In the news today is a decision from a judge in Bakersfield, CA, denying a preliminary injunction against a wedding cake baker who refused a request from a gay couple to make them a wedding cake. The California Department of Fair Housing had asserted this was a violation of California anti-discrimination law (specifically, Civil Code §61, known as The Unruh Act), and asked for an injunction forcing the baker to make the cake, or stop selling wedding cakes entirely. Instead, the judge found that, since the cake had not yet been made, the claim of discrimination was pre-empted by the First Amendment right of the cake maker not to be forced into an artistic expression she didn’t want to make. The judge emphasized that, had the cake been made, and had the baker refused to sell it, that would be an Unruh Act violation.
Bolding mine.
That’s an interesting phrase, eh.
“Artistic expression”?! What a hoot! :LoL
Explain how, in your view, a wedding cake is different from a painting?
This feels like deja vu all over again.
Remind me never to eat dessert at your house.
I think that the “artistic expression” exception just begs the larger question of how much artistic expression is required. What if the baker just has to squirt icing on the wedding cake naming two men? Is that artistic expression? For some definitions, it is, but for others, it is not.
Reminds me of the Bomb Supríse served to 007 at the end of Diamonds Are Forever…
That’s not quite the question, istm. How is a wedding cake different from a sloppy joe, in your view?
This so-called “artistic expression” is just an excuse to discriminate against human beings who live a lifestyle that the baker in question finds objectionable. There is obviously no doubt about that in all but the most narrow-minded amongst us.
The fact of the matter is that these bigots have found a legal way to practice their bigotry, yet again proving, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”
Remind me to skip your wedding reception.
The irony in that statement is palpable.
If the customers wanted specific customization, then the baker can say no. If the customers want a generic, general, like-everyone-else’s cake, then the baker couldn’t say no.
You’d thank your lucky stars if you ever got to try my three tiered sloppy joe.
Is that according to Judge Lampe? Or your opinion?
Did you read the article and the summary of the opinion of the judge? The distinction is clear. Now, we can argue if the distinction rises to the level of triggering first amendment protection, but it’s silly to say there is no distinction.
I don’t have anything against the christian lifestyle. I just don’t see why they have to flaunt it in public for everyone to see.
As long as the baker’s decision is about the cake (i.e. “I won’t put two male figurines on the cake”, or “I won’t draw a swastika on the cake”, or “I won’t put a consecrated wafer on the cake”), rather than the customers, then I don’t have a philosophical problem with this. In fact, I’m not sure how that could be stopped by law or courts, as long as the baker is willing to sell regular/standard/generic cakes to any customer.
You can feel that way and according to this judge you can’t be compelled by the state to make them a custom cake.
Or why they need to shove it down everyone’s throat.