Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake

[aGameOfThrones]

Do free speech protections still apply if the words are written in frosting?

Two years after a judge determined that a Lakewood, Colo., bakery had discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake, another Colorado bakery is now facing accusations of religious discrimination – this time for refusing to make a cake with an anti-gay message.

When Bill Jack arrived at the Azucar bakery in Denver in March 2014 and ordered two Bible-shaped cakes, Marjorie Silva said she was happy to oblige. But when she saw the messages that Mr. Jack wanted written on the cake, she quickly decided not to go through with it.

Recommended: How much do you know about gay rights in America? Take the quiz!

According to Ms. Silva, Jack pulled out a piece of paper with the phrase “God hates gays” and anti-gay passages he said were from the Bible. Silva also said that Jack wanted her to draw two men holding hands with an “X” crossing them out.

"After I read it, I was like 'No way.' " Silva told USA Today. " ‘We're not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.’ ”

Instead, Silva said she told Jack that she would make a cake with a blank Bible page so that he could draw the messages himself. She even claims she offered him frosting and a pastry bag to do so.

“I told him, ‘I’ll make you a cake any flavor and shape that you like and then I’ll give you the icing and you can write the message yourself,’” Silva told the Daily News.

But according to Silva’s account, Jack became “very pushy and disruptive,” refused to write the message himself, and said he needed to talk to an attorney.

In a statement to 9NEWS.com, a Colorado state news site, Jack said that he believed that the bakery had discriminated against him based on his creed.

He is a founder of Worldview Academy, which is a "non-denominational organization dedicated to helping Christians think and live in accord with a Biblical worldview," according to the organization's website.

Jack has filed a complaint with the Civil Rights division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. The bakery is now under investigation for religious discrimination, and if the agency feels discriminatory acts were committed, the case could move forward to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. A decision on the case will not be made for several months.

http://news.yahoo.com/denver-baker-sued-refusing-write-anti-gay-slogans-170903787.html

[dannno]

We should really all just be slaves.

[fisharmor]

Recommended: How much do you know about gay rights in America? Take the quiz!

Well, I got 41% on their test (reader average of 53%), but I attribute that to the fact that their quiz didn't have a single damned thing about rights in it.

[Southron]

Hah. He can be discriminated against freely. He's not part of one of those special groups that are more equal than others.

[Schifference]

I think if you own a business and don't want to accept a new job you shouldn't be forced to do that job. If you are a customer and one establishment doesn't want your business then spend your money across the street.

[ZENemy]

so.......I can force them to make me a racist cake right?

[aGameOfThrones]

so.......I can force them to make me a racist cake right?

why not?

[tod evans]

Bakers are having a rough go of it lately...

[fisharmor]

I would sue if the baker refused to bake me a cake shaped like him getting gang raped by men in judge robes.

[ZENemy]

Personally, I would rather not force anyone who is dealing with my food to do anything they don't want.

Secondly if I was gay, I would much rather know that this man is not into my lifestyle so that I can go somewhere else.

[Suzanimal]

Bakers are having a rough go of it lately...

My first thought. WTH??? I didn't realize how emotionally invested people were in cake. Don't get me wrong, I love cake but damn...

[TheGrinch]

My first thought. WTH??? I didn't realize how emotionally invested people were in cake. Don't get me wrong, I love cake but damn...

Not to mention our bizarre fascination with writing messages or putting pictures on something that we plan to cut into pieces and eat. Wouldn't it make more sense for the staunch anti-gay crowd to cut up something like this?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/36/8e/c0/368ec071b639592c37fa40eebf5280d7.jpg

[Schifference]

Not to mention our bizarre fascination with writing messages or putting pictures on something that we plan to cut into pieces and eat. Wouldn't it make more sense for the staunch anti-gay crowd to cut up something like this?


Yes suppose you want a Penis Cake. Why would someone have to make that for you?

Might even be a catch 22. What happens after you bake a cake that someone takes offense to? Can they sue you the cake baker?

[presence]

I suspect this guy went into the cake shop to make a political statement to counter the previous gay cake affair.

