# California Judge Rules Making a Cake is "Artistic Expression" - Denies LGBT Discrimination Claim **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2018, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372 "2018-02-07T16:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/681 "2018-02-11T17:33:27Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > Federal courts should legislate on Constitutional matters. > > And I would expect my state and federal legislators not to overstep and attempt to bestow rights on any entity in the US that infringe upon the Constitutional rights of others. > > And if they do, the fed courts should take them down. > > And I furthermore deny that the legally recognized union of two men or of two women is in any way analogous to the marriage of any one adult man with any unrelated adult woman, of any color, creed, language, or nationality. > > If you would like to start another thread on the question of whether the legally recognized union of two men or of two women is analogous to the marriage of any one adult man with any unrelated adult woman, I’m sure some interesting discussion will ensue. My small contributions may appear, as well. If I have time. In other words,only people whose religious beliefs are identical to yours should be exempt from generally applicable laws. If a baker has a religious objection to baking a cake for a same-sex couple, he shouldn’t have to. If he has a religious objection to baking a cake for an interfaith or interracial couple, too bad. **Euphrosyne** has decided that those cannot possibly be actual religious beliefs and those who claim they are must be lying. The analogy isn’t about the marriages - the analogy is about the religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/682 "2018-02-11T17:39:16Z")
I apologize, k9befriender and doreen, for combining replies to the two of you. I copied and pasted too many answers, and got your messages confused. I was thinking efficiency. But it wasn’t courteous, and I apologize. I think I’ll try to step back for awhile. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/683 "2018-02-11T17:43:14Z")
I saw a video once of a pastor reading religious objections to SSM in a town council or something similar. I wish I could find it now. as it turns out, the exact arguments were used pre-Loving as against SSM. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/684 "2018-02-11T17:47:38Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > Federal courts should legislate on Constitutional matters. Then this is one more reason why you should be arguing against this result, as this was not a federal court that was “legislating” on a Constitutional matter, but a state court. > [@](#): > > And I would expect my state and federal legislators not to overstep and attempt to bestow rights on any entity in the US that infringe upon the Constitutional rights of others. > > And if they do, the fed courts should take them down. So, you are saying that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional, and should be taken down. It denies the rights of bigots to discriminate based on protected classes. > [@](#): > > And to answer Doreen’s question further, I deny that the legally recognized union of two men or of two women is in any way analogous to the marriage of any one adult man with any unrelated adult woman, of any color, creed, language, or nationality. You may deny, but there are those who find the idea of an interracial marriage just as abhorrent as you find a SS marriage. Denying reality doesn’t change reality, it just denies reality. Any justification you can use to disricminate against homeosexuals for their oreitnation, another bigot can use to justify their discrimination against any demographic that they don’t like. > [@](#): > > If you or Doreen would like to start another thread on the question of whether the legally recognized union of two men or of two women is analogous to the marriage of any one adult man with any unrelated adult woman, I’m sure some interesting discussion will ensue. My small contributions may appear, as well. If I have time. The analogy is that they have the right to get married, and that there are those who would deny them that right. Simple as that. You would deny a SS couple the right to get married using the exact same arguments that a racist bigot would deny an interracial couple from being married. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/685 "2018-02-11T17:56:58Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > I saw a video once of a pastor reading religious objections to SSM in a town council or something similar. I wish I could find it now. as it turns out, the exact arguments were used pre-Loving as against SSM. I found it, and it was regarding segregation. Several preachers are quoted in the video, and those men surely felt that integration was impinging on their Christian rights. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/A8JsRx2lois/hqdefault.jpg "OFFICIAL Preacher Phil Snider gives interesting gay rights speech") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois) ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/686 "2018-02-11T18:05:56Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > An ultimatum. > > I like ultimatums! They’re always a sign that the gloves have come off, and my interlocuter is willing to show me who she is and what she’s all about > > And an ultimatum referring to the executions of the martyred Apostles. > > This is an ultimatum informing me that we must submit to the State in this matter or prepare to die. > > Wow. They don’t come better than that! You read that as an ultimatum?! Oh, I see! I was using the generic “you.” You’ve undoubtedly seen this in use before: “It’s so smoggy, you can’t breathe,” or “You can’t get a meal at that airport.” (Notice neither is an ultimatum.) It was not directed at you personally: logically, it couldn’t be, because I have no idea if you’re a business owner. It’s kind of ironic that you took a statement of legal options as an ultimatum, but that’s all it was, akin to, “If you want to get a drivers license, you have to submit your birth certificate with your application. If you don’t want to do that, don’t apply.” See? Not an ultimatum. I can’t (and wouldn’t) give an ultimatum on that because I have no legal authority (nor desire). What would I say, “Submit that birth certificate, or you get no dessert?” That’d be silly, wouldn’t it? As for your argument about abortion in China, I can only say that the good ol’ USA, not being China, allows people to work to change the laws. I stated in my previous post that that’s an option for people who oppose U.S. or state commerce laws. People are still bound by those laws while they fight (Notice: not an ultimatum but a statement of fact.), and if those people (See how I’m avoiding that generic you?) are in the minority, they may be unsuccessful, but they have that option here. Again, back to the issue this thread is about: Miller has the right to her religious beliefs. California law says she can’t refuse service to certain protected classes of customers based on those religious beliefs. Had she been a Satanist, she wouldn’t be able to deny service to a Christian couple because religion is a protected class. Given that situation, Miller or anyone in that type of situation has legal options: serve them, shut up shop, or change the business (i.e., don’t sell wedding cakes). ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/687 "2018-02-11T18:11:34Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You will have to ask the poster who first brought up the idea of overturning the democratic process by judicial fiat. That was you. And I quote: > [@](#): > > You do realize that this specific case is that the legislature passed a law specifically to prevent people from discriminating against people for sexual orientation, and it is those who want to overturn the democratic process that are going to the courts to get the legislation pealed back by judicial fiat? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/688 "2018-02-11T18:14:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And it was the legislature that said that you may not discriminate on the basis of seuxal oreintation. > > So, your final answer is that duly elected legislatures may enact laws to protect minorities from discrimination, and you would be against courts overturning the will of the legislatures? > > Do you realize that in the case that we are talking about, the duly elected legislature made anti-discrimination laws that the bigots are attempting to overturn in the courts? You are arguing against your own position, here. You really don’t get it, do you? The legislature of California or Oregon or Texas can pass whatever damn fool laws they would like, AS LONG AS THEY DON’T VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/689 "2018-02-11T18:21:13Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That was you. Wrong, try again. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You really don’t get it, do you? > > The legislature of California or Oregon or Texas can pass whatever damn fool laws they would like, AS LONG AS THEY DON’T VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. I do get it just fine. But, we have a question of competing rights. Does a consumer have the right to not be discriminated against based on their protected class, or does a shop owner have the right to discriminate against a custer based on their protected class. It’s not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be, especially as my statement was in reply to someone who was trying to say that it should be the legislature, not the courts, who determines what rights can and cannot be restricted, not understanding that that was exactly what the legislture had done. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/690 "2018-02-11T18:25:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … > Do you realize that in the case that we are talking about, the duly elected legislature made anti-discrimination laws that the bigots are attempting to overturn in the courts? You are arguing against your own position, here. You’re way overanalyzing this. Anti-discrimination statues are enforceable only so much as they don’t infringe on the Constitutional rights of others. No one is seeking to declare any statute unconstitutional in any of this, they are seeking to prove that, as applied to them, in those circumstances, the statute is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/691 "2018-02-11T18:27:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I do get it just fine. But, we have a question of competing rights. Does a consumer have the right to not be discriminated against based on their protected class, or does a shop owner have the right to discriminate against a custer based on their protected class. The problem, of course, is that gays are not a “protected class” at the federal level. So if we’re talking about US constitutional rights, the idea of suspect class (the actual term of art here) does not come into play. Yet. The Supremes might determine that they are or should be, but as of now they are not. The CA or CO legislators can pass any laws they like concerning discrimination against gays, but the states cannot determine whether or not someone is a member of a suspect class \*for federal purposes. \* ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/692 "2018-02-11T18:29:04Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > > [@Euphrosyne](#): > > > > An ultimatum. > > > > I like ultimatums! They’re always a sign that the gloves have come off, and my interlocuter is willing to show me who she is and what she’s all about > > > > And an ultimatum referring to the executions of the martyred Apostles. > > > > This is an ultimatum informing me that we must submit to the State in this matter or prepare to die. > > > > Wow. They don’t come better than that! > > You read that as an ultimatum?! Oh, I see! I was using the generic “you.” You’ve undoubtedly seen this in use before: “It’s so smoggy, you can’t breathe,” or “You can’t get a meal at that airport.” (Notice neither is an ultimatum.) It was not directed at you personally: logically, it couldn’t be, because I have no idea if you’re a business owner. It’s kind of ironic that you took a statement of legal options as an ultimatum, but that’s all it was, akin to, “If you want to get a drivers license, you have to submit your birth certificate with your application. If you don’t want to do that, don’t apply.” See? Not an ultimatum. I can’t (and wouldn’t) give an ultimatum on that because I have no legal authority (nor desire). What would I say, “Submit that birth certificate, or you get no dessert?” That’d be silly, wouldn’t it? > > As for your argument about abortion in China, I can only say that the good ol’ USA, not being China, allows people to work to change the laws. I stated in my previous post that that’s an option for people who oppose U.S. or state commerce laws. People are still bound by those laws while they fight (Notice: not an ultimatum but a statement of fact.), and if those people (See how I’m avoiding that generic you?) are in the minority, they may be unsuccessful, but they have that option here. > > Again, back to the issue this thread is about: Miller has the right to her religious beliefs. California law says she can’t refuse service to certain protected classes of customers based on those religious beliefs. Had she been a Satanist, she wouldn’t be able to deny service to a Christian couple because religion is a protected class. Given that situation, Miller or anyone in that type of situation has legal options: serve them, shut up shop, or change the business (i.e., don’t sell wedding cakes). Nellibly, in message #672, you wrote "_If you think making a wedding cake for a gay wedding is a sin, fine, close your shop. If that seems like too big a sacrifice for your faith, remember that Paul and 11 of the 12 apostles made a much bigger sacrifice for theirs."_ You invited me - and those who think as I do - ultimately, to imitate the Apostles who were martyred, as an alternative to obeying the law in its present-day form. You can walk that back all you want. Your own words indicate that you would be content to see people of faith put to death. A more anti-American outlook, I never hoped to live to see. My poor family now entering pre-school. What does the future hold for them? Where can they go to be free, now that, for many Americans, it’s Open Season on people of faith. I hope all who read this recognize this shockingly anti-American attitude, and object to it! ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/693 "2018-02-11T18:36:08Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’re way overanalyzing this. Anti-discrimination statues are enforceable only so much as they don’t infringe on the Constitutional rights of others. No one is seeking to declare any statute unconstitutional in any of this, they are seeking to prove that, as applied to them, in those circumstances, the statute is unconstitutional. I get that they are trying to argue that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional, under the circumstances that they want to discriminate. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The problem, of course, is that gays are not a “protected class” at the federal level. So if we’re talking about US constitutional rights, the idea of suspect class (the actual term of art here) does not come into play. Yet. The Supremes might determine that they are or should be, but as of now they are not. The CA or CO legislators can pass any laws they like concerning discrimination against gays, but the states cannot determine whether or not someone is a member of a suspect class \*for federal purposes. \* And I get that, but this is a state law and a state court. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/694 "2018-02-11T18:39:18Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Wrong, try again. Are you denying what YOU wrote? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/695 "2018-02-11T18:39:35Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > Nellibly, in message #672, you wrote "_If you think making a wedding cake for a gay wedding is a sin, fine, close your shop. If that seems like too big a sacrifice for your faith, remember that Paul and 11 of the 12 apostles made a much bigger sacrifice for theirs."_ > > You invited me - and those who think as I do - ultimately, to imitate the Apostles who were martyred, as an alternative to obeying the law in its present-day form. That is not what they said, not at all. They said that the martyrs had it worse than you, they never said anything about you imitating them. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/696 "2018-02-11T18:39:58Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > Nellibly, in message #672, you wrote "_If you think making a wedding cake for a gay wedding is a sin, fine, close your shop. If that seems like too big a sacrifice for your faith, remember that Paul and 11 of the 12 apostles made a much bigger sacrifice for theirs."_ > > You invited me - and those who think as I do - ultimately, to imitate the Apostles who were martyred, as an alternative to obeying the law in its present-day form. > > You can walk that back all you want. > > Your own words indicate that you would be content to see people of faith put to death. > > A more anti-American outlook, I never hoped to live to see. > > My poor family now entering pre-school. What does the future hold for them? Where can they go to be free, now that, for many Americans, it’s Open Season on people of faith. > > I hope all who read this recognize this shockingly anti-American attitude, and object to it! I think that is a wild misinterpretation. The point of the remark appears to me that closing your shop DOESN’T equal death. Hence the apostles, who were put to death, made a much bigger sacrifice. Compare changing careers to that ultimate sacrifice. No one is indicating that Christians should be put to death. Perhaps they should, instead, gain a sense of perspective, and realize that. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/697 "2018-02-11T18:42:09Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Are you denying what YOU wrote? No. I am telling you that you should bring it up with the poster who first brought it up. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/698 "2018-02-11T18:42:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And I get that, but this is a state law and a state court. So what? Neither a state law nor a state court can violate the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/699 "2018-02-11T18:46:14Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I get that they are trying to argue that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional, under the circumstances that they want to discriminate. > > And I get that, but this is a state law and a state court. Not at all. They are not attacking the statute. They are attacking the application of that statute when it infringes on someone’s 1st. Amendment rights. You’re not suggesting that a Superior Court judge in California can not rely on the US Constitution to make a ruling? ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2018, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/700 "2018-02-11T18:48:21Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > That is not what they said, not at all. They said that the martyrs had it worse than you, they never said anything about you imitating them. I know what she wrote, and I know how shocking it was to read. I hope everybody who reads this thread, reads that, as well. The spirit of totalitarianism, indeed! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372.md?page=36)