The case in question in the OP is a case of going backwards presumably because the judge thinks the law overreached.
Which is a bullshit dodge.
Imagine someone deciding not to shoot someone in the head so they tell an underling to shoot someone in the head for them. Does that leave them in the clear? Nope.
She is meeting the letter of the law by dodging responsibility but the fact remains that if the underling is sick and she is the only person at work that day then she is the one who has to issue the license.
She has just made herself feel better about it because the fobbed it off on an underling.
The point being is the law remains. Davis still has to issue those licenses today same as yesterday. That she gets someone else to do it merely reflects her cowardice.
The law requires reasonable accommodation for religious practices. If Davis was the sole employee in that department then there is little doubt she would have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples or be held liable for the refusal.
But as there are multiple employees, at least some of whom do not profess such religious objection, Davis apparently made the decision to assign those employees to the issuance of marriage licenses. Such alternate assignment of work is a suggested accommodation by the EEOC. And so long as that does not place an undue burden on the employer it is a requirement of the law.
So long as customers seeking a marriage license for a same sex marriage are treated the same as those seeking a marriage license for opposite sex marriage they do not have a valid claim of discrimination just because the task was assign to Jim and not Kim. As the EEOC notes, “Customer preference or co-worker disgruntlement does not justify denying a religious accommodation.”
Which ties a bit back to the California baker case. They had an agreement worked out to refer business to a competitor for customers seeking a wedding cake for a same sex marriage. Had they simply taken the order and subcontracted out the work to the other bakery I wonder how the court would have viewed that.
The court probably wouldn’t have had a view on that, because there most likely wouldn’t have been a case if the couple had dealt only with Tastries which then subcontracted out the actual baking of the cake. Just like Kim Davis most likely wouldn’t have ended up in court if she had allowed her deputies to issue the licenses to begin with. ( Originally, she would not allow the deputies to issue the licenses as her name appeared on them since she was the elected clerk)
But that’s a different matter. If Employee A says “my religion prohibits me from issuing SSM licenses”, that employee can be re-assigned to other duties. But the state can’t set up two counters, where: Counter A is for all couples seeking marriage licenses and Counter B is only for heterosexual Marriage Licenses. Or, even one counter where: If you are a heterosexual couple, you will be processed without delay. If you area a same sex couple, another clerk will be out to help you shortly. In the case of issuing marriage license, you not only have the EEOC to content with, but the 14th amendment. Citizens are not to be denied equal treatment by the state. You cannot simply extrapolate EEOC requirements onto state agents, who must also comply with the US Constitution, above and beyond any statute. (Personally, I was in favor of the court allowing localities a certain amount of flexibility in accommodating religious objections to issuing SSM licenses, but only temporarily as everyone adjusts to the new circumstances. And by temporarily, I was thinking months, not years. But, that was just my personally opinion. The court was not required to do that. )
So, yes, it’s incumbent on the state or local government to make reasonable accommodations for the religions of their employees, but not at the expense of the rights of the citizens, per the 14 amendment. Teachers can’t refuse to teach gay students, cops can’t refuse to provide protection to gay people, and county clerks can’t refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, even if a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. The baker is not subject to the 14th amendment. The county clerk is.
True.
I think the OP case is headed for the round file.
My bet is that the essentially identical case that is before the SCOTUS will decide the issue.
Of the three cases I know about, two have had the bakers lose every time up through appeals courts. This is the only one I know of where a judge ruled in favor of the baker.
How is political affiliation all that different from religion? People have killed for both. People have died for both.
I’m not sure that’s true. Once the creative element of the design has been completed, then how is manufacturing the same thing over and over again part of the creative process? After all at that point, how is the cake different than a Big Mac?
Oh goody, thanks for bumping this thread!
I’m not sure I have anything further to add.
You see the part where I say “if the state forced you” I don’t know if I was being clear enough but I was proposing a hypothetical there.
What law would he be violating by refusing to make the cake? Is there a law that makes this illegal in your hypothetical?
Apparently, that’s just something you say to get my hopes up when you are losing an argument badly.
OK, so to you context doesn’t matter in the application of these sort of laws. It doesn’t matter how offensive someone finds a thing to be, they must do it in offensive situations if they did it in inoffensive situations. I’m not sure I disagree.
It seems like the judge was saying that once the artistic creation was done, the artistic expression expired with it. Once you make it for one person, you must make it for all.
But we do live in such a world. Religion is not all that different than politics. Replace the Nazi cake for a Fred Phelps cake.
Didn’t you tell us you were going away?
That’s the opposite of what the judge said. He said that they could buy pre-made cakes, but could not compel the baker to make a new one.
A cake that says “Happy birthday, Fred Phelps?”, or a cake that says “Gays burn in hell!”
Do you see that there is a difference?
On the other hand, part of the argument for gay marriage was that it was not an imposition on anyone and any opposition to gay marriage was intefering withy the freedom of gays when it presented not threat to the freedom of bigots. Now we are told that it will in fact be an imposition on bigots who will be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings that they don’t approve of.
I thought the opinion said that you couldn’t force the baker to make a new CUSTOM cake. But an off the rack design does not seem to be covered by his reasoning.
Does the baker in this hypothetical have an objection to the celebration of birthdays (some weird sect of Jehovah’s witness perhaps).
Lets say you are a Christian baker and you bake a beautiful Christian themed cake of a grave to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Fred Phelps wants one to celebrate the funeral of another American soldier as the price of America’s permissiveness on gay stuff. Does context matter?
I think you have utterly misunderstood the “argument for gay marriage” on pretty much every possible fundamental level.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you, but that is not correct, as has been covered multiple times in this thread.
Ummm, I don’t know, it was your hypothetical. If he does, then he would not make a birthday cake for anyone at all.
I don’t see why it should.
Now, keep in mind that being an asshole is not a protected class. If you come into the baker’s place, being an asshole to the baker’s gay customers, or being an asshole to the baker, then you can deny them service.
So, if you, as a representative of Phelps’s clan, come into the baker, and see the resurrection cake, with its chorus of angels and rays of sunshine flooding into the empty tomb, and you decide that that would be the perfect way to commemorate the death of a soldier, then yeah, they should make it and sell it to you, assuming you have the money for it.
If, OTOH, you come in, call the other customers that are browsing cake designs “fags”, then demand that you make a cake with a soldier’s grave on it to celebrate the death of a soldier who deserved his death because he was fighting for a country that doesn’t put homosexuals to death; then he can very rightly refuse you service.
Think you are getting this yet?