Kern County judge rules against same-sex couple suing Tastries Bakery

Kern County judge rules against same-sex couple suing Tastries Bakery

The court document also stated that Miller provided the couple with an alternative means to obtain a cake by going to another establishment. The document shows Miller had entered into an agreement with a competitor to refer same-sex couples to them instead.

This is a pretty big deal, actually.

If they are giving the couple an alternative which grants them the same product through a competitor, they can't argue they are being denied service because service is being rendered through an alternate establishment.

The denial of service is what is unconstitutional, not the transferring of service. That's a legal act.

How many therapists and medical professionals refer a patient due to a conflict of interest? This is basically that but under a religious context.

which grants them the same product through a competitor

It certainly hurts the argument that bakers are artists and forcing them to bake cakes for gay weddings infringes on their artistic freedoms. If tre cake is a work of art then you can'tget the same product from a competitor.

if the baker is an artist, shouldn't they be allowed to sell their art to whomever they want?

For example, if Jay Z refuses to do a concert for the KKK, is that legal?

Not really, in law you make either-or arguments all the time. For example:

"Baking is art, we offer XYZ evidence to support this, and therefore my client cannot be compelled to create art. However, if you agree with our opponents that baking is not art, then we would like you to notice that our client referred them to another baker, which means that no harm was done since they could get a product that is legally the same (given that you are holding that baking is not art).

Edit: And I belatedly (4 hours) realize that I replied one down from where I meant to be, reposting above.

It is funny how this is being portrayed as an "all or nothing" situation.

Doesnt sound like the bakery denied them service to any other cakes or goods but only said they wouldn't design and make a wedding cake. Plus they provided the couple with an alternative solution.

I doubt you would believe this if you lived in an area where you suddenly became a minority and businesses stopped choosing to accept you as a customer. You run out of gas because no gas station will allow you to pump, you go hungry because no grocery store or restaurant will allow you to buy their food. Want to move to an area where people will allow you to buy things? You're doing it with the clothes on your back because no moving company is going to rent you their trucks.

It's like anti-vaxxers. They live in a world where vaccinations have stopped the horrors of these diseases, so people stop taking them seriously. We've lived with civil rights for long enough that people are taking them for granted.

Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional not because it was racial segregation but because the service being rendered was inherently unequal.

If you can prove the service being rendered to this couple is unequal, you'd be able to have it thrown out.

Exactly. Being given an alternative choice makes them separate but equal.

What. Did I say something wrong?

same product through a competitor, they can't argue they are being denied service because service is being rendered through an alternate establishment.

So no blacks allowed is ok if a restaurant next door dies allow black people?

Businesses should have the freedom of choice that customers have.

ducks

Two different businesses will always have unequal results.

When separate but equal was overturned they said it clearly: separate is never equal

So Nazis could request a cake with symbols and slogans and the bakery would have to comply?

No.

Political ideologies are not a protected class.

The content of the cake can be negotiated as long as the custom cake making service is offered to people regardless of race, creed, or gender.

If the baker didn't want to put "Congrats to Mike and John!" on the cake, fine. But the baker didn't offer a wordless cake; the baker offered no cake, and told them to go to a different baker.

After reading a lot of the comments I see there is a lot of drama in the cake world I was not aware of.

Would it be okay then to refer people of a different race over to another shop? Perhaps one run by people of their own race? On the other side of town?

There were Christians back in the day who used their particular biblical interpretation to defend their racist positions. Just as there are Christians today using it to defend the mistreatment of women and homosexuals.

Then fight for the repeal of the civil rights act

It is in Denver (US Supreme court case) and California (where this bakery is). Also previous interpretations from different circuit courts have indicated gender = sexual orientation = protected class.

I don't even know why this is news at this point. County judges are going to make rulings that span the political spectrum. The Supreme Court is the only ruling that matters.

"We don't serve blacks, but the place across the street that says 'colored' does. You can go there if you wish."

then they must offer the wedding cakes to the whole public.

Are you certain about that? So Nazis could request a cake with symbols and slogans and the bakery would have to comply?

That is an argument in front of SCOTUS now. The point is that you cannot make that argument while simultaneously arguing that they can get the same product elsewhere.

Separate but equal is illegal.

