Don't Try Ordering One-A Them Gay Cakes in Mississippi

[Burning Petard]

I don't see a problem here. This much discussed hypothetical baker 'forced' to prepare a wedding cake against their wishes seems to me to be similar to all the non-citizens who are using fake id to vote. Proponents of voter-id laws are having tough time finding any actual example of voter fraud which such laws would prevent.

I have doubts that a same-sex couple about to get married would want to fork over their money for a cake to a cake decorator who did not want them to marry.

snailgate

[Scooter]

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, I don't think you got that right, snail. It's a fact that people have been refused service. Comparing that to (your claim) that voter fraud does not exist seems a bit off.

It should be noted that this couple had never refused to sell cakes to homosexuals. What they refused to do was supply a wedding cake to homosexuals. Whatever the law might say, they do not want to "participate" in something they believe to be morally wrong.

After exhausting legal remedies, they certainly should abide by the court decision and pay the "damages" - even though there was no real damage to anyone.

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

The Kleins have filed an appeal of the ruling and are defying the order to pay. They’re claiming financial hardship although crowdfunding efforts have raised more than $500,000 on their behalf, according to The Oregonian.

"It's difficult to understand the Kleins' unwillingness to pay the debt when they have, very publicly, raised nearly a half million dollars," labor bureau spokesman Charlie Burr told The Oregonian in an email Wednesday. "They are entitled to a full and fair review of the case, but do not have the right to disregard a legally binding order."

A lawyer for the Kleins, Anna Harmon, told The Oregonian she couldn't comment about her clients' actions, citing the ongoing litigation. The dispute goes back to January 2013 when Bowman-Cryer came into the shop with her mother for a cake-tasting appointment. However, Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings.

The Oregonian reports the couple complained to the labor bureau, which prompted a state investigation, four days of hearings and Avakian’s July ruling.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/or ... -case.html (Corrected - thanks to Ray)

I don't think I've ever got a clear answer as to whether a cake decorator can legally refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Fuck President Obama" or "White Power Forever". How can one set of people be refused service but not another when the only criteria is "the decorator finds this offensive"?

Is there a difference or not? If so, what is the difference? Scooter's post of a meme does not answer the issue at all. A nurse in a hospital does not have the right to choose to withhold or offer the institution's health care. The hospital will take care of that kind of false arrogation of power. It is a false equivalence.

[Joe Guy]

I don't think I've ever got a clear answer as to whether a cake decorator can legally refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Fuck President Obama" or "White Power Forever". How can one set of people be refused service but not another when the only criteria is "the decorator finds this offensive"?

The criteria isn't that "the decorator finds this offensive" in the case of the gay couple vs bakery. It was because it was determined that the bakery was refusing service to a gay couple (a protected class) based on their sexuality as it says in your linked article.

So, a baker could refuse to bake an offensive cake as long as he does it based on the cake and not the sex, age, etc. of the person who wants it.

I think that's the answer unless I don't understand your question.

[RayThom]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/or ... -case.html

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't think I've ever got a clear answer as to whether a cake decorator can legally refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Fuck President Obama" or "White Power Forever". How can one set of people be refused service but not another when the only criteria is "the decorator finds this offensive"?

The criteria isn't that "the decorator finds this offensive" in the case of the gay couple vs bakery. It was because it was determined that the bakery was refusing service to a gay couple (a protected class) based on their sexuality as it says in your linked article.

So, a baker could refuse to bake an offensive cake as long as he does it based on the cake and not the sex, age, etc. of the person who wants it.

I think that's the answer unless I don't understand your question.

I see what you mean. But surely to the baker/decorator the cake itself is a message? That was what they were trying to argue anyway. The act of providing a particular thing indicates approval of the thing. Apparently they had provided cakes to homosexuals but a "wedding" cake conveyed a message they did not want to send.

It would be useful to know if there was about the cake decoration an actual message (two female figures on top?) or if it was a neutral design. Even so, the bakers might argue that they did not want it known that Bakery X was into providing wedding cakes for homosexuals.

Thank you for responding, Joe.

[Scooter]

Gay suicidal teenager? Just kill yourself, because no counsellor will help you:

Tennessee legislators on Monday passed a bill that could jeopardize access to mental health treatment for LGBT individuals, part of a string of recent anti-LGBT legislation in the South.

The GOP-sponsored bill, which now goes to Gov. Bill Haslam (R), allows therapists and counselors to reject patients they feel would violate “sincerely held principles.” Haslam hasn’t indicated whether he will sign the bill into law.

Gay rights and mental health advocacy groups have protested the bill and urge Haslam to veto it because it could permit mental health professionals to discriminate against LGBT patients without legal liability.

The bill passed by the legislature is a more discriminatory version of legislation approved earlier this year. That measure stated that therapists and counselors could turn away patients based on “sincerely held beliefs.” The state House last week passed a version that expanded grounds for shunning patients to “principles,” which the Senate approved on Monday.

Some opponents of the bill said they worried the wording could allow discrimination against other groups, including people of color.

“There’s no litigation on what those ‘principles’ are,” state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D) said on Monday.

The governor last week told reporters he wanted to read the final version of the bill before deciding whether to sign it into law.

