I’ve about had it; and it’s all on account of that symbol of purity and requited love and soon-to-be-sated lust that insinuates itself into our lives only once (hopefully). That’s right; I’m talking about that pesky, problematic wedding cake. And if recent events are any indication of what seems is becoming a new trend, once is definitely enough.
Here’s a question: Is it discrimination if a merchant refuses to provide you one service due to religious reasons but then compromises and offers to provide you a similar service that they feel they can accomplish and still maintain their faith concerns? Another side to it: Would it help if they offered such an amended service at a reasonable discount?
I’ll be the first to say; it’s me. I’m of a mind that it’s all about a name. Then again, who am I to judge? I’m not the ones whose love for another for decades has been considered illicit or forbidden and been forced to hide that love in shame. Such conduct would cause anyone to be on their guard against ill treatment.
On the other hand, there’s much to be said about compromise, especially if both parties are respectful of each other’s feelings. Conservative public sentiment will be only be swayed through understanding, empathy and negotiation and not by litigation.
I mean, even if I wanted a wedding cake for my same-sex ceremony and the baker refused to bake one for me but offered to bake me something else, I don’t know, I think I would’ve asked him then to bake me a simple three tiered cake, diameters of my choosing, with rosette piping along each border, in colors of my choice and maybe some calla lilies or something equally festive along those borders. He could call it whatever floated his or her boat. I would’ve then gone to a shop and purchased my pillars, stands and cake topper and hopefully would’ve saved some money in the process; tricked up laws, notwithstanding. And if he didn’t suggest it, I would.
In the long run, it comes down to equal protection under the law; neutral laws-with no ax to grind either way-guarding the rights of individual consumers and laws that likewise safeguard the rights of the business community. Hopefully, Indiana gets it right on its second bite at the apple.
Until then, what do you think? Is a wedding cake worthy of such litigation, especially if a viable alternative is available?