Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

GasBandit said:

Uh, no, Ash's hypothetical was -



In his summary of the "cake battles" currently popping up around the country, Scott Shackford of Reason made this particularly salient observation:

"What frequently gets ignored in these political battles—aside from the concept that people should have the right to associate (or not associate) with whomever they choose—is whether the law is the best tool to resolve these conflicts. Many wedding businesses are falling all over themselves to compete in this new and potentially profitable market. There is little indication that gay couples actually need the government to force resistant religious bakers to fire up their mixers in order to have the wedding of their dreams."


Should a Kosher deli be forced to prepare pork?

Click to expand...

I was talking about Cruz's hypothetical response to Ellen Page.

GasBandit said:

Should a Kosher deli be forced to prepare pork?

Click to expand...

No, because handling pork isn't kosher. They can be forced to sell their kosher meat to anybody who wants it, though. Making a kosher butcher sell pork is like making a hot dog stand sell prime rib. Same sector, but not the same wares in the shop.

Okay, gotta delurk, because this argument drives me up the wall.

The issue is not that bakers are refusing to offer a particular product, it's that the bakers were refusing to serve a particular group. They were refusing to make wedding cakes for gay people, a service they provide to straight people. That is the discrimination.

A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes for a gay couple as long as they refuse to make wedding cakes for everyone.

A baker can refuse to make Hitler cakes for a KKK rally as long as they refuse to make Hitler cakes for everyone.

A baker can refuse to make a dick cake for a bachelorette party, as long as they refuse to make dick cakes for everyone.

If a baker only makes sheet cakes, and a gay couple requests a tiered wedding cake, the baker can refuse to make them a tiered wedding cake, because they refuse to make tiered cakes for everyone.

And no, a Kosher deli should not be forced to prepare pork, because they have never offered pork as one of their products and refuse to prepare pork for everyone.

Businesses cannot refuse to serve gay couples. Or interracial couples. Or interfaith couples. Or couples of other religions. If a person is going to operate a public place of business, then they have to follow the law, which means if they sell their product to straight people, they have to sell that same product to gay people (and vice versa, a gay baker can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a straight Christian wedding).

GasBandit said:

You make some valid points, but the problem is the product is at the center of it. The bakers didn't and wouldn't have refused to make a regular cake, would they? They don't make ONLY wedding cakes. Also, if a straight person attempted to buy a wedding cake for someone else's gay wedding, the result would have been the same - and a gay person buying a wedding cake for a straight wedding would not have been impeded. The bakery isn't refusing to serve gays, they're refusing to make a product for use in a gay wedding. It's not about the identity of the customer, it's about the intended use of the product. Sort of like how a pet store might not sell you a gerbil if you tell them you plan to feed it to your boa.

Click to expand...

The inclusion of "not for gay weddings" is what makes it a government issue... it doesn't matter that they are denying ALL customers (straight or otherwise) cakes for gay weddings because only gay weddings are being affected. It would be like if they decided they wouldn't sell cakes for use in black weddings or Jewish weddings: it doesn't matter who is buying the cake, only that it's intended use is being discriminated against. There is simply nothing unique about a gay, black, or Jewish wedding that justifies that denial beyond religious opinion and religious opinion is not protected in this fashion. It is only protected in so that you can HAVE a religious opinion... we've already decided as a society that it's okay for the government to step in and alter your ability to practice your religion if you'd be doing so in a way that society considers to be harmful. This is why Mormons are a recognized religion but their ability to have more than one wife/husband is not legal and why Muslim Sharia courts/Jewish Beth Dins can only issue judgements that don't violate certain laws (no honor killings, etc).

Your right to practice religion stops the moment you try to force those opinions on someone else... at least in several, narrowly defined ways. This is one of them.

GasBandit said:

It's not an ironclad policy, however. That hypothetical pet shop would not get in trouble for refusing to sell me something they knew I intended to kill by feeding it to my snake, even though doing so is legal and entirely within my rights. And what this policy of governmental interference HAS accomplished is inspire the professionally offended to go hunting for a potential payday.

Click to expand...

I'd also like to point out that virtually every pet shop I've ever been to sells feed mice for feeding to snakes and other animals. It's not just completely legal, but a standard shop fare in a state where it's pretty easy to get exotic animals for pets.

GasBandit said:

That's true, but they seem to think there's a difference between feeder mice and other rodents. They generally react with horror if you try to buy a gerbil, hamster, or guinea pig for that purpose. Heck, try telling them you want to buy your boa constrictor a puppy.