If they publicly offer wedding cakes, then they must offer the wedding cakes to the whole public. This is the rule of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's say there's a local bakery in town that's famous for the quality of their cakes. You've always wanted one but could never justify the cost, but now you have a special occasion to celebrate.

You walk in and are turned away because of who you are, not because of any poor choices you've made.

At that point, I'd argue the fight becomes about being treated equally, not financially supporting hate. I don't think people find out about bigotry beforehand and choose the business knowingly. It happens to them, then they react.

So it's okay to have businesses deny service because a customer is black or a jew?

In the places these cases are comnig from, yes.

I would say yes, but it also depends on the context. Is sexual orientation a protected class? In the federal workforce yes, but I don't think anybody is arguing that white supremacy is a protected class.. Unless you're one of them naturally.

The question is should it, though.

If you think businesses should have the freedom of choice that customers have, then you support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act.

I don't believe sexual orientation is a protected class.

Dept of Justice made the same point, recently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html

The denial of service is what is unconstitutional, not the transferring of service. That's a legal act.

I would agree with you if this baker subcontracted with the other baker. Presumably she'd be charging the same rates and providing the same front end service as she would for anybody, she just wouldn't be baking the cake.

For somebody walking into an establishment expecting to be treated like anybody else, only to be told that "we don't serve your kind here" is dehumanizing and wrong.

If a business owner wants to legally discriminate, they have several alternative options. They could sell their service as a private contractor instead of as a retailer. They could create a private club and sell only to their members. However, I don't think advertising your services to the general public (especially without disclaiming your bias) and then discriminating based on legal behaviors should be allowed.

How? Are they making them host their cakes at gay weddings? Are they forcing the gay couples to enter heterosexual relationships?

What is it the religious people in this story are forcing the non-religious people to do?

Nazis are not a protected class! Why is that so hard to understand?

You mentioned race, creed, or gender. Is being gay a protected class?

This will likely get slapped down by a higher court.

The argument that the baker is in the clear because they referred their business to a competitor is based on historical policies which were eventually determined to be unconstitutional. That kind of logic created a situation where racial minorities had to publish (out of necessity) handbooks which guided people to cities, towns, and businesses which would do business with them. Beyond discrimination being inconvenient, it practically made entire areas inaccessible and uninhabitable to certain people at the time. It also created undue hardships. Considering the historical SCOTUS decisions, there's no way to make a "separate but equal" argument that will last when challenged in a higher court.

"But equal services are being offered by a competitor"

That's irrelevant. What's being denied is equal services by THAT particular business. If the couple had walked in and demanded a cake that was somehow different from the cakes that were already being made, then there could be a solid argument there. Businesses (places of public accomodation) don't have to provide a service to people that they don't normally provide. If you make wedding cakes and someone asks you to make a standard wedding cake, you can't just deny them service because they exist. That's been a pretty solid ruling since the mid-1960s and has been upheld at least once every decade thereafter.

The bakery doesn't refuse to serve a certain demographic though (gay people), I imagine if a gay person wanted them to bake a birthday cake or cupcakes, they would. They are refusing to bake for a specific event (a gay wedding). A more apt analogy would be refusing to bake for an interracial wedding.

Because that's what it means for the government to compel you to do something.

If you run a red light you will get a ticket. If you don't pay the ticket you will eventually be summoned to court. If you don't show up to court the government will find you and take you there by force, and you will likely go to jail, at least for a short time.

We agree as a society that our laws are important enough for the government to enforce with the threat of violence and imprisonment. But every time we add a new law we need to keep in mind how laws are enforced and weigh if we feel the issue is important enough to warrant the level of response that the government can go after people with.

Indeed. No two public schools are equal.

Find me a public school somewhere in the US that explicitly and specifically bars students based on race, creed, or gender.

Yes, districting maintains a de-facto racial segregation, and I take issue with that and believe it needs addressing. But that is neither explicit nor specific.

From what I read in the article, it appears that the bakery had a problem baking for that event (a gay wedding) rather than serving customers of a demographic (being gay). Which makes sense to me, although I don't like that they've rejected the wedding. I would like to choose which events I bake for, not even considering ideological discrimination. Idk how the law would be phrased to where it would be a uniform application of that and also force the bakers to make the gay couple's wedding cake.

The same way it did when LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act.

artists and their artistic freedoms.

