You WILL make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. You WILL make a cake urging votes for Trump. Where do you think you are, America?
Walter Olson comments on Facebook, “By 2016 all social divisions had begun to play out as conflicts over cake decoration.”
9 Comments for “Cake Decrees”
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t think of any reason not to decorate a cake for Trump supporters or for any other candidate. it’s not a personal endorsement. It’s just a customer making a reasonable request. But if the argument can be made that one shouldn’t have to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then not having to bake a cake for a political event is no less absurd.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You WILL make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. You WILL make a cake urging votes for Trump. Where do you think you are, America?
Uh, in America. The customer went complained online. The employer no doubt got lots of calls from Trump supporters. The employer corrected the situation, and the employee was brought up to speed with respect to company policies. The market prevailed. The government wasn’t involved. What’s not to like?
Walter Olson comments on Facebook, “By 2016 all social divisions had begun to play out as conflicts over cake decoration.”
Just goes to show you how absurd the “bake a cake, crucify Jesus all over again …” crowd is behaving.
Bakers bake cakes. Christian bakers whine about it. Its what they do.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
I could see refusing to decorate a cake for Trump on the basis of it being obscene, but not on the basis of any other matter of conscience. I was a surgeon, and I operated on child sex offenders as well as celebates who were pure as the celestial community of saints. My job was to provide health care, not to triage it.
posted by Kosh III on
“My job was to provide health care, not to triage it.”
Yes but conservatives are Nannies who want everyone to do what THEY say. Freedom for me, not thee or I’ve got mine, frak you.
posted by Jorge on
“Our Bakery staff member misunderstood the training provided regarding copyrighted phrases, and incorrectly informed the customer we could not fulfill her request.”
Oh no! You forgot to ask the Baker WHY she was refusing. You 17 year old dummy! No vote for you.
But if the argument can be made that one shouldn’t have to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then not having to bake a cake for a political event is no less absurd.
Are you sure that came out right?
Anyway, a bakery run by Jehovah’s Witnesses, perhaps, would invoke the same protection. Wait, that rules out almost everything. Perhaps someone inspired by a key tenet or two.
Given the racial polarization of this election, there is no difficulty arguing that refusing service based on whether or not some supports Donald Trump for president is racial discrimination.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, that came out right. I would expect a Jehovah’s Witness baker to bake birthday cakes even though they don’t believe in celebrating birthdays. I’m not asking them to celebrate my birthday. Just to bake a cake. What did you think I meant.
My only caveat was that for anything involving Trump I’d want to be paid up front because he has a long history of not paying workers and vendors and swindling investors. But yes, I would bake the cake and do it as well as I would any other customer. I’d also make one for Jill Stein supporters and i don’t think much more of her either. It’s not about me. If you offer services to customers, then you serve your customers unless doing so violates the law. (I wouldn’t want to be a party to libel or slander, death threats, etc.)
posted by Jorge on
What did you think I meant.
“If I don’t have to bake for gay weddings, I don’t have to bake for Trump parties.”
But if the argument can be made that one shouldn’t have to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then not having to bake a cake for a political event is no less absurd.
I interpreted this as meaning, “If I don’t have to bake for gay weddings, I still have to bake for Trump parties.” When I try to apply your view that the first argument is absurd, I find myself confused about what you mean to say about the second.
I’d also make one for Jill Stein supporters
If I were you I’d ask for payment from her upfront, too. And take a picture of the cake before it leaves in case she defaces it.
If you offer services to customers, then you serve your customers unless doing so violates the law.
Well then you limit your services unless doing so violates the law.
posted by TJ on
It seems like the employee simply misunderstood company policy.
The employee wasn’t trying to make a First Amendment case. He or she simply thought that doing ‘x’ was against company policy. It was easily fixed.
Meanwhile…..equal opportunity in employment and housing ain’t the law of the land in America.
Meanwhile bias motivated violence is still a serious problem in America.
Meanwhile
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It seems like the employee simply misunderstood company policy.
Objections by “libertarians” to this incident are interesting for several reasons: (1) the government was not involved, (2) the “market” (usually touted as the be-all and end-all solution to discrimination) worked as “libertarians” suggest that it should, and (3) the employee acted in contravention of employer instructions (which “libertarians” typically hold next-to-sacred) and was corrected by the employer.
Given all that, it is very odd to see Walter Olson, Stephen Miller and the rest of the “libertarian” crowd harping about it. Wasn’t this exactly what was supposed to happen according to their lights?