977). Wooley, the New Hampshire license plate case that we discuss in detail below, makes clear that speech compulsions are generally as unconstitutional as speech restrictions. Wooley’s logic applies to photographs and other displays, and not just verbal expression. And that logic applies also to compulsions to create photographs and other works (including when the creation is done for money), not just to compulsions to display such works.”

http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/02/amicus-brief-in-elane-photography-v-willock-the-new-mexico-wedding-photography-case/

By: L. C. Burgundy

L. C. Burgundy — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 05:45:08 +0000

Blech. I wish people wouldn’t bring these sorts of complaints to a governmental body. Why fight to give people money whose views you find repugnant and who sell an overrated commodity anyway? Let the world know the baker is a troglodyte, go patronize a baker that respects you, and run the troglodytes out of business. Freedom of association for the win.

By: Mannie

Mannie — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:00:20 +0000

I think the crux of the issue, here, is not the cake, but the decorating of the cake. If it was just a matter of taking a cake and putting it in a box, I would argue that the baker hasn’t a leg to stand on.

The issue, for me, is the decoration of the cake. That is a Freedom of Speech issue. The State, under the First Amendment, cannot compel speech. They cannot compel a creative act, just as they cannot forbid one. Should a Jewish baker be compelled to decorate a cake with swastikas? Should a gay baker be compelled to decorate a cake with “Homosexuality is an abomination?” It would be fun to be an a’ole and test those boundaries.

I think the case for tyranny is more clear in the case of the photog who declined to shoot a gay wedding, but it is the same issue of compelling creativity.

If I had been so compelled, they probably would not like the cake much.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:40:36 +0000

They are forcing you not to discriminate if you choose to work in serving the public.

The bakery is not “serving the public.” The bakery is in business to make a profit for the owners and employees.

I don’t understand how the government can force accommodations for just about anything (including religious accommodations, sexual preference accommodations, gender accommodations, etc) within the company or business and then say “government will not allow for an accommodation for the business itself.”

In other words, employees, customers and the government can tell a company and the company owners what they have to believe and support but the owners of the company can’t have a say in what they support and believe.

(BTW – I think your example of the license is a bit out of left field as you seem to be saying that the government itself would not issue licenses to women. That is a scenario that I can’t see happening.)

No one should be forced to create or support something in which they do not believe or have a legitimate, recognized objection of conscience to.