# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/81 "2018-08-17T01:02:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > [Colorado Baker Sues State, After Refusing To Make Cake For Transgender Woman : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2018/08/16/639147599/colorado-baker-sues-state-again-after-refusing-to-make-cake-for-transgender-woma?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180816) > > Do the comments of the regulatory body forever taint it so that it is vulnerable against accusations of religious antipathy? > > Is this case different because there is no sacrament involved? > > Does it matter that the baker is willing to sell the transgender customer a birthday cake, etc. but not one that celebrates the anniversary of transition from male to female? > > At some point SCOTUS will have to take a position on religious freedom vs lgbtq rights. Not true, because there is no way for this to abrogate anyone’s religious freedom. The baker’s religion remains as the baker prefers it when he makes such a cake. What he’s requesting is the “freedom” to dictate the religion of cake-eaters he’s never met. He doesn’t need or have or deserve the right to dictate. However, all right, taking the bait: Yes, your neighbour’s existence handily outweighs your religious rights, every day and twice on Sundays. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/82 "2018-08-17T01:11:49Z")
(and many times I have “put my money where my mouth is” and actually been a full participant in religious ceremonies I don’t agree with.) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/83 "2018-08-17T01:45:16Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What’s your point? That discrimination is okay? That the constitution successfully gave the current government the power to criminalize it? That people who aren’t part of the current government can do everything, up to and especially including killing minorities and eating them with fava beans and a nice chianti? If you are going to make up answers to your so-called questions and assign them to me why do you even bother asking? In case you want a real answer instead of just a chance to editorialize and slay strawmen here you go. [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution](https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution) > **[The Paradox of Rights 'Granted' Us by Government](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/01/16/the-paradox-of-rights-granted-us-by-government/#326bb6716767)** > > The listing of rights in the Constