CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Be the Judge of this Judicial dilemma. Religious conscience vs The law.
This is an ongoing actual case, judgement deferred. The Christian owners of a small family bakery refused to decorate a cake celebrating the forthcoming event of a gay marriage as they considered such an act contravened the teachings on the Christian scriptures. They didn't refuse to bake the cake, but rejected the request for the inclusion of the ''gay'' decotative message. The defense claimed that the bakers would have refused to complete the ''gay'' decoration for any member of the public regardless of their sexual orientation and were therefore not dicriminating against ''gays'' as such. The prosecution points out that the refusal by the owners to execute the order to the gay customer's specification constitutes a violution of his client's human rights. If judgement goes in favour of the ''gays'' the spaghetti really will hit the fan as this would mean that a Muslim printing firm would have to print a cartoon of Mohammad if requested to do so, as refusing would run foul of the human rights law. Quite a dilemma. Bearing in mind the implications, in whose favour would you make judgement?
They are just discriminating. It is no different to agreeing to make a cake for a black couple's wedding but only if the cake is devoid of any signs that it is for the black people. Religion is no excuse.
First, this is ridiculous because it should have never happened. If you are a cake baker. You agree to make cakes for money. Person brings in money, you make cake. If you don't make cake you are stupid. If they ask you for pie they are stupid. This is a case of the former and some punishment is deserved.
Second, no religious rights were violated by making the person make the cake, so they need to STFU and bake the cake.
I'm not taking sides here, but please note that the bakers didn't decline to bake the cake. They refused to include a decoration, the wording of which promoted the concept of same sex marriage. They felt that the ''gay'' message contravened the teachings of their faith.
I never did understand that. How is making a cake for a homosexual couple with that wording on it contradictory to their faith? Nowhere in the bible does it say "Thou shalt not make cakes for the gays".
Hee,well said mate,probably the Bible the owners are following is carefully re-oriented by "gays" so as to obviously change their outlook;probably in this Bible the wordings are"Thou shall not make cakes for gays otherwise you would fall in the trap of Scylla and Charybdis,BEWARE OF IT";
I'm not taking sides here, but please note that the bakers didn't decline to bake the cake. They refused to include a decoration, the wording of which promoted the concept of same sex marriage.
An incomplete cake is not doing your job.
They felt that the ''gay'' message contravened the teachings of their faith.
If putting decorations on a cake goes against your religion you need to rethink opening a bakery. Let's turn it around and have a Jew walk in a demand a cake that says Jesus isn't the Messiah. If you don't make it you are violating the Jew's actual religious beliefs. If you make it you are putting a message that goes against the teachings of your faith. That clearly should not be allowed and the baker should have to put that message on the cake. Plus, they are wrong. It doesn't go against their teaching at all. Should that matter? Can't you claim anything is a religious belief even if you never felt it before there was a question? Nowhere in the Christian faith does it say to not perform services for sinners. So, if they aren't acting on an established religious principle can they truly claim religious persecution?
It is his job, yes he should. They get paid to make cakes, they are asked to make a cake, shut up and make the cake. If you can be offended by cake frosting you need to avoid being a baker.
I disagree and would draw the line at creative works. I would fully endorse a jewish photographer refusing to create a professional set of photos for a group of individuals in nazi getup, and would similary fully endorse a religious sculptor refusing to take on a commission to make a statue of two intertwined male genitalia (or something to that effect) for a gay pride event of some kind.
I agree with you this much: He gets paid to make a cake, He makes a cake. But for decorating it? They can pick a design from a book of preset designs, and if they like one, the baker does that for them. As soon as they want a custom design, though, that baker has the right to refuse- he can make the cake, ice it, and sell them supplies to decorate it themselves perhaps, or recommend another cake decorator who might be open. But there is no justification whatsoever for compelling an artist to make a creative work that he or she is fundamentally opposed to.
Similarly, If you were to bring an anti-semitic design to be printed on a banner at Kinko's, I would expect even an orthodox jewish employee to assist you with that. If, however, you were looking for assistance in designing your anti-semitic poster, I'd support the jewish employees right to refuse.
Businesses should not be able to discriminate about providing basic services and sales to customers. But no artist should be required to unilaterally accept every term one provides for a commissioned work, and should be free to accept/reject any commission for any reason whatsoever.
The gay couple came up with the design. The baker just has to "print" it out like the Kinko's Jew. The preset design option works, but you have it backwards. The baker can setup preset designs to pick from, but as soon as he says he will take custom orders he has to take custom orders. The parameters of this debate frame it as simply words on the cake and there is no artistic violation. This is not an example of actual creative works.
I may have to look more closely at the specifics of the case. If it's a matter of setting words in some kind of cake icing printer, that'd be one thing. If he's doing lettering and artwork on the cake by hand, it's another entirely. I would definitely consider the latter to be a creative work, though admittedly not the former.
You're dismissing the art of calligraphy entirely, I can't agree with you there.
He wasn't doing calligraphy and with calligraphy you only make each letter look nice, not the actual message. Even if it was calligraphy I would claim he isn't losing his artistic license.
There's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. How do you figure? By what line of reasoning?
I guess under your random delineation it isn't, but there is nothing about writing words on a cake that is artistic. Since you seem to think putting data into a computer and having it produce a cake isn't art, my line of reasoning is wrong, but I don't think you have provided any real reason you are right.
He wasn't doing calligraphy and with calligraphy you only make each letter look nice, not the actual message. Even if it was calligraphy I would claim he isn't losing his artistic license.
I didn't mean to suggest it was calligraphy on the cake- I was objecting to your statement that written words (the characters themselves, not referring to the content), on a cake or otherwise, do not constitute art or artistic expression. That said, calligraphy is more about making each individual letter look nice, it's about making them all nice as a whole with one another, with the entirety of the written message. An individual letter may not be particularly impressive, even, if making it overly gaudy threw off the balance of the entire work.
Calligraphy is not the only form of character-based art, it's just the most widely known one, hence why I referenced it.
In any case, these forms of art are certainly not based on individual letters alone, but on the whole including the overall message.
Now, if he isn't trying to make the letters look nice, and is just literally writing on the cake, I'd agree that that wouldn't in and of itself constitute a creative work.
Translating a work into a different medium is itself an art form, however, so even a case of being handed a photograph or drawing and saying "Make it look like this" does constitute a creative work on the part of the commissioned.
I guess under your random delineation it isn't, but there is nothing about writing words on a cake that is artistic.
So there's nothing about engraving words into stone that is artistic?
There is nothing about calligraphy that is artistic?
There is nothing about embroidered characters that are artistic?
Assuming you'll agree that these can individually constitute art, why does using a cake as the medium, rather than stone, parchment, or fabric, suddenly invalidate any artistic potential?
There is nothing about calligraphy that is artistic?
Fine, it is, but I still don't think the message you are using matters. But, if you do calligraphy you can be choosy about the message. Fine.
Now, if he isn't trying to make the letters look nice, and is just literally writing on the cake, I'd agree that that wouldn't in and of itself constitute a creative work.
That't what I am saying. None of the baker cases is anything more than this.
So there's nothing about engraving words into stone that is artistic?
Not inherently. no. Gravestones aren't artistic.
There is nothing about embroidered characters that are artistic?
No, "Mel" embroidered on a bowling shirt is not artistic.
Assuming you'll agree that these can individually constitute art, why does using a cake as the medium, rather than stone, parchment, or fabric, suddenly invalidate any artistic potential?
Ok, even if lettering isn't inherently artistic, are you willing to argue that lettering on a cake CANNOT be artistic expression of any kind? If you are, then we'll just have to disagree on this subject, and if you aren't, then I believe my point has been made.
I already conceded my position wasn't applicable to this case, so no need to reiterate that bit :P
Looked over it. I will agree that in this scenario that this is unacceptable discrimination. Scanning an image for the computer to print out on a cake does not constitute a creative work as the baker isn't actually creating anything artistic. If the baker was manually transcribing the image, or if the baker was manually recreating the image on the computer using the original as a reference, it'd be a different story- but not this way.
I maintain my arguments on the general principle, but will concede that they aren't applicable to this case.
If the baker is doing the design by hand, or manually recreating it from a reference photo/drawing in a graphics program for the printer to ice onto the cake, it's a creative work, and the baker should have the right to refuse.
If the baker is simply scanning a drawing or photo into a computer that recreates it on the cake, it's not a creative work, and so long as the request is actually legal in that area, it should be honored.
If the baker is simply scanning a drawing or photo into a computer that recreates it on the cake, it's not a creative work, and so long as the request is actually legal in that area, it should be honored.
Well, it is borderline illegal. If you are worried that someone else will see it and avoid your business can you do something?
