Cake Shop Faces Legal Action For Refusing To Make Anti-LGBT Cake

[R. U. Sirius]

http://denver.eater.com/2015/1/20/7858569/cake-shop-faces-legal-action-for-refusing-to-make-anti-lgbt-cake

What do you guys think? Could there be a legal case to be made, similar to the one made when a cake shop refused to make cakes for gay weddings, or is it an apples-oranges comparison?

[Random Gal]

Unfortunately, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I have to wonder: does this mean a Klansman can sue if a bakery refuses to make him a racist cake?

[rookie]

Sometimes at bars and such I see signs that say they have the right to refuse service. Normally that means they'll toss out the rowdy drunks or bounce the guy who grabbed the waitress' ass. Or since Maryland is a third party liability state, they might refuse service to an obviously over intoxicated person. But still, do other establishments have that right? For that matter, does my favorite watering hole?

[Søren]

If a cake shop can refuse to make cakes for LGBT weddings, then a cake shop can refuse to make an LGBT cake.

It's as simple as that. Unless you're a hypocrite.

[Sigmaleph]

http://denver.eater.com/2015/1/20/7858569/cake-shop-faces-legal-action-for-refusing-to-make-anti-lgbt-cake

What do you guys think? Could there be a legal case to be made, similar to the one made when a cake shop refused to make cakes for gay weddings, or is it an apples-oranges comparison?

Not familiar with the case you have in mind. Was it someone who refused to write a pro-gay message, or simply refused to sell a typical cake that was going to be used at a gay wedding?

I can support people's rights not to write messages they disagree with. Not so for refusing service to people you don't like.

[ironbite]

They absolutely refused, basing their reasoning on religious grounds, to not bake a cake for a gay couple.  The gay couple sued, state of Oregon agreed with them so the bakery closed rather then make the cake.

Ironbite-this....this sounds like the guy went in there with a mission.

[Askold]

They absolutely refused, basing their reasoning on religious grounds, to not bake a cake for a gay couple.  The gay couple sued, state of Oregon agreed with them so the bakery closed rather then make the cake.

Ironbite-this....this sounds like the guy went in there with a mission.

So in USA bakeries are legally obliged to make racist and homophobic cakes if customers want something like that? Because it is hard to justify why bakery X must make a cake that they are uncomfortable making due to their beliefs but bakery Y would not have to do so.

[mellenORL]

1. Businesses are considered private property, even if the space is leased. The landlord, however, can put in clauses in the lease about customer interactions allowed or disallowed, as long as they do not infringe on recognized rights and protected classes. I.e., a business owned by fundie assholes would have to defer to the physical property owner's anti-homophobia clause in their lease contract with the landlord, even in a jurisdiction that does not have anti-homophobic discrimination codes.

2. Businesses in general cannot base their refusal of service on the apparent race, gender, religion or political affiliation of the customer, and in some jurisdictions that also includes sexual orientation. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" actually has to be based on the customer's bad behavior only, which can include them stating any opinion in a disruptive, loud manner (i.e., drunk asshole or screaming zealot - it disturbs the peace inside the business).

3. In this Colorado case, where the bakery refused to pipe icing words onto a bible-shaped cake spelling out "God Hates Fags" (I paraphrased), well, the owner did offer the customer a prepared piping bag of icing so he could write it himself later. I don't know if Colorado or the town this happened in has LGBT-specific hate crime law (which would not really apply, as this was non-violent), or any codes as to no LGBT discrimination. I have no idea how this incident would play out before a knowledgeable judge. But I do believe that business owners and employees are not slaves to a customer just because money is about to be exchanged for a product and service. If the customer's request is such that the business worries the product will negatively affect their business' reputation, then maybe there is something to consider. Would the bakery have had to ice-on the words, "Hitler was God. Kill all Jews!" - I don't think so.

[Old Viking]

Whatever the resolution, there's too much cake-eating going on in this country anyway.

[Ironchew]

But I do believe that business owners and employees are not slaves to a customer just because money is about to be exchanged for a product and service. If the customer's request is such that the business worries the product will negatively affect their business' reputation, then maybe there is something to consider. Would the bakery have had to ice-on the words, "Hitler was God. Kill all Jews!" - I don't think so.

That's an interesting angle, but I don't think the business can sail by on that argument alone. The reputation of a business may have been harmed a few decades ago by serving homosexuals and other societal outcasts, after all.

[mellenORL]

Custom cakes go out in cake boxes with the bakery's business name on them. Referring back to the particular bakery in the article linked in first post, I can see how it is reasonable that they essentially refused to let a cake out their door with "God condemns homosexuality", etc. on it. I guess the owner could have used a plain box, but I also don't see how that owner could have stomached icing those hateful words, either.

Like I said, I don't know how a good judge would rule on this, but hopeful that the fact that the bakery is a privately owned business, and did not outright refuse service to the man based on his race, gender, religion (per se), political affiliation (per se), age, etc. In other words, maybe they refused to assist him in expressing his right to free speech by not icing that cake, but they did not in fact refuse service to him altogether. The owner even tried to placate by offering him an icing kit and probably some simple verbal instructions.

The incident got me thinking later on, How can a bakery get around awkward shit like this, and avoid riling up a weird customer? Professional cake decorating material and supply companies do make a candy spray icing substitute in the form of airbrush food coloring, and stencil kits are available for that. Perhaps a baker could keep letter and common word stencils on hand, and just cut and tape up custom stencil sheets on a mask frame, and provide the customer with cans of spray colorants (which are available from the usual bakery suppliers).

[Barbarella]

They should make the cake....thereby destroying whatever it was this guy wanted to prove!

[rookie]

They should make the cake....thereby destroying whatever it was this guy wanted to prove!

Could you explain a bit further please?

[Canadian Mojo]

So does this mean that a cake decorator would legally have to put "go fuck yourself you useless pile of regurgitated dog shit" on a cake if a customer asked?

This seems like an absurd example, and it is, but it is done to highlight an otherwise subtle point. The example is obscene and hateful; it uses language that would be censored by public broadcasters, and could very likely get you reprimanded or even fired if spoken at work. The words can reasonably be interpreted to be potentially injurious which should be enough of a reason to say no.

Now contrast that message with "congratulations John and Kevin on your new son" or a pair of brides decorating the top of a wedding cake. There is nothing inherently hateful or negative about either. Both are very positive congratulations for the recipients. It is very hard to construct a scenario where you could potentially injure somebody with those messages so it is equally hard to to come up with legitimate grounds to refuse to write them, so refusal is simple bigotry and is flat out illegal.

Seems easy enough for me to draw a common sense line, that you have a fundamental right to refuse to be involved in propegating hate, but do the laws see it this way?