If he does, Tennessee would become the only state with such a law, according to the American Counseling Association. The measure would violate the group’s code of ethics, which affirms that mental health professionals cannot refuse treatment based on “personally held values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.”

[MajGenl.Meade]

And that definitely should be vetoed in Tn. The group's code of ethics in my view conflicts with no law at all and is the determining rule. If that code conflicts with a person's "sincerely held principles" then they should find some other employment, not refuse to treat someone.

[Burning Petard]

Well, I can believe being aa person of GLBT could very well be hazardous to ones mental and physical health health, based on the way they may be treated by society.

On the other hand, 60 Minutes last Sunday ran a story about a transgender student on scholarship at Harvard and participating with the women's swim team.
That was the student's 'birth gender' while away from the swim team, the individual lived as a male. The story was about his switch to the men's swim team.
The thing I noted about the story was that the parents of the student, and the coaches on the men's and women's swim teams were all very concerned about the potential problems this would create. Meanwhile, the kid is revealing all of this on Facebook. The other students and members of both swim teams seemed to treat it as no big deal and just took it in stride.

snailgate.

[TPFKA@W]

Well, I can believe being aa person of GLBT could very well be hazardous to ones mental and physical health health, based on the way they may be treated by society.

On the other hand, 60 Minutes last Sunday ran a story about a transgender student on scholarship at Harvard and participating with the women's swim team.
That was the student's 'birth gender' while away from the swim team, the individual lived as a male. The story was about his switch to the men's swim team.
The thing I noted about the story was that the parents of the student, and the coaches on the men's and women's swim teams were all very concerned about the potential problems this would create. Meanwhile, the kid is revealing all of this on Facebook. The other students and members of both swim teams seemed to treat it as no big deal and just took it in stride.

snailgate.

I have all the sympathy in the world for those who feel they were born a member of a gender with which they cannot identify. However, there is absolutely no way to alter their chromosomes and irrespective of the amount of hormones they take and irrespective of the surgery they undergo they will never be biologically the gender with which they wish to identify. XX is indelibly XX as is XY forever XY. Therefore while I am perfectly comfortable sharing the restroom with Ms. XY I do not think it is fair when Ms. XY decides she is going to compete with XXs in a physical contest. I remember Rene Richards. When she was a he she was a nobody tennis player. When he became a she, she was a very good tennis player, due to her innate physical XY advantage. It is fairly rare, after a certain age that XXs can compete with XYs in a physical contest.

[Big RR]

I can understand your point there; the reason we have sports competitions by gender is because of those innate differences, and it would be as hard to accept a transgender man into women's competition as it was with the fabled women weightlifters from the Ukraine all those years ago. Perhaps we need to have 3 classes--genetically male, genetically female, and open to anyone.

As for the washrooms, the last time I was in Spain I saw a number of restaurants that had unisex bathrooms--there was a common washroom with sinks, mirrors, etc. and a number of small rooms in which the toilets were, each room having a locking door. Perhaps this is the future of public restrooms.

[Burning Petard]

"It is fairly rare, after a certain age that XXs can compete with XYs in a physical contest" And then after another certain age, the XY's are mostly dead while the XX's survive. Just looking at those XX and XY chromosomes in micrographs, the Y version looks very much like a broken X. I think the degree of brokenness can vary. It is all a not-much-talked-about topic among the workers in the delivery room that sometimes the genital area is not all that distinctive in newborns and the Doc will do a little discreet snipping and slicing to make it more obvious.

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

It is all a not-much-talked-about topic among the workers in the delivery room that sometimes the genital area is not all that distinctive in newborns and the Doc will do a little discreet snipping and slicing to make it more obvious.snailgate

Source? Anecdote? Evidence?

[TPFKA@W]

Beyond XX and XY

[MajGenl.Meade]

That said nothing about medical staff slicing and cutting newborns.... did it?

[TPFKA@W]

It is all a not-much-talked-about topic among the workers in the delivery room that sometimes the genital area is not all that distinctive in newborns and the Doc will do a little discreet snipping and slicing to make it more obvious.snailgate

Source? Anecdote? Evidence?

I have been a nurse for going on 30 years and have not heard this. What is talked about is how fat you are and how hard your fat makes things.

[MajGenl.Meade]

How fat I am? Me? You guys need better things to talk about!

[rubato]

Has it ever happened that a Roman Catholic baker refused to make a cake for a second marriage when the first had not been annulled by the church? Ever?

Has it ever happened that a baker refused to make a wedding cake for an event which was not a wedding?


No. Of course not. Because this problem only exists because they want some way to express their hatred of homosexuals by depriving them of being treated with dignity. They are mad that they have lost the ability to express hatred for a group of people who they enjoyed persecuting with the vigorous approval of the larger society for all of their prior lives and are now fighting to keep alive this little corner of meanness and bigotry.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

It is all a not-much-talked-about topic among the workers in the delivery room that sometimes the genital area is not all that distinctive in newborns and the Doc will do a little discreet snipping and slicing to make it more obvious.snailgate

Source? Anecdote? Evidence?

I have been a nurse for going on 30 years and have not heard this. What is talked about is how fat you are and how hard your fat makes things.

I get to hear a lot about the details of doing c-sections on 5ft 2in women weighing 350lbs.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Brilliantly expressed.


yrs,
rubato