Is he actually able to prevent anybody else from setting up shop? If it’s only a matter of nobody else having done it, then no, he is not required to serve all.
My township is the only entity legally authorized to pick up garbage in my town; they can hire people to do it directly, join other townships to do the hiring together, subcontract all or part of the services… but because they are the sole provider and nobody else can legally provide the garbage-collection service except as their subcontractor, they are required to collect everybody’s garbage, of any type.
In the same location, there are multiple providers of electricity. Individual electrical companies are therefore not required to accept a specific customer.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a champion of women’s rights. However, she has argued that Rowe v. Wade was a bad case because “it bit off too much” - it put a legal stake in the ground “too soon” when there should have been a number of smaller cases in lower courts that “chip away” at defenses to prevent abortion. That would’ve led to a legal history and a set of smaller cases that could be “added up” to an abortion rights ruling that would’ve ended up harder to argue against. If I have any of that wrong, sorry.
Why bring that up now? If feels like the baker’s argument is one of those small, “cute loophole” cases. The guy is trying to twist the current laws to create a cute loophole so he can put his beliefs before the law. If this case is properly IMHO adjudicated, the SCOTUS should shut it down and lock off that stupid loophole, resulting in a stronger case for fair treatment in all commerce.
Yeah, fuck that guy who wants to run his business as he sees fit to. Fuck that guy who has personal beliefs that are protected by the first amendment. Fuck that guy who should be compelled by the state to use his time and talent to create something that he disagrees with. Fuck that guy who can’t tell customers that they would be better served by another business.
I am completely supportive of gays being married from a civil/government standpoint. Everyone should have equal protection from the government - if marriages are recognized by laws and tax codes, then there should be no discrimination. I am not in favor, however, of government compelling churches and/or businesses to operate in a certain manner. If this cake baker wants to turn away business, that’s his prerogative. There are lots of alternatives.
This whole case is just silly. And it could backfire if the SC decides to weigh in on whether these state laws are constitutional. This was a state law that the baker supposedly violated (I don’t even see it as that) requiring non-discrimination in “places of public accommodation”. Is a custom bakery a place of public accommodation? I have some doubt.
No reasonable person thinks that the maker or seller of a cake is the person expressing the message on the cake. If I buy a cake from Jewel and order them to write “Happy Birthday Jackie!” or “Enjoy Your Retirement, Joe!” or “Blessed Nuptials, Adam and Steve!” on it, then Jackie or Joe, or Adam and Steve, thank me for the sentiment, not Jewel, because the sentiment came from me, not Jewel.
The first amendment is not a cute loophole. It is the foundation of our country. We are a large and diverse country. In order to keep it together we need tolerance. The great thing about tolerance is it allows wildly different people to live together in peace. When people start using the law as a cudgel against those different than them, that raises the stakes for each election and polarizes the country. Abortion is a great example, instead of settling the abortion question Roe vs Wade means that the abortion debate goes on forever and both sides are angry.
The question of whether a custom bakery is a place of public accommodation is what this case is all about. (The petition from the cake shop says, “Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.” So given that you have doubts as to this, I think you’re wrong in calling the case “silly”.
And there were lots more lunch counters than the one at Woolworths.
When you decide to operate as a business, to engage in commercial activity with a community, you agree, in exchange for the right to do so, that you are offering your services to the public. And that means every member of the public. It doesn’t mean that you have to produce a product that you don’t ordinarily produce. But it does mean that, when someone comes in to your wedding dress store and wants to buy a wedding dress, you can’t say, “Sorry, we don’t sell wedding dresses to Hispanics,” for example.
And of course you don’t have to serve people who are disruptive or belligerent or who have a history of non-payment. Those aren’t the issue.
You’re right, it isn’t silly to the couple, the baker, religious people, other business owners, or other gay people who want to get married. It is silly to me, however. I can’t imagine taking this to court and through the entire process just because someone didn’t want to bake me a cake. Who’s paying the couple’s legal bills? It wouldn’t surprise me if they went looking for this battle.
You’re kidding, right? Are you imagining a scenario where the baker somehow enticed this particular gay couple into his bakery with the Machiavellian scheme to have them sue him?
That doesn’t matter. Putting out a shingle to do business, having folks walk in, and then telling them “we don’t serve your kind” is the first move in all this.
Again, are you fine with forcing someone to make a cake for everyone? Does this include a known Nazi? Because there are people, in this thread, saying they wouldn’t have to make a cake for a Nazi. But what if they are not a Nazi but they are from a culture that has a Swastika for a symbol, can they be denied a cake?
There was the case of the cake for the boy name Adolf Hitler in New Jersey back in 2008. Should they have been forced to make the cake since they sell birthday cakes to everyone? I’m guessing that most people would think that’s ok. So there is a line, somewhere, of what people would see as ok and what’s not ok to tell someone they have to make.
If you’re a fucking asshole, I don’t have to sell my services to you. That’s my prerogative. Assholes aren’t a protected class. In this case, gays are a protected class. But the argument isn’t that the service was denied because they were gay, it was denied because of a gay marriage, which isn’t something protected by law.
The legal question, then, is whether an activity (gay marriage) is so closely associated with the protected class (being gay) that the two are indistinguishable. Although granted, this is a later “correction” in the lawsuit.
If they are not indistinguishable, then is the law wrong? If they are distinguished, then maybe the law stands, but one can cite behavior as not being part of the protected class.
In the latter case, you still can’t refuse to sell to a black person, but you can refuse to sell to a white person who wants a KKK cake.
The fight started when some cake-baking asshole decided that being a dick to two people who had never done him any harm was more important than following the laws of his state.
This is only my opinion. Others may agree or disagree yo their heart’s content.
An artist is compelled to produce art by the very nature of their own desire to express themselves.
A non artist cannot compel an artist to produce anything; but can only demand that the artist produce works worthy of being called art.
Likewise for your reference to children being compelled; and I hope this drives the meaning of my answer home.
We don’t do the compelling; we do the demanding, coercing, threatening (aka usually the fear of what you will do if they fail), extorting, begging, pleading, whatever method YOU feel compelled to use to get the child to compel themselves to meet your demands. The cake baker is absolutely correct. Artists can be compelled to express themselves by no one except themselves, and are usually much better at doing so when they are not forced.
I, too, have an opinion but it comes with my baggage from spending 40 years in the art business (photography). The cake is product. Most art is. (If it doesn’t sell, it’s research). It may be a really tasty cake but short of ending war or even making one think, it’s still cake. Now why, I ask myself, would I not want to sell product to some people who might really appreciate it for what it is, a really tasty cake? But thats neither here nor there. As a baker I would have no illusions that my “art” will end up in a gallery, unless it’s served with Pinot Grigio.
As far as the rest of it, all citizens pay for the infrastructure that makes businesses possible so all citizens should have equal access to goods and services that infrastructure enables.
No reasonable person thinks that the maker or seller of a cake is the person expressing the message on the cake. If I buy a cake from Jewel and order them to write “Happy Birthday Jackie!” or “Enjoy Your Retirement, Joe!” or “Blessed Nuptials, Adam and Steve!” on it, then Jackie or Joe, or Adam and Steve, thank me for the sentiment, not Jewel, because the sentiment came from me, not Jewel.