Commissioned an artist recently and while browsing commission pages, many displayed a 'will not draw' section featuring themes the artists were uncomfortable with (examples: Voreophilia, Zoophilia).

I would imagine this is perfectly permissible, so could wedding cake bakers employ a similar technique, such as "will not bake cake with gay motifs"?

This is basically that but under a religious context.

Therein lies the problem a lot of people will have with this.

If I've learned anything from this thread it apparently all hinges on whether or not discrimination is an art. 9_9

Good. We've had all these arguments for legal same-sex marriage that said "It doesn't affect you." And I've always agreed with that. Even when I was religious, I agreed same-sex marriage should be legal.

My dad told me though, that it would only be a matter of time before Christians would be forced to take active roles in the homosexual weddings and marriages, violating their religious rights, and I told him he was being ridiculous. I believed never would homosexuals, after so many years of oppression, try to violate religious people's right to have nothing to do with the homosexual marriages.

Now I've already been proven wrong on my naive view that homosexuals would be better than that, but at least judges are on the right side. So every time I visit my parents, and my dad goes on a rant about how homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married, I can still tell him to shut up because it doesn't affect him.

Has the satanic temple got involved in this case as well? Everyone hates saying it but the satanic temple is the common sense entity that we all need in life. When someone is being religiously oppressed the satanic temple steps in and shows how stupid things can getif we allow them to happen.

Yeah my thought here was "Would it be okay to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a mixed race wedding".

(I don't think it would)

Why are people who feel discriminated so insistent on giving their money to the offenders?

The lawsuit isn't about the cake, it's about the humiliation. Did this bakery advertise the fact that they discriminate? Did they give these customers advanced notice so that they could avoid being humiliated? No, because they know that would cost them business. They want to eat their cake and have it too (no pun intended).

Are you not familiar with Cake Wars?

The whole idea of the government forcing people to do certain jobs under threat of violence makes me very uncomfortable.

This is a well established religion

Religions don't have to be well-established for our government to respect them.

The state/government can't force people against their religious beliefs.

You can't open a public accommodation if you're not going to serve the whole public.

Find me a public school somewhere in the US that explicitly and specifically bars students based on race, creed, or gender.

Wait until you find out that all girls/boys public schools exist.

There are like six in Manhattan alone.

if the baker is an artist, shouldn't they be allowed to sell their art to whomever they want?

That is the argument many bakers have tried to make. They claim that every cake is unique. However, if you can simply let another person fulfill the order, it could show that it is not art. It could show there is no unique value. That would obviously undercut the claim.

Did the couple in question ask this baker to write "heterosexuals are bad"?

I think the analogy you're looking for is "can I go to a Muslim baker and have them put a cross on the cake?" (Yes, in the US.)

"Can I have [pro-lgbt person] make a cake for my heterosexual wedding?" (Yes, in the US.)

Lol, I support bigots now because I question the effects of forcing values upon people who do not share those values.

I do not care what names you call me. You sound like an evangelical telling me I'm going to hell.

Completely untrue. Most cases don't go to the Supreme Court.

Why do you put 'forcing' in quotation marks?

How was the couple not forcing the bakery the cook for them?

You don't understand the difference between individual rights and the duties you assume when you open a business to the public.

It’s a yes/no/yes answer: it depends where you are, mostly, though there are also some higher court rulings that orientation should be covered throughout the country under sexual discrimination (these cases are generally ongoing)

Therapists are not public accommodations, and it’s actually against the code of ethics to refer a client due to personal beliefs and can lead to professional sanctions or liability for any harm that results.

Why are people who feel discriminated so insistent on giving their money to the offenders?

You're free to go tell everybody you know how horrendous the service at that bakery is. You don't have the right to tell people they have to serve you.

Nah, I'm just tired of whiners who think they're living under some horrible dictatorship.

You live in the most free society that has ever existed in the history of humanity but you say we're in a new era of jim crow. The levels of hyperbole are just comical.

Gay people can get married now, everywhere in the country. If this baking a cake were really a societal problem, gay couples would have trouble getting cakes. What gay wedding have you heard about recently that had trouble getting cakes?

Now, there are certainly activist couples who go out of their way to find these very uncommon businesses who just don't believe gay people should get married, but this separate but equal thing is nonsense.