[TheCount]

I suspect this guy went into the cake shop to make a political statement to counter the previous gay cake affair.

http://media.tumblr.com/8062216515a557c051d949e2c76e3461/tumblr_inline_nbc8y1raWO1qhgb5g.jpg

[CaptUSA]

I suspect this guy went into the cake shop to make a political statement to counter the previous gay cake affair.

Really? Ya think??


Actually, this is a pretty clever maneuver. Let's hope free association wins. Anyone can decide who or what they sell or buy from anyone else.

[Southron]

Really? Ya think??


Actually, this is a pretty clever maneuver. Let's hope free association wins. Anyone can decide who or what they sell or buy from anyone else.

Freedom of association has already lost. At best we are just carving out exceptions for certain groups of people.

[pcosmar]

Fighting Words have never been "protected speech".

Ever.

It was once legitimate grounds for a duel.

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think if you own a business and don't want to accept a new job you shouldn't be forced to do that job. If you are a customer and one establishment doesn't want your business then spend your money across the street.

Sometimes I wonder why this is such a hard concept. Some people seem to think they have a right to a business's services or money just because they chose to walk through that particular door instead of another. Why not do your research and decide who you want to do business with before you make any decisions?

[PaulConventionWV]

I suspect this guy went into the cake shop to make a political statement to counter the previous gay cake affair.

But then he actually sues them? It's a weird point to make because it seems like it would be to show the absurdity of it, but then he actually wants to go through with it and get money out of it? Seems like if he wanted to show how absurd it was to sue cake makers for everything, he wouldn't be suing cake makers for everything...

[PaulConventionWV]

Fighting Words have never been "protected speech".

Ever.

It was once legitimate grounds for a duel.

I personally don't like that exemption. "Fighting words" seems to just be another ambiguity that gives DAs the ability to write up more charges every time a cop gets pissed off. All that aside, though, fighting words aren't aggression in and of themselves. You have no way of determining the context of those words because there are so many ways they can be said and so many separate contexts that it would be ridiculous to try to decipher this for the purpose of justice. If there's no aggression, then no justice is necessary.

To be sure, I'm talking about this in a legal sense, not necessarily a personal sense. If you want to beat someone up for what they say, do it and face whatever consequences come with it. However, "protected" free speech, to me, should be all speech from a legal standpoint.

[pcosmar]

I personally don't like that exemption. "Fighting words" seems to just be another ambiguity that gives DAs the ability to write up more charges every time a cop gets pissed off. All that aside, though, fighting words aren't aggression in and of themselves. You have no way of determining the context of those words because there are so many ways they can be said and so many separate contexts that it would be ridiculous to try to decipher this for the purpose of justice. If there's no aggression, then no justice is necessary.

To be sure, I'm talking about this in a legal sense, not necessarily a personal sense. If you want to beat someone up for what they say, do it and face whatever consequences come with it. However, "protected" free speech, to me, should be all speech from a legal standpoint.

Well, personally I would like to see Dueling legalized.
It would put an end to a lot of rude.

I mention "fighting Words" only as an example that even freedom of speech is not without limitations.. or consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

[The Free Hornet]

Well, personally I would like to see Dueling legalized.
It would put an end to a lot of rude.

I mention "fighting Words" only as an example that even freedom of speech is not without limitations.. or consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Freedom of speech should be absolute. Sadly, many people - not understanding absolutes - fail to grasp the meaning (eg without limitations is not comparable to without consequences). They get caught up in 'shouting fire'/'fighting words' cases that are less about the expression of opinion and more about contract issues and invitation to action.

One mistake you make is exempting 'dueling' from the 'fighting words'. How do you arrange the unsheathing of blades without 'fighting words' - or is that being too literal. Or perhaps you think legalized dueling permits you to assault those that offend you.

Either way, I'd be happy with fewer violent motherfuckers infesting this place. My cake will say 'Theatre on FIRE! Run for your lives!!!' It will taste like irony. I plan to request iron shavings.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, personally I would like to see Dueling legalized.
It would put an end to a lot of rude.

I mention "fighting Words" only as an example that even freedom of speech is not without limitations.. or consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

I understand, but I don't think any words should make someone subject to legal consequences until those words are carried out. Direct threats may be different, but that's a bit more of a gray area.