# Colorado baker sued again **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732 "2018-08-16T14:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BeenJammin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beenjammin/32/448_2.png) [@BeenJammin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeenJammin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/21 "2018-08-16T16:57:55Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > For a baker he sure doesn’t bake much. It’s not like he’s the only baker in town. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/22 "2018-08-16T16:58:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t know. Presumably, the activist lawyers would instruct them to state the purpose (or anything else) in the way most likely to result in a violation of the law if the bakers have bigoted policies. The reason I asked that is because it seems to me that the baker would make cakes for a transgender person or a cisgender person. But they won’t make cakes for either person if the cake is going to be used to celebrate something the baker doesn’t agree with. If the baker won’t sell a cake celebrating a transition to neither a cisgender person nor a transgender person, then who is being discriminated against? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/23 "2018-08-16T17:01:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > The reason I asked that is because it seems to me that the baker would make cakes for a transgender person or a cisgender person. > > But they won’t make cakes for either person if the cake is going to be used to celebrate something the baker doesn’t agree with. > > If the baker won’t sell a cake celebrating a transition to neither a cisgender person nor a transgender person, then who is being discriminated against? I’m not sure what the law or the latest rulings say, so I don’t know. I also don’t know what’s in the head of the baker – maybe they wouldn’t sell a cake to any person they know is trans, or maybe it’s just about the particular event; I would presume a skilled team of activists and lawyers could create an experimental scenario that would test this and reveal the true beliefs of the baker. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/24 "2018-08-16T17:04:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If the law says the baker can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity (and I don’t recall at the moment), then it seems like there’d be a relatively simple test activists could do, similar to the ways they exposed bigoted landlords in past decades – at some point, send in a straight person or couple to buy a cake with the pink/blue/whatever color scheme, and then at another point send the trans person at a different time to buy the exact same cake, and see if the baker balks the second time. But there’s been so much back and forth on the issue that I don’t remember the present state of the law. No, I don’t think this is the core of the issue at all. Let’s suppose that it’s a wedding cake, where a cake for a straight couple would have two figurines on top, a model bride and groom. Suppose a male gay couple ask for a similar cake, but request two male figurines on top. Can the baker refuse? Obviously the “gay” cake is different from the “straight” one. You can’t test this by getting a straight couple to order the _exact_ same cake with two men on it. But if the cake is _substantially_ the same - two decorative figurines representing the couple - and the baker refuses to make it with two same-sex figurines, then it seems to me that there a strong case that the baker is refusing to provide _essentially_ the same product for reasons that are (in Colorado) illegal. Clearly on the other side of this balance, you obviously could not force an artist to paint a gay couple if he didn’t want to. It seems to me that the line relates to whether somebody is running a business providing services or commodities to a community. The baker wants to put himself in the same category with the artist, and I don’t buy it. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/25 "2018-08-16T17:07:38Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Obviously the “gay” cake is different from the “straight” one. You can’t test this by getting a straight couple to order the _exact_ same cake with two men on it. I don’t understand why you can’t test this by getting a straight couple to order the exact same cake? They can just say it’s for a gay wedding that they are buying the cake for. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/26 "2018-08-16T17:08:35Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Please walk me through the thought process of these people. Here is how I see it: > > \*This person does not want to bake me a cake because he doesn’t like me. > > I’m going to tattle on him because I want someone that doesn’t like me to bake me a cake for a special occasion. \* > > Is this strange to anyone? They are angered that they cannot physically force a human being to manipulate his body such a way that a cake to their liking is produced. I wonder how they would treat a helpless person under no public scrutiny. Would they physically grab the person and marionette them into doing what they want. This is an antisocial impulse. > > I just don’t understand people like this. To me, it is the height of entitlement. It’s a cake. You are not entitled to physically force an individual to do what you want them to do with their body. So you have this criminal baker, who’s flagrantly refusing to accept that the laws says he can’t be a bigot while in the process of conducting his business. The baker of course is a bigot and has no intention of suspending that for the purpose of doing business, and thus will happily commit crimes given the opportunity. As it becomes known that the criminal baker is doing this, there are two ways it can play out: the criminal is censured and encouraged to stop being a criminal, showing that society is both opposed to crime and bigots. Alternatively the criminal baker can be given a pass for one reason or another, emboldening other bigots to become criminals to due to the reduced threat of censure. And thus crime and bigotry sweep the land, and decent people find themselves unable to buy a cake. (Or maybe they can only get separate but equal cakes.) Some people might say that this is still no big deal, if you presume that emboldened bigots are content to accept their win regarding cakes and sit on their laurels on other matters, in complete defiance of history and human nature. On the other hand, people victimized by these type of criminal bigots see little benefit in allowing criminal bigotry to be emboldened, so some of them decide to be Batman and take steps to bring the criminals to justice. This of course requires the criminal to be guided to do their crimes in a way where they are under scrutiny. Hence sting operations like this multicolored cake thing. So yeah, these people could totally stay quiet, walking to the other side of the street where they won’t be mugged and thus allow the muggers to continue to operate without interference. Or they can try and be Batman, and dive into the fray. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/27 "2018-08-16T17:10:10Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t understand why you can’t test this by getting a straight couple to order the exact same cake? > > They can just say it’s for a gay wedding that they are buying the cake for. And the baker obviously says no. And I think that’s wrong - he won’t bake substantially the same cake for a gay couple that he would bake for a straight couple. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/28 "2018-08-16T17:14:52Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > And the baker obviously says no. And I think that’s wrong - he won’t bake substantially the same cake for a gay couple that he would bake for a straight couple. Maybe. But he wouldn’t bake the exact same cake for neither the gay couple NOR the straight couple. He won’t bake a cake topped with two same-sex figurines for nobody. (I’m assuming or hypothetically or whatever) ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/29 "2018-08-16T17:18:01Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I just don’t understand people like this. To me, it is the height of entitlement. It’s a cake. You are not entitled to physically force an individual to do what you want them to do with their body. Painting this as a violation of bodily integrity seems like a ridiculous argument to me. Is the government violating me with the physical force that ultimately backs up its insistence that I must drive on the right? The issue here is what restrictions society can and should place on somebody who runs a public business, and drawing the right balance with the right to freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/30 "2018-08-16T17:20:03Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Maybe. But he wouldn’t bake the exact same cake for neither the gay couple NOR the straight couple. He won’t bake a cake topped with two same-sex figurines for nobody. And I’m sure the baker would be delighted with that outcome. That’s why I say it’s the wrong test. The question is whether the cake with two male figurines is _essentially the same product_ as the cake with bride & groom, and whether in refusing to make it the baker is effectively discriminating for illegal reasons. So I think for a test case it’s important that whoever orders the cake (the transgender woman or a friend), the customer tells the baker the purpose and significance of the blue and pink coloring. If the baker would make a _substantially identical_ cake with red and green coloring, but not the blue and pink one _because of what it signifies_, then to me that’s illegal discrimination (in Colorado). ---
**Author:** ![BeenJammin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beenjammin/32/448_2.png) [@BeenJammin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeenJammin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/31 "2018-08-16T17:22:07Z")
Will Farnaby gets it. Why do you think SCOTUS basically punted this one? Why does anybody have to bake a cake at all? It’s not about LGBQ rights, freedom of speech or any religious nonsense. Those things are just excuses to make a mountain out of a molehill and get the media on it. People are going to have differences, with civil rights clashes being the biggie with automatic media attention. Even something as trivial as a wedding cake makes great fodder for special interests seeking attention. Smart people figure out how to get along or move along. A-holes and dumbasses demand satisfaction on their terms alone. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/32 "2018-08-16T17:30:32Z")
> [@](#): > > “I know the Bible says that God created male and female and that we don’t get to choose that, and we don’t get to change that,” Phillips told CPR. “And I don’t feel like the government has a right to compel me to participate in creating a cake that promotes that message.” I disagree about his bible statement. I agree with his right to not bake the cake. If it was me and if I was a cake baker, I’d have baked the cakes. What’s the big deal, Phillips? But, to each their own. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/33 "2018-08-16T17:41:18Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > And I’m sure the baker would be delighted with that outcome. That’s why I say it’s the wrong test. The question is whether the cake with two male figurines is _essentially the same product_ as the cake with bride & groom, and whether in refusing to make it the baker is effectively discriminating for illegal reasons. Discriminating against who? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/34 "2018-08-16T17:41:36Z")
> [@BeenJammin](#): > > Will Farnaby gets it. Why do you think SCOTUS basically punted this one? Why does anybody have to bake a cake at all? It’s not about LGBQ rights, freedom of speech or any religious nonsense. Those things are just excuses to make a mountain out of a molehill and get the media on it. People are going to have differences, with civil rights clashes being the biggie with automatic media attention. Even something as trivial as a wedding cake makes great fodder for special interests seeking attention. > > Smart people figure out how to get along or move along. A-holes and dumbasses demand satisfaction on their terms alone. It’s about whether you can hang a shingle on your shop that says “We don’t serve your kind here”. Simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/35 "2018-08-16T17:55:20Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Discriminating against who? I thought what I wrote was perfectly clear. In my example, discriminating against two gay men who want _essentially_ the same product as a straight couple. It’s not _exactly_ the same product, because the two figurines are male. But that’s the only difference - and it relates to the sexual orientation of the people that the product is purchased _for_. I don’t think anything hinges on who buys it. Again, it’s a question of whether you want to put a decorated cake in the same category as a painting or a novel; or whether it’s a commodity with minor customization to the individual’s identity, like an inscription on a watch. For example, if a jewelry store offers custom inscriptions