Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

S/O of baker refuses to make a SSM cake

Posted by   + Show Post

Gay couple has a contract with a baker to make their SSM wedding cake.  The day before their wedding gay couple is watching the news and see their baker at a rally protesting against SSM.  Does the couple have a right to cancel their contract without paying?  



by on Feb. 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM
Replies (51-58):
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Feb. 3, 2013 at 9:46 PM


Quoting 12hellokitty:



Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting 12hellokitty:



Quoting FromAtoZ:

As long as they are legally able to do so, yes.  Otherwise, they don't have to accept the cake but I would expect them to pay per the contract.

There is a difference here.  As a business, there are laws that prevent discrimination.  This baker did not enter in to a contract or a business deal.  He refused service.

In the scenerio you have painted, there is already a contract in place, a business deal has already taken place.

So you don't think the gay couple in my scenario could claim discrimination stating that had they know the baker was anit-SSM they would not have used his services?  I'm betting they could and people on here would be complaining that he took money from a gay couple without disclosing his views.

  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if I did a google search and find my scenario has already happened...


No, they cannot claim discrimination.  They were not refused service.

You honestly cannot see the difference in the real scenerio and  yours, can you?

Just a few weeks ago a gay couple was served a meal at the Stingray restaurant and after their meal the owner gave them a letter expressing his religious views on Marriage.  Many people thought the couple had a right to sue and that the business owner should have expressed his views before taking their money.  There were in fact many people who said the owner should have just refused to serve the couple as opposed to taking their money when he didn't approve of their lifestyle.


I remember that.  I don't recall, honestly, if the couple paid the bill or not.  Services were already rendered.  There is a difference. 

The cake dude, he refused to render services based on their sexual orientation, which is discrimination.   It is that simple.

12hellokitty
by Ruby Member on Feb. 3, 2013 at 9:52 PM

 


Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

 

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

 

Quoting FromAtoZ:

As long as they are legally able to do so, yes.  Otherwise, they don't have to accept the cake but I would expect them to pay per the contract.

There is a difference here.  As a business, there are laws that prevent discrimination.  This baker did not enter in to a contract or a business deal.  He refused service.

In the scenerio you have painted, there is already a contract in place, a business deal has already taken place.

So you don't think the gay couple in my scenario could claim discrimination stating that had they know the baker was anit-SSM they would not have used his services?  I'm betting they could and people on here would be complaining that he took money from a gay couple without disclosing his views.

  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if I did a google search and find my scenario has already happened...

 

No, they cannot claim discrimination.  They were not refused service.

You honestly cannot see the difference in the real scenerio and  yours, can you?

Just a few weeks ago a gay couple was served a meal at the Stingray restaurant and after their meal the owner gave them a letter expressing his religious views on Marriage.  Many people thought the couple had a right to sue and that the business owner should have expressed his views before taking their money.  There were in fact many people who said the owner should have just refused to serve the couple as opposed to taking their money when he didn't approve of their lifestyle.

 

I remember that.  I don't recall, honestly, if the couple paid the bill or not.  Services were already rendered.  There is a difference. 

The cake dude, he refused to render services based on their sexual orientation, which is discrimination.   It is that simple.

No actually he refused to render services based on his religious views, not on their sexual orientation.

Sometimes "it's not all about the gays"...

 

turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on Feb. 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM

 No...A contract is just that...you should pay the cancellation fee.

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Feb. 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM


Quoting 12hellokitty:



Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting 12hellokitty:



Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting 12hellokitty:



Quoting FromAtoZ:

As long as they are legally able to do so, yes.  Otherwise, they don't have to accept the cake but I would expect them to pay per the contract.

There is a difference here.  As a business, there are laws that prevent discrimination.  This baker did not enter in to a contract or a business deal.  He refused service.

In the scenerio you have painted, there is already a contract in place, a business deal has already taken place.

So you don't think the gay couple in my scenario could claim discrimination stating that had they know the baker was anit-SSM they would not have used his services?  I'm betting they could and people on here would be complaining that he took money from a gay couple without disclosing his views.

  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if I did a google search and find my scenario has already happened...


No, they cannot claim discrimination.  They were not refused service.

You honestly cannot see the difference in the real scenerio and  yours, can you?

Just a few weeks ago a gay couple was served a meal at the Stingray restaurant and after their meal the owner gave them a letter expressing his religious views on Marriage.  Many people thought the couple had a right to sue and that the business owner should have expressed his views before taking their money.  There were in fact many people who said the owner should have just refused to serve the couple as opposed to taking their money when he didn't approve of their lifestyle.


I remember that.  I don't recall, honestly, if the couple paid the bill or not.  Services were already rendered.  There is a difference. 

The cake dude, he refused to render services based on their sexual orientation, which is discrimination.   It is that simple.

No actually he refused to render services based on his religious views, not on their sexual orientation.

Sometimes "it's not all about the gays"...


His religious views are in direct line with their sexual orientation.  His beliefs prevented him from doing what the law calls for.   

I have never said it is all about the gays.  It is, however, all about the law and the reason why discrimination is illegal.  


mandaday
by Silver Member on Feb. 3, 2013 at 10:02 PM
He refused service based on his religious views in regards to their sexual orientation. You're not helping your arguments by spitting hairs. It's still not a recognized reason to refuse service if he does not run a private club business.

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 




Quoting FromAtoZ:




Quoting 12hellokitty:


 


 


Quoting FromAtoZ:




Quoting 12hellokitty:


 


 


Quoting FromAtoZ:


As long as they are legally able to do so, yes.  Otherwise, they don't have to accept the cake but I would expect them to pay per the contract.


There is a difference here.  As a business, there are laws that prevent discrimination.  This baker did not enter in to a contract or a business deal.  He refused service.


In the scenerio you have painted, there is already a contract in place, a business deal has already taken place.


So you don't think the gay couple in my scenario could claim discrimination stating that had they know the baker was anit-SSM they would not have used his services?  I'm betting they could and people on here would be complaining that he took money from a gay couple without disclosing his views.


  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if I did a google search and find my scenario has already happened...


 


No, they cannot claim discrimination.  They were not refused service.


You honestly cannot see the difference in the real scenerio and  yours, can you?


Just a few weeks ago a gay couple was served a meal at the Stingray restaurant and after their meal the owner gave them a letter expressing his religious views on Marriage.  Many people thought the couple had a right to sue and that the business owner should have expressed his views before taking their money.  There were in fact many people who said the owner should have just refused to serve the couple as opposed to taking their money when he didn't approve of their lifestyle.


 


I remember that.  I don't recall, honestly, if the couple paid the bill or not.  Services were already rendered.  There is a difference. 


The cake dude, he refused to render services based on their sexual orientation, which is discrimination.   It is that simple.


No actually he refused to render services based on his religious views, not on their sexual orientation.


Sometimes "it's not all about the gays"...


 

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
EireLass
by Ruby Member on Feb. 3, 2013 at 10:41 PM
1 mom liked this

They should read their contract and see what it says.

maciymommieof3
by Silver Member on Feb. 3, 2013 at 10:53 PM

 a contract is a legal binding document, if in the contract it has that stipulation, then yes....but if not.....nope.

Euphoric
by Bazinga! on Feb. 3, 2013 at 11:01 PM

 This.

Quoting Healthystart30:

depends on the contract they have.

 

www.cafemom.com/group/116692
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN