Gay Wedding Cakes

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You are right it isn't about the cake. I think you are wrong about what it is about though. It is about finally establishing the level of protection that sexual orientation is going to get as a class. It isn't about religion. Although many religious people want to make this about religious freedom being under attack.

It isn't under attack. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whether or not a business owner can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. No one is going to challenge this guys right to believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

Why I liked the result of Obergefell, I really hate that decision. It was such a punt on actually establishing the level of scrutiny for sexual orientation. Hopefully, it will finally get addressed this time.

People are born with a race or gender and they need housing, food, etc and the Court has already held that the government can pass laws outlawing such discrimination. But baking a wedding cake is not essential and it runs up against someone's religious freedom. When you balance it out, the religious freedom outweighs the governement's interest in forcing the baker to provide the cake.

[MartyFunkhouser]

People are born with a race or gender and they need housing, food, etc and the Court has already held that the government can pass laws outlawing such discrimination. But baking a wedding cake is not essential and it runs up against someone's religious freedom. When you balance it out, the religious freedom outweighs the governement's interest in forcing the baker to provide the cake.

it isn't a religious freedom issue. No one is stopping him from believing what he believes about gay marriage. Even if he is limited in his career choice by being forced to bake the cake, he isn't being restricted from holding his religious beliefs.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree it wouldn't hold up in court. This is a personal belief, not a legal argument.

Your belief in God wouldn't hold up in court either. It is a personal belief, not a legal argument.

[cowboy]

in short, a business should be allowed to discriminate, even racially, as long as said business isn't providing a basic or necessary service?

From the WSJ this morning:

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided both the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases before the justices took them up. The 10th Circuit decided more than 10,000 cases in the past five years. Aside from those regarding the contraception-mandate, there were only four victorious claims of religious freedom.

None of them involved Christian issues. The four victories were for Muslims challenging an anti-Shariah law, Native Americans challenging a ban on killing eagles, reality TV stars challenging a ban on polygamy and atheists challenging a Ten Commandments monument.

Most strikingly, a disproportionate share of religious freedom cases are brought by non-Christian minorities. The proportion of religious-freedom cases brought by Hindus was five times their share of the population in the six states under 10th Circuit jurisdiction. The factor was 10 for Native Americans and 17 for Muslims. The most underrepresented group? Christians, who were involved in only one-fourth as many cases as their share of the population.

That means that religious freedom protections remain especially important for non-Christian minorities. But it also raises a question: Why is there so much hand-wringing about a handful of religious-liberty cases brought by Christians?

This is because the political left applies a double standard. If religious liberty is invoked by a favored minority, it is legitimate. But if it is invoked by a Christian with traditional moral views, it is seen as an excuse for hate. Progressives engage in culture-war bullying when religious liberty would stand in the way of their social views. One of the Colorado state commissioners in Masterpiece Cakeshop called the Christian baker’s religious-freedom claim “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use—to use their religion to hurt others.”

But if religious liberty means anything, it means the right to live according to your beliefs when most people think you are wrong.

[cowboy]

it isn't a religious freedom issue.

I actually agree with you. It's just a freedom issue. We should be free to work for whomever we choose, and it doesn't really matter why we ultimately decide we don't want to do the work.

Also, for someone so critical of people who judge others for their actions, you seem to have no problem judging this baker and his thoughts/intent without knowing him at all.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

it isn't a religious freedom issue. No one is stopping him from believing what he believes about gay marriage. Even if he is limited in his career choice by being forced to bake the cake, he isn't being restricted from holding his religious beliefs.

What compelling societal interest is served by forcing this baker to make that cake? You seem to have a limitless view of reasons that the government can find to compell someone to do something or prohibit them from something.

Just remember, the Obergefell decision was held partly on the basis that the government didn't have a compelling interest in prohibiting gay marriage.

[falafel]

What compelling societal interest is served by forcing this baker to make that cake? You seem to have a limitless view of reasons that the government can find to compell someone to do something or prohibit them from something.

Just remember, the Obergefell decision was based partly on the basis that the government didn't have a compelling interest in prohibiting gay marriage.

Don't forget, funk isn't making legal arguments. That frees him up to argue anything he wants without justification.

[Solon]

I actually agree with you. It's just a freedom issue. We should be free to work for whomever we choose, and it doesn't really matter why we ultimately decide we don't want to do the work.

Also, for someone so critical of people who judge others for their actions, you seem to have no problem judging this baker and his thoughts/intent without knowing him at all.

The current issue of The Atlantic has an interesting piece about how liberals need to stop just resorting to the word "bigot" every time they encounter a conservative position they disagree with.
Not only is it lazy, but research suggests that this causes those people with actual bigoted beliefs and behavior to intensify, not diminish those ideas.

