Your take on gay wedding cake issue

agdsfasdfasdf wrote:

There's a simple test here. Replace "gay" with "Black" and see if you still think it's ok. Is it ok for a baker to refuse to serve someone because they're Black?

If this is the test, then you're correct. However, I think the analogy needs tweaking. Try this:

Replace "gay wedding" with "Black Panther rally" and see if you still think it's wrong.

I'm conflicted on the issue. If it were a case of discrimination solely based on sexual orientation, the baker is in the wrong. If it's about an event that conflicts with the baker's ideology, then the question ceases to be about the individual and therefore can't be discrimination.

Honestly I'd be interested to hear from the 2 liberal justices who sided with the majority. The 7-2 vote is significant.

The ruling was NOT that is was ok for the baker to discriminate, it was that the Colorado court did not correctly apply the legal authority that they have.

It doesn't need to be, but that's the way his side framed the issue. Whether the cake is sufficiently communicative to qualify for First Amendment protection is still an open question, but he certainly has a stronger case than someone who is selling a pre-made or non-custom product off the shelf. And as for any actual text that might appear on the cake, that's actually a pretty easy case for the baker.

And his arguments would apply equally if the issue were miscegenation. You note the issue doesn't come up, though it's not because miscegenation isn't celebrated at weddings (any interracial wedding is on some level a celebration of miscegenation). The reason it doesn't come up is because opposition to miscegenation is so much rarer, and where it exists it is more likely to be a privately harbored bigotry rather than a religious belief that people feel comfortable espousing to the general public. I think a more plausible example would be something like a cake celebrating Black Lives Matter. A baker who disagrees with that message would also have a First Amendment right, notwithstanding antidiscrimination laws, to refuse to bake such a cake.

I think there's probably a typo in there, but my point was just that in considering the threshold question whether baking can be speech, potentially relevant considerations would include whether it is understood by average people to be communicative and to whom they would attribute the message. I elaborated on this to some extent in another post, but whether something qualifies as speech for First Amendment purposes can be a really tricky question.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to say that baking doesn't qualify as speech, with the exception of any actual messages that might be written on the cake--it seems obvious to me that literal words have to be speech. I would say that photography, on the other hand, does qualify as speech, so a wedding photographer would have a First Amendment right not to shoot a gay wedding. In fact, a photographer would have a First Amendment right not to shoot anything they don't want to, since all of their work is sufficiently expressive. Eugene Volokh had an interesting amicus brief drawing the line in the same place:

. It's worth a read.

Though, just because I woudln't find that the First Amendment protects this baker doesn't mean that I think antidiscrimination laws should apply this broadly. I just don't think there's a constitutional problem with them doing so.

bi privilege wrote:

Honestly I'd be interested to hear from the 2 liberal justices who sided with the majority. The 7-2 vote is significant.

Fortunately, you can. Kagan wrote a concurring opinion that Breyer joined.

On the grounds the case was decided, the 7-2 vote isn't significant. What's more interesting is the reasoning of the dissenters because having rejected the reasoning of the majority, they had to go on to also find that the baking wasn't expressive enough for First Amendment protection. Five members of the majority didn't reach that issue, but Gorsuch and Thomas wrote separately to say that they would find baking sufficiently expressive. So we can count up 4 of the votes for when this next goes up, IF it's another cake case. If it's a photography case or something, it might be 8-1. The Court is ultimately going to have to leave it up to lower courts do decide what is sufficiently expressive to qualify for First Amendment protection, but the Court will want to give them some guidance about how to do so. The concurring and dissenting opinions are rehearsing that guidance.

I'm sure this will go against the grain of the Letsrun groupthink, but here goes:

First off, I agree with this decision. Not because I agree that a business has the right to discriminate on the basis sexual orientation, but rather because I agree with the Justices that the CO civil rights commission acted with undue prejudice in making its initial decision. It is important for such a governing body to remain impartial in its enforcement of the law.

Secondly, I entirely disagree that this is in any way an issue of religious freedom for the baker. This is straight forward discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If anything the baker is the one who is infringing on the religious freedom of the gay couple by using his position as a business owner to impose his religious beliefs on them. I wonder if those who agree with the baker would also agree with another baker who happened to be Muslim and refused to bake a cake for the wedding of a Christian women who refused to wear the hijab? In that case I'm guessing the mostly Christian supporters of the CO baker would agree that the hypothetical Muslim baker was attempting to infringe on the religious freedom of the hypothetical Christian women.

When it comes to these types of debates, its my opinion that if you can replace the word "Gay" with the word "Black" and it sounds like racism, well then that is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For example, read this, "In CO a baker refused to bake a cake for a Black couple because his religion does not support Black marriage." Now tell me that isn't straight up racism. If you're against that kind of racism, then why would you be in favor of discrimination against Gays? Remember, religion (including Christianity) has at various points been used to justify things as atrocious as the slavery of blacks and the sexual slavery of women.

No, for me a religious belief does not give one carte blanch to discriminate in the public sphere.

William Buckley's Mojo' wrote:

I hate it when people who try to sound conservative and libertarian about business rights still virtue signal about how the baker is a "dick" or "bigoted". Stop being a wishy washy little sh!t. The baker is the one with standards. The baker is the one who's sane. The baker is not a bigot. The baker is not "on the wrong side of history" or intolerant or any other typical insult.

Disagreed.

I agree. It isn't right to force people to bake cakes to celebrate "stinky chocolate banana making" if they don't agree with such practices.

the decision to not bake a cake was discriminatory. So we no learn that it is okay to discriminate as long as it is in the context of religious freedom. When will the religion come that refuses service to republicans and christians? I would so frequent that business now that refused to serve those hypocrites.