Click to expand...

This is really just an issue with modern sensibilities. A few weeks back, my mother caught our dog eating baby bunnies out in the yard and decided that this was wrong and saved the last few remaining from that fate. However, she never considered for a second that by picking up those rabbits, she was assuming the responsibility of taking care of them because the mother was never going to return to them once they smelled of human or dog (assuming it hadn't already been eaten). The second she realized she had to take care of them, she tried to make them my problem and distanced herself from the issue. She put them out in the yard somewhere (she put them behind a fence where the dog wouldn't get them) because she wasn't willing to take care of them.

To my mother, the idea of our beagle acting like a dog was horrific if it meant it was eating cute baby bunnies... but she never considered for a moment that her own actions doomed those same babies to a starving, shivering death as they slowly died of hunger and exposure. She was content that she had "saved" them from a quick death at the hands of our dog, even if it meant they would die a slower, more miserable one in exchange. This sort of issue extends to the general public: the moment they are faced with the reality that animals eat other animals, they can't deal with it.

Thankfully our yard flooded a few hours later thanks to rain. At least they quickly drowned instead of starved, assuming they weren't mercifully eaten.

I'd assume that some bird of prey of some sort would get them if another dog or something didn't before they starved.

Fun fact about me: I can sing that entire cartoon.

Frank said:

Fun fact about me: I can sing that entire cartoon.

Click to expand...

A useful talent.

--Patrick

GasBandit said:

Gas Bandit's Depressing Bunny Death Thread V.

Click to expand...

I think we found the next thread title!

GasBandit said:

"If you are making a wedding cake, you're taking a very participatory role in the wedding. You can only discriminate against people, not against uses of a product.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll run with your argument.

So let's say there are two situations: one where a baker refuses to make a cake for a performance artist, and one where he refuses to make a cake for the wedding reception of a gay couple.

IANAL, but I think if you ask the baker, "Why won't you sell Susan a cake?" and the answer is "because I'd have to put a lot of work into the design, and I don't want all that work to simply be smashed on the ground", I think he's legally okay, because he doesn't want to put work into a cake that is going to end up all over a parking lot. In this case, the intended use (smashing in the parking lot) is making the baker unhappy (he wants his cakes to be eaten), but there is no legally defined discrimination involved in the refusal of sale. He just doesn't want to make a cake, for anyone, that will end up smashed on the ground.

However, if you ask the baker, "Why won't you sell Susan a cake?" and the answer is "because it's intended to be used for a gay wedding", that refusal of sale (to a person) is still based on sexual orientation (either directly or by association), and is therefore still discrimination. It has nothing to do with intended use (the cake is going to be eaten--is the baker against people eating cake?) and everything to do with the people involved ("gay wedding").

Weddings cannot themselves be "gay". Legally there is no such thing as a "gay marriage", just "marriage". The Supreme Court did not create an entity called "gay marriage", they removed (unconstitutional) limits placed on existing civil marriage (that's why we don't have "gay divorce", either). So the intended use is "being eaten to celebrate a marriage" and it's not until you get to the people involved that you get the label of "gay". So it actually is discrimination against people (the gay people getting married), not the intended use (being eaten at a their wedding reception).

Thats surprisingly tasteful for Cyanide and Happiness. Is there a missing panel where one rapes the other in the eye-socket or something?

Sara_2814 said:

Okay, I'll run with your argument.

So let's say there are two situations: one where a baker refuses to make a cake for a performance artist, and one where he refuses to make a cake for the wedding reception of a gay couple.

IANAL, but I think if you ask the baker, "Why won't you sell Susan a cake?" and the answer is "because I'd have to put a lot of work into the design, and I don't want all that work to simply be smashed on the ground", I think he's legally okay, because he doesn't want to put work into a cake that is going to end up all over a parking lot. In this case, the intended use (smashing in the parking lot) is making the baker unhappy (he wants his cakes to be eaten), but there is no legally defined discrimination involved in the refusal of sale. He just doesn't want to make a cake, for anyone, that will end up smashed on the ground.

However, if you ask the baker, "Why won't you sell Susan a cake?" and the answer is "because it's intended to be used for a gay wedding", that refusal of sale (to a person) is still based on sexual orientation (either directly or by association), and is therefore still discrimination. It has nothing to do with intended use (the cake is going to be eaten--is the baker against people eating cake?) and everything to do with the people involved ("gay wedding").