Similarly, conservatives need to become "less willfully naive" about actual cases of bigoted behavior.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...igotry/544128/

[Northwestcoug]

Embedded Tweet

[MartyFunkhouser]

What compelling societal interest is served by forcing this baker to make that cake? You seem to have a limitless view of reasons that the government can find to compell someone to do something or prohibit them from something.

Just remember, the Obergefell decision was held partly on the basis that the government didn't have a compelling interest in prohibiting gay marriage.

I haven't really even commented on this case much. I have mostly been engaging in the discussion of whether or not the baker is engaging in discriminatory behavior, which he absolutely is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If he was refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, I am certain we would not be having this discussion.

As for the government interest, Colorado has decided that it has an interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The guy is operating a business with a business license from Colorado and they have made a policy decision that if they are giving that license that the baker shouldn't discriminate.

We are actually looking at a Colorado anti-discrimination statute, not federal law. The reason we are getting intersection with federal law and why this is at the supreme court is only because of the free speech/freedom of religion issues it brings up. This isn't about what the federal government defines as discrimination or what the federal government defines as a public accommodation, it is about what Colorado defines it as.

Colorado has a more broad definition of public accommodation than under federal law.

As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

You don't find such broad language into the federal definition of public accommodation. The Colorado statute specifically excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is broader than the federal statutes as well.

So this really is a free speech/freedom of religion issue. I don't see how this is a speech or religion issue. The law should stand as written and if the guy wants to sell cakes in Colorado, he is going to have to sell them for gay marriages.

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

That's funny.

[old_gregg]

in short, a business should be allowed to discriminate, even racially, as long as said business isn't providing a basic or necessary service?

yes

[Northwestcoug]

yes

That is most definitely a kooky libertarian take.

[old_gregg]

I haven't really even commented on this case much. I have mostly been engaging in the discussion of whether or not the baker is engaging in discriminatory behavior, which he absolutely is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If he was refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, I am certain we would not be having this discussion.

As for the government interest, Colorado has decided that it has an interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The guy is operating a business with a business license from Colorado and they have made a policy decision that if they are giving that license that the baker shouldn't discriminate.

We are actually looking at a Colorado anti-discrimination statute, not federal law. The reason we are getting intersection with federal law and why this is at the supreme court is only because of the free speech/freedom of religion issues it brings up. This isn't about what the federal government defines as discrimination or what the federal government defines as a public accommodation, it is about what Colorado defines it as.

Colorado has a more broad definition of public accommodation than under federal law.



You don't find such broad language into the federal definition of public accommodation. The Colorado statute specifically excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is broader than the federal statutes as well.

So this really is a free speech/freedom of religion issue. I don't see how this is a speech or religion issue. The law should stand as written and if the guy wants to sell cakes in Colorado, he is going to have to sell them for gay marriages.

not sure if it’s another part of the statute you’re not quoting, but i believe bakeries are specifically included too

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I haven't really even commented on this case much. I have mostly been engaging in the discussion of whether or not the baker is engaging in discriminatory behavior, which he absolutely is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If he was refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, I am certain we would not be having this discussion.

As for the government interest, Colorado has decided that it has an interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The guy is operating a business with a business license from Colorado and they have made a policy decision that if they are giving that license that the baker shouldn't discriminate.

We are actually looking at a Colorado anti-discrimination statute, not federal law. The reason we are getting intersection with federal law and why this is at the supreme court is only because of the free speech/freedom of religion issues it brings up. This isn't about what the federal government defines as discrimination or what the federal government defines as a public accommodation, it is about what Colorado defines it as.

Colorado has a more broad definition of public accommodation than under federal law.



You don't find such broad language into the federal definition of public accommodation. The Colorado statute specifically excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is broader than the federal statutes as well.

So this really is a free speech/freedom of religion issue. I don't see how this is a speech or religion issue. The law should stand as written and if the guy wants to sell cakes in Colorado, he is going to have to sell them for gay marriages.

So the compelling interest is "prohibiting discrimination" which in turn means governing people's personal feelings about gay marriage? And Colorado is using the power to grant business licenses as a way to enforce this?

"Prohibiting discrimination" is a pretty wide-encompassing thing that could be used to proscribe all kinds of behavior based on personal beliefs. And that runs up against First Amendment Rights, hence it better be both a very compelling interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. That's where we get the public accommodation cases. Prohibiting discrimination is compelling as to public accomodations. Telling a baker that he must create an artistic work for a gay wedding that also happens to go against his religious beliefs isn't exactly desegregating the University of Alabama. People should be allowed to maintain those beliefs as long as it doesn't infringe on some essential or even important accomodation.