Social Justice Warrior wrote:

Freedom of Religion is the highest Freedom an American can have. I am sorry but this decision was correct whether you like it or not. They couldnt do this in a governing body but as a private business they can do what they want. They could go to someone else. They have an option. They just want to sue because they found a possible way of making money.

This tells me the R party is really running out of wedge issue ideas.

Kneeling is fizzling out, gay marriage is okay, weed is legalizing everywhere, nobody has burned a flag in a very long time, millenials are taking on guns like it or not, nobody brain dead is facing unplugging. What else to do? Oh, yeah, let's take on cake!

We can eliminate a lot of confusion by simply making Christians stitch a large gold colored cross on all of their clothing, carry special papers identifying them as practicing Christians, and mark their businesses with a cross as well. That way, the rest of us will know who they are so that we may avoid doing business with them and offending their sensibilities until a final solution is reached.

get used to it.. wrote:

the decision to not bake a cake was discriminatory. So we no learn that it is okay to discriminate as long as it is in the context of religious freedom. When will the religion come that refuses service to republicans and christians? I would so frequent that business now that refused to serve those hypocrites.

Social Justice Warrior wrote:

Freedom of Religion is the highest Freedom an American can have. I am sorry but this decision was correct whether you like it or not. They couldnt do this in a governing body but as a private business they can do what they want. They could go to someone else. They have an option. They just want to sue because they found a possible way of making money.

Hey.When and if it comes (highly unlikely that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard) it will be legal. Why? Because its a private business. It's the first amendment. The most important one. The reason why we are Americans. The government cannot discriminate...but a private business can. Thats why the KKK and black panthers rallies are perfectly legal.

get used to it.. wrote:

the decision to not bake a cake was discriminatory. So we no learn that it is okay to discriminate as long as it is in the context of religious freedom. When will the religion come that refuses service to republicans and christians? I would so frequent that business now that refused to serve those hypocrites.

Social Justice Warrior wrote:

Freedom of Religion is the highest Freedom an American can have. I am sorry but this decision was correct whether you like it or not. They couldnt do this in a governing body but as a private business they can do what they want. They could go to someone else. They have an option. They just want to sue because they found a possible way of making money.

First the word "discriminate" is not necessarily bad. We all do it sometimes. For example, if you want sex and are looking for a partner most of you will discriminate against those who are not your spouse, others will discriminate against those who are under 18.

Second this customers were never refused service because of who they where. They were refused a specific service (gay wedding cake). If they wanted to buy generic cookies or a wedding anniversary cake for their grandparents they would have been able to. The baker was refusing to celebrate an activity. People do that all the time. A perfect example is most of the Philadelphia Eagles refusing to meet the president. That was/is discrimination. Is that acceptable? I think yes and so was the baker's refusal

A Plethora of Bad Ideas wrote:

We can eliminate a lot of confusion by simply making Christians stitch a large gold colored cross on all of their clothing, carry special papers identifying them as practicing Christians, and mark their businesses with a cross as well. That way, the rest of us will know who they are so that we may avoid doing business with them and offending their sensibilities until a final solution is reached.

Now you are sounding like NAZI Germany by mark people. How about we don't force people to wear a special marking and if you do business with them then the joke's on you and if the customer never said it was for a gay wedding they would have gotten a cake and the joke would have been on the baker.

get used to it.. wrote:

the decision to not bake a cake was discriminatory. So we no learn that it is okay to discriminate as long as it is in the context of religious freedom. When will the religion come that refuses service to republicans and christians? I would so frequent that business now that refused to serve those hypocrites.

Okay, so what if a conservative Christian couple walked into a liberal baker. The couple asks the baker to write "God's design for marriage = a man + a woman" or something like that on the cake. Should the baker be able to say "sorry, but you need to ask another baker" ? Would that be discriminatory?

Social Justice Warrior wrote:

Because its a private business. It's the first amendment.

Fail.

You equate the individual with the business. They are not the same thing in the eyes of the court.

And then you try to join speech to action, which is a total failure.

"I am the Thought Police and I believe Homosexuality is wrong." is not the same thing as "I am a business explicitly denying service to a customer explicitly based on some feature of their person." You are free to speak the former. You are not free to act on the latter.

Correcting your KKK analogy, they aren't opening a bakery at a KKK rally.

The US roadblock indigenous Arabs from living in Palestine so why not roadblock Gays from normal human rights.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

Okay, so what if a conservative Christian couple walked into a liberal baker. The couple asks the baker to write "God's design for marriage = a man + a woman" or something like that on the cake. Should the baker be able to say "sorry, but you need to ask another baker" ? Would that be discriminatory?

No. You are asking the question in a very specific way to get a very specific response as to create a rhetorical trap that has nothing to do with the law. On top of that, you don't even phrase it correctly.

Wait, there's a liberal baker who does not live and let live?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

Okay, so what if a conservative Christian couple walked into a liberal baker. The couple asks the baker to write "God's design for marriage = a man + a woman" or something like that on the cake. Should the baker be able to say "sorry, but you need to ask another baker" ? Would that be discriminatory?

No. You are asking the question in a very specific way to get a very specific response as to create a rhetorical trap that has nothing to do with the law. On top of that, you don't even phrase it correctly.

Wait, there's a liberal baker who does not live and let live?

Why does it have "nothing to do with the law"? Tell us in the way that this idiot could understand.

Imagine if the cake was gay banana bread