on the watches that it sells, then it must not refuse to inscribe “Ted & Steve’s Wedding, 8/15/18” if it would inscribe “Ted & Tina’s Wedding, 8/15/18”. I think the cake falls into this category. If a baker refuses to bake a _type_ of cake - say erotic cakes - I think that’s another matter entirely. It’s a refusal to _personalize_ based on the sexual orientation of the individuals concerned that’s the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/36 "2018-08-16T17:59:25Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I thought what I wrote was perfectly clear. In my example, discriminating against two gay men who want _essentially_ the same product as a straight couple. But the baker won’t sell that _essentially_ the same product to anyone. If you treat everyone the same, how is it discrimination? “I won’t sell a cake with two men on top of it to a straight couple. I won’t sell a cake with two men on top of it to a gay couple. I won’t sell a cake with two men on top of it to anyone” How is this discrimination? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/37 "2018-08-16T18:04:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > But the baker won’t sell that _essentially_ the same product to anyone. If you treat everyone the same, how is it discrimination? > > “I won’t sell a cake with two men on top of it to a straight couple. I won’t sell a cake with two men on top of it to a gay couple. I won’t sell a cake with two men on top of it to anyone” > > How is this discrimination? “I make personalized wedding cakes. But not when they are personalized for gay couples.” If you won’t accept that’s discrimination, you’re being obtuse. You may argue that it’s a kind of discrimination that should be _legal_, by analogy with (say) a store that sells only Christian books (but sells them to anyone), but to claim that you don’t grasp how it’s discrimination is just silly. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/38 "2018-08-16T18:08:08Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > “I make personalized cakes. But not for gay couples.” But this is not quite true. I’m sure a gay couple could get a personalized cake for other celebratory occurrences. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/39 "2018-08-16T18:08:40Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Painting this as a violation of bodily integrity seems like a ridiculous argument to me. Is the government violating me with the physical force that ultimately backs up its insistence that I must drive on the right? > > The issue here is what restrictions society can and should place on somebody who runs a public business, and drawing the right balance with the right to freedom of speech. The government “owns” the roads. The requirement for you to drive on the right is understandable in that context. This is a cake and a bunch of people who demand the baker do what they say. If he doesn’t they will try to ruin his life, dragging him through court, fining him, god forbid they actually arrest him. Idk what the ultimate punishment will be for him not doing what they want. They could easily get a different cake. Am I nuts or what? Human beings are always going to have disagreements. Why must things so trivial be politicized and accompanied by threats of force. This is infantile behavior on the part of the plaintiff. You want to be accepted by society for who you are? How about enduring a fucking inconvenience without running to daddy government. This reminds me of childhood when when an entitled child would run to their mommy because Jimmy won’t play with him. Then the mother calls Jimmy’s mother to make the boy play with the child. > [@begbert2](#): > > So you have this criminal baker, who’s flagrantly refusing to accept that the laws says he can’t be a bigot while in the process of conducting his business. The baker of course is a bigot and has no intention of suspending that for the purpose of doing business, and thus will happily commit crimes given the opportunity. > > As it becomes known that the criminal baker is doing this, there are two ways it can play out: the criminal is censured and encouraged to stop being a criminal, showing that society is both opposed to crime and bigots. Alternatively the criminal baker can be given a pass for one reason or another, emboldening other bigots to become criminals to due to the reduced threat of censure. And thus crime and bigotry sweep the land, and decent people find themselves unable to buy a cake. (Or maybe they can only get separate but equal cakes.) > > Some people might say that this is still no big deal, if you presume that emboldened bigots are content to accept their win regarding cakes and sit on their laurels on other matters, in complete defiance of history and human nature. > > On the other hand, people victimized by these type of criminal bigots see little benefit in allowing criminal bigotry to be emboldened, so some of them decide to be Batman and take steps to bring the criminals to justice. This of course requires the criminal to be guided to do their crimes in a way where they are under scrutiny. Hence sting operations like this multicolored cake thing. > > So yeah, these people could totally stay quiet, walking to the other side of the street where they won’t be mugged and thus allow the muggers to continue to operate without interference. Or they can try and be Batman, and dive into the fray. You are out to lunch, bud. The baker is the mugger? You have got to be kidding me with this stuff. I would have caricatured your argument as cartoonish… until you literally invoked BATMAN. You did it for me. You know nothing of human nature. It is human nature to not get along with everyone. It is human nature for people to be assholes. Escape your padlocked cellar once in a while, fella. Bigotry should not be criminal. In places where it has been somewhat criminalized, something is usually at stake. Educational access, housing access, etc. I can at least understand the argument in that context. We talkin bout CAKE. Cake, bruh. Would your Batman intervene against a bigoted sex worker? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/40 "2018-08-16T18:08:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I doubt if the Commission even cares if they lose in the Supreme Court again. If they can drive this guy out of business, maybe the thought criminals in Colorado can be bullied into submission no matter what the Constitution says. And if that doesn’t work, maybe they could send him to a special camp to try to forcibly change the way he thinks. You know, like the actual camps religious conservatives send gay people to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732.md?page=3)