Well, it is borderline illegal. If you are worried that someone else will see it and avoid your business can you do something?
If it is actually illegal or even borderline illegal, I'd initially refuse the request, and if the law is brought into it I would advise that I am willing to make the cake but was concerned about the legality of doing so- if I can be assured it's no problem, then my printer can get to work.
As far as being worried about others avoiding my business, there are a few things I could do.
1- Require all custom requests to be submitted via a form that also includes an embedded NDA requiring they not disclose who made the cake unless the business owner (me in this scenario) personally provides written approval.
2- No pickup or in-store receipt of custom orders; they must receive the cake via delivery.
4- Package the cake in a plain box that does not have my company name attached to it in any way.
5- Deliver the cake in a plain vehicle, not a company one.
6- If it comes to light ask about it, claim a customer privacy policy prevents you from discussing details, or admit to it and claim that you'd be shut down for discrimination otherwise and have a family to feed.
7- If it becomes entirely public, follow that same 'feeding my family' plea and present my business as the victim. Since I didn't refuse the unwanted service, nobody can claim I'm discriminating against anybody, so the 'other side' has no ammunition, and I'm a living martyr for 'my side.' This could easily be spun into a net benefit for the business in this scenario. I would of course follow through with a lawsuit for the NDA violation as well.
There is no right which exists without also being restricted, and this necessarily includes the freedom of religion. Proponents of religious freedom on this particular matter assert that their religious rights are being infringed upon, and I would not disagree with that. What I would contest is that that infringement is in any way legally problematic within the jurisprudence of the United States.
Freedom of religion does not extend to protect discriminatory behavior, particularly when it targets an historically marginalized demographic. The government has a compelling and legitimate interest in preventing separate but equal practices, a precedent which has stood for over half a century now (i.e. Brown v. Board of Education).
Exception might be made if equitable, non-discriminatory mandates might be legitimately construed as preventing the actual function of the business in question. Obviously, this is not the case with a bakery. Generally speaking, it would also not pertain to a printing press run by Muslims unless the press itself served an Islamic religious function. It would likely pertain to churches for which being forced to marry same-sex couples would violate the function of their business. And so forth.
People can refuse to do business. If that owner disliked gays, why did he agree to the job in the first place? Could have just refused for some random reason. Sounds like he accepted the job just to screw with the clients.
I have now changed my career to suing muslim illustration and printing companies for not printing my Muhammad cartoons. But seriously, I don't oppose letting businesses discriminate for whatever reason (too fat, too skinny, too muslim, too christian, too white, too black, too smart, too dumb, too straight, too gay, too old, too young, too manly, too womanly) with the exception of essential service monopolies (water, electricity). For bad discrimination, it hurts the business (less customers/less employees/less suppliers/etc) and the community can boycott them if they want. For good discrimination, the right people get the job (I am glad victoria's secret discriminates against fat hairy men modeling their women's lingerie), the business is able to provide some services it wouldn't otherwise (raves wouldn't be fun if they had 95% guys and only 5% girls), etc.
You don't oppose letting businesses discriminate as they see fit? What if a restaurants refused to serve... oh I don't know... people of Italian descent? Would you be OK with that?
I don't think that's an issue you can leave to the invisible hand.
If they did so they probably wouldn't be in business very long. Would you go to a restaurant that denied Italians service? I sure wouldn't and neither would anyone I know. Its hard to run a business with no customers.
Thanks for the clarification. I know what you're saying. I live in New York state, and such a restaurant would probably not be able to stay in business for very long - either due to a lack of customers or a flood of bad publicity, protests, pickets, etc...
Unfortunately I think there are many people who would welcome segregation again.
Businesses cater to their customers. If the target customer hates gays, I would make sure to advertise my hate towards gays even if I didn't hate gays. Capitalism at its finest.
These businesses won't go out of business as long as they have potential customers.
Only problem I have with the law is that it doesn't go far enough. Privately-owned, non-monopoly business, should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason, or even no reason at all. Extending it only to "religious preferences" is needlessly selective.
I don't think it will lead to more discrimination than already exists. If anything, it'll just make it more apparent.
If a non-white lives in a neighborhood where the people want to make it "whites only", then having businesses refuse to serve you is probably the least of your problems.
This will just create separate factions that might lead to a civil war. Not that all this invisible discrimination will definitely not lead to a civil war.