Weddings cannot themselves be "gay". Legally there is no such thing as a "gay marriage", just "marriage". The Supreme Court did not create an entity called "gay marriage", they removed (unconstitutional) limits placed on existing civil marriage (that's why we don't have "gay divorce", either). So the intended use is "being eaten to celebrate a marriage" and it's not until you get to the people involved that you get the label of "gay". So it actually is discrimination against people (the gay people getting married), not the intended use (being eaten at a their wedding reception).

Click to expand...

I absolutely could not read this post without reading it in Slappy's voice.
It was not at all diminished by this.

--Patrick

GasBandit said:

There may not be a legal distinction but there is a rhetorical distinction. That's what all the fuss is about. And legality does not necessarily define what is "right" (after all, slavery was legal). And basing status of legality based on what someone "says" is not a good idea, after it becomes common knowledge, all a bigoted cakemaker has to do from then on is say he doesn't feel like making a cake for whatever other silly reason, and then we're right back where we started.

Click to expand...

As "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" is right there in the Ten Commandments, I would say that I would question the baker's claims of "deeply held religious beliefs" to refuse to bake cakes for certain weddings. But a baker could also use that same excuse to refuse service to other groups. And no, the law can't catch every liar. But when a customer is told to their face "No, I will not serve you because this is for a marriage between gay people", that is obvious discrimination. We shouldn't stop upholding the law just because some people lie.

GasBandit said:

Let's use the example of the anti-gay cake from the earlier example. The bigot who wanted a cake in the shape of a bible who wanted "god hates sin" and "homosexuality is sin" written on it lost his lawsuit because the cake shop refused to do the wording but still offered to bake him a cake in any shape he wanted, including a bible, and then he could add his own message once he got it home. So, a bigoted baker could use the same loophole by saying "sorry, our guy who does cake lettering is on vacation and we just ran out of tiny formal dolls," and still wiggle through the technicality gap. It's best to address the root of the cause, I think.

Click to expand...

I think in this case, "god hates sin" isn't necessarily hateful on its own, and if a baker does religious cakes for other people, that shouldn't be enough for a refusal of service. But adding "God hates homosexuals" pushed it into the territory of hate speech against a particular group of people. And nobody should be required by law to facilitate someone else's discrimination/bigotry/hate. At the same time, the baker did offer a compromise to make a blank bible cake, not an outright refusal. Maybe this issue wouldn't have blown up so much if the other bakers had said "I'll make you a wedding cake, but you'll have to add your own bride-and-bride figure. Here's a website where you can order one."

GasBandit said:

Frankly, I also think the whole thing could be radically simplified if we just deinstitutionalize marriage as a legal construct, but then that's a whole 'nuther discussion, and one about which I know almost nobody agrees with me.

Click to expand...

While I understand where you're coming from, I don't necessarily want to get rid of civil marriage because it wraps up all the legal/tax/inheritance/next-of-kin into one neat package. Less paperwork is always a good thing!

And this issue would still exist even without civil marriage, because gay people can be religiously married. United Church of Christ, Unitarians, Wiccans, and Buddhists are all religious entities that I know support same sex marriage, and I think there's some other Protestant denominations as well (or at least moving that direction). So a baker can still refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple being married in a UCC church.

PatrThom said:

I absolutely could not read this post without reading it in Slappy's voice.
It was not at all diminished by this.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Everything is better in Slappy's voice.

"They could still lie" may be true, but companies are, more and more, being checked up and being crucified for that sort of behaviour. A landlord who won't let out to people from certain ethnicity may find himself charged in court despite having officially perfectly acceptable reasons to refuse them (Muhammed had too many children, Mustapha would be leaving the house at all hours of the night bothering the neighbours, Ali had a pet, Said couldn't prove a job to pay rent, but Bob got in? Good luck in court, you'll need it - at least in Belgium). Aroudn the '60s, I'm sure there were plenty of people refusing service to black people for "other" reasons....Doesnt survive long.

I wonder: if I order a birthday cake shaped like a wedding cake, for the joint birthday party of me and my best buddy Steve, and I wanted to put "Robin and Steve" on it (ignore for a moment that Robin is an androgynous name), would people have a problem with it? If I explained, most wouldn't...which means they'd make the exact same cake, just not for a wedding involving gay people. Which is discrimination based on sexual preference, which is illegal. And if they wouldn't make it, oh boy. Good luck.

GasBandit said:

"You remind me of a young Eugene Mirman."

Click to expand...

Here, have some dynamite down your pants.