You are literally making a mountain out of a mole hill, and screaming bloody murder at something that really isn't a problem.

I guess two different schools are always unequal because two students will never be taught the same lesson in exactly the same way.

A public business is one that allows anyone to enter.

A private business is one that you cannot enter without a membership and depending on your state / city, cannot advertise.

Ah, good point.

Taking away someone's free will and forcing them to do something against their religious beliefs is a different ball game.

If their "religious belief" was that black folks were to be treated like dirt, you wouldn't defend them.

And seeing this is a privately owned bakery, and not a state/government run facility, they have the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

Don't want to offer public accommodations and get the benefits of offering public accomodations? Don't fucking offer public accomodations.

JayZ doesn't have to let the KKK hire him for a private concert, but if he has a public concert, he can't refuse then entry because they're white.

In much the same way, a shop that offers services to the public cannot refuse service to a couple because of their sexual orientation, anymore than they can refuse someone because of their ethnicity.

You can't open a public shop and start discriminating then claim it's religious freedom. Imagine if a Jewish Baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a Christian couple. That is just as ridiculous.

So separate but equal? Think like this. I'm a bar I dont think black and white people should mix. So i dont serve black people. I do refer them to the bar next door which blacks are served at.

Thats unconstitutional. How is this not?

Every cake is unique, butbhere us a catalogue where you can just select one.

I find it morally wrong but a person isn't the in the public domain. The civil rights act states "outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." A person choosing where to spend money doesn't constitute "public accommodations"

It's really sad this shit is still being debated half a century later.

Taking away someone's free will and forcing them to do something against their religious beliefs is a different ball game.

And seeing this is a privately owned bakery, and not a state/government run facility, they have the right.

This isn't like the other famous case where the owners of that bakery doxxed the couple because they were gay, which lead to death threats etc.

If you went to the grocery store and they told you your race wasn't welcome there, but there's a separate store for your race down the street would you feel ok about that?

Except you cant tell a black man/women that you are denying them based on the color of their skin. The bakers were absolutely equipped to provide the service to this couple, except they objected to who they WERE , not because they didn't have enough edible glitter or rainbow stickers.

This is a false analogy that doesn't apply by any stretch to this scenario.

A Muslim bakery would presumably not offer an "Islam is bad" cake for anyone, so no, they don't have to make one. If they deny making an atheist that cake but would make it for a Christian, then yes. You don't have to offer something in the first place, but if you do, you must offer it without discriminating by the characteristics defined by law. Pretty straightforward, actually.

A "gay cake" has, in all of these cases, been indistinguishable from a "straight cake." It's an iced, tiered cake that no reasonable person could pull out of a lineup of other wedding cakes, anniversary cakes, and cakes for a very formal party.

“Our god doesn’t allow us to serve blacks here, but we have an agreement with the bakery down the street...”

Is this really your argument? Or are you a hypocrite apologist for people who can’t get the fact it is illeagle to discriminate?

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodation...

If you offer and advertise your service publicly, you offer it to the whole public without regard to any given customer's race, religion, or gender.

The gay customers were offered "separate but equal" accommodations.

The only difference between now and then is commonplaceness, and the lack of a terrorist organization murdering teenagers.

Incorrect, unfortunately.

If they deny service to someone based on their religious beliefs, they are actually imposing their beliefs onto themselves. They are forcing themselves to adhere to their own beliefs.

If they deny service to you, are they forcing you to also believe that you do no deserve service?

No. In fact, in that scenario, nothing happens to you at all. Literally nothing. You are a non actor. Now, having nothing happen is still something happening, in the philosophical sense, but the thing that happened certainly wasn't forced upon you.

ZZZZT.

WRONG.

I know because I ran a private business. A hotel only for men to come - a bathhouse for gay men.

We were a private business. To enter you had to be a member of the establishment. This is how we kept out women and people under 18.

A public business is licensed for all patrons and to have that license you must obey the civil rights laws. Which includes serving people regardless of your religious beliefs. You can’t pull the “My religion is that Noah cursed your ancestors so I won’t make you a cake go down the road” card.

You need to go study business law. You have proven you are ignorant of the situation and can be ignored until you have learned. Good day.

Replace "one man and one woman" with "one man and one woman of the same race".

Now answer your own question: does that seem fair to you?

No, because there's a difference between refusing to bake someone a cake with a specific message on it and refusing to bake someone a cake, period. It's the difference between refusing to bake a cake for gay people at all, and refusing to bake a cake with a picture of two dudes boning on it.

Where did I say I think gays should have less rights as anyone else?

Where did I endorse bigotry? See, the issue is, you are a zealot. You believe that anyone who does not say the exact words as you with the exact same passion as you is the enemy.

If I am not with you, I am against you (gee, why does that sound familiar).

The question is, why do you think Christians should have less rights than anyone else?

Who's the real bigot here?

Legally speaking there's a difference between a private school and a place of business. You can't legally be fired for having premarital sex or solely for being gay.

Not to let the bible dictate legal decisions

due to a conflict of interest

But discrimination isn't the same thing as a professional conflict of interest.

I. Just. Don't. Understand. Why. This. Is. So. Hard.

If you serve the public, serve the public. That includes black people. And gay people. And women. Et cetera.

inherently unequal

So then Yelp gets to decide the issue, eh?

what cakes are muslims not making

If Jay Z refuses to perform for them because they are racist a-holes that's perfectly legal. If he refuses because they are white it's not.

If the qualification is that you must be allowed to purchase something from a specific person, what happens if Cake Boss is on vacation and having his employees make the cakes? Can you sue because you can't get a "Cake Boss cake" from him?

How do you think forcing your values on people is going to turn out?

so a bakery is a public institution?

illeagle

Found the bird law expert.

Precisely. That's the only way the government can truly compel you to do anything, even if you don't think about it.

which grants them the same product through a competitor

It certainly hurts the argument that bakers are artists and forcing them to bake cakes for gay weddings infringes on their artistic freedoms. If tre cake is a work of art then you can'tget the same product from a competitor.

Can I go to a Muslim Baker and have them write Islam is bad on the cake?

Or what about someone that is pro-lgbt. Can I have them write on the cake that homosexuality is wrong?

Right now we unfortunately rely on the court of popular opinion. We really shouldn't.

There are a couple of options available here. You could be forced to make the cake, but not provide any messages if you objected to them. Thus you are providing the service to all regardless of any attribute, but you can also say that your own freedom of speech precludes having to write specific messages in legible written form, as this can also protect your business from negative backlash from various groups etc. You could sell some simple prepared DIY cake decorating kits or prepared letters which they could attach themselves and then you didn't not participate in the message yet you did not deny any human being from receiving a service from you based on your own prejudices or morals.

How ignorant are you of American history? This literally happened. The US used to be full of Christian denominations that preached and considered non-whites to be a lower class of person and people routinely cited these beliefs to legally rationalize discrimination.

The Justice Department does not have final say on interpretation of the law. The decision is still out on whether Title VII covers orientation, with a circuit split and the SC unwilling to hear argument.

You can't get the same product from the original artist either. It is pretty difficult to imagine how you can order someone to create art and get the same product you would if the artist's heart was in the creation.

The couple chose to open a bakery.

The couple chose to open it to the public.

The couple chose to advertise wedding cakes.

If somebody comes in and offers them money fir something they offered to the public it finest become 'forced' to do it simply because they dint like the race, religion goon or sexual orientation ration of the customer.

So are you going to keep ducking the question about if people should be able to refuse service based on sex, religion, race or sexual orientation?

Taking away someone's free will and forcing

They chose to open a bakery, they chose to sell wedding cakes, they chose to be open to the public.

And seeing this is a privately owned bakery, and not a state/government run facility, they have the right.

It is a place of public accommodation.

If they want to be open to foot traffic and the public they shouldn't be allowed to say we don't serve x here based on race, religion, shin color it sexual orientation.

i agree with you on that. You can't get a "Cake Boss" cake from another bakery.

Or maybe they just didnt want to sit idly by while they and others were being discriminated against.

Good. Seems this same sex couple was only doing this for a courtcase and some money.

The court document also stated that Miller provided the couple with an alternative means to obtain a cake by going to another establishment. The document shows Miller had entered into an agreement with a competitor to refer same-sex couples to them instead.

If the couple wasn't okay with this, then that tells me they just wanted a suit.

Well, duh. It's Bakersfield!

So it is ok to discriminate on sexual orientation if some other place doesn't?