Its the same baker from a few years ago.

  • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting article. The twist this time is that the complainant only asked the baker to make a pink and blue cake. There is no mention of any words or overt imagery, as in previous cases. The baker refused to make the cake after being told by the complainant that the cake was intended to celebrate a gender transition.

    While the complainant was definitely trolling the baker, I think she has a good chance of winning since the requested cake didn’t involve any speech. The same cake made for a kids’ birthday party would presumably have been okay. It is a brilliant move to out the bigot, and I hope it eventually ends up before SCOTUS.

      • quindraco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Reminder that siding with the plaintiff is siding with slavery, which is defined as forced labor. We’ve already lost the thread when we ask questions like “Is the cake speech?”. Unless we want to actively support slavery, we have to let people refuse to work for other people, without purity tests on said refusal.

        • Gigan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you own a business that is open to the public you can’t discriminate based on certain things like sex, race, etc. I don’t think that counts as slavery.

          The question is whether making this cake counts as speech.

          • TJD@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree it doesn’t count as slavery, but it’s still an infringement on people’s rights to free association and voluntary agreement.

              • TJD@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do elaborate on how the government legally mandating association and business deals doesn’t violate people’s freedom to do those things (or not) of their own will

                • crashoverride@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I guess I’ll have to explain it to you like 5 yo then. When you go into business, You’re there to make money. But the only argument you’re here to make is really a discriminatory one. You don’t actually have an argument. There is no argument to deny anyone our service that you provide and that’s free association. The bullshit that you’re trying to pander is just that, just bullshit and anybody who has two brain cells to rub together can see right through it

                  • TJD@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    When you go into business, You’re there to make money

                    And you should be free to accomplish (or not) that goal however you please. Should every mom and pop restaurant be striving to be the next big keiretsu because big business is where the cash lives? And while there’s an argument that publicly traded companies actually do have that obligation to cash above all else as a duty to shareholders, privately owned businesses don’t. The business is whatever the owners want it to be. They’re under no obligation to optimize their profits. If they want to make decisions based on their own personal views at the expense of profit, that’s damn well their right.

                    But hey, I know you aren’t going to bother responding to anything I say since you’re just here to sling insults since you lack the spine to outright say you don’t support personal freedom.

                • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  A shop puts up a “We don’t serve blacks” sign.

                  The government forces them to take it down and serve black people.

                  Was the shop’s freedom trampled?

        • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is forcing bakers to treat black people as regular customers “slavery” too?

        • wosat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Businesses that create custom works should be able to decide what they want to create, but they shouldn’t be able to limit who they’ll sell to.

    • Throwaway@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Theres an argument that since he was told what it was for, and its still custom, therefore its still speech.

      Im not lawyery enough to make that argument, but his lawyer seems to think so.

      In any case, the Elegant Bakery is .2 miles away, so theres an argument for targetted harrassment.