Bubble181 said:

"They could still lie" may be true, but companies are, more and more, being checked up and being crucified for that sort of behaviour. A landlord who won't let out to people from certain ethnicity may find himself charged in court despite having officially perfectly acceptable reasons to refuse them (Muhammed had too many children, Mustapha would be leaving the house at all hours of the night bothering the neighbours, Ali had a pet, Said couldn't prove a job to pay rent, but Bob got in? Good luck in court, you'll need it - at least in Belgium). Aroudn the '60s, I'm sure there were plenty of people refusing service to black people for "other" reasons....Doesnt survive long.

Click to expand...

As long as all those limits were set beforehand, and the landlord didn't refuse Ali and his Chihuahua but let in Bob and his Rottweiler, the landlord should be okay in those situations (in the US, at least).

Bubble181 said:

I wonder: if I order a birthday cake shaped like a wedding cake, for the joint birthday party of me and my best buddy Steve, and I wanted to put "Robin and Steve" on it (ignore for a moment that Robin is an androgynous name), would people have a problem with it? If I explained, most wouldn't...which means they'd make the exact same cake, just not for a wedding involving gay people. Which is discrimination based on sexual preference, which is illegal. And if they wouldn't make it, oh boy. Good luck.

Click to expand...

This whole issue is bizarre to me, because I've never attended a wedding reception where people talked about the bakery endorsing their marriage. Unless the cake was made by a family member, I don't recall anyone discussing the bakery at all. There was a cake, they cut it, we ate it. Admittedly it's been many years since I've attended a wedding, but is it now a thing to put signs on the table next to the cake that says "Cake created by, and marriage endorsed by, Mary's Bakery."?

Really? I've been to quite a few weddings, and the only time I remember anyone asking about it was when it was home made. Otherwise, it's just a fancy cake, congrats ,you probably paid too much and it probably doesn't even taste great.

Many here after missing the point of Gas's arguments, so I'll turn it around with a different argument: is it OK for a venue to refuse to book the KKK? Or bake a cake for them? Still legal to be a part of such a group. Why are you refusing service? Your morals conflict, that's why. And that should be OK, just as any other moral (don't need to wrap it in religion IMO) should allow refusal of service. Will that create problems in the short term? Yes, but better than government determining what's right.

Eriol said:

Many here after missing the point of Gas's arguments, so I'll turn it around with a different argument: is it OK for a venue to refuse to book the KKK? Or bake a cake for them? Still legal to be a part of such a group. Why are you refusing service? Your morals conflict, that's why. And that should be OK, just as any other moral (don't need to wrap it in religion IMO) should allow refusal of service. Will that create problems in the short term? Yes, but better than government determining what's right.

Click to expand...

Considering the KKK is banned in Belgium as a hate group....

Anyway, your reasoning also means it's OK to say you don't want to serve black people, or Jews, or women, whatever. Which is the very definition of discrimination. No, I don't think it's OK to refuse service to the KKK (if they were a legal group). Discrimination laws were enacted specifically to make that not ok. It's a form of government intervention deemed necessary at the time, for..;well, I'd hope fairly obvious reasons. It's still necessary.

Eriol said:

Many here after missing the point of Gas's arguments, so I'll turn it around with a different argument: is it OK for a venue to refuse to book the KKK? Or bake a cake for them? Still legal to be a part of such a group. Why are you refusing service? Your morals conflict, that's why. And that should be OK, just as any other moral (don't need to wrap it in religion IMO) should allow refusal of service. Will that create problems in the short term? Yes, but better than government determining what's right.

Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point. The KKK is not a protected class. And as Bubble said, it's classified as a hate group. There's no comparison, because being gay is absolutely not the same as choosing to belong to a hate group. And no, a person's religious beliefs or personal "morals" shouldn't trump the human/civil rights of other people. If an anti-discrimination law protecting gay people from discrimination is causing a moral dilemma for someone, perhaps they'd be happier living in Russia where their morals will be guarded from The EVIL GAY by Putin himself, riding a bear.

And it's not the government determining what's right. Anti-discrimination laws came from average citizens who were sick and tired of being treated as sub-human or second class citizens. So people marched and protested and brought lawsuits and had firehoses turned on them and were jailed and some of them died, all so that people today could vote and get a job and sit at a lunch counter and drink from whatever water fountain they want. LGBT people are still fighting this fight, because currently their civil rights vary depending on jurisdiction in the United States. But hopefully the Equality Act of 2015 will pass, giving LGBT people all the protections of the Civil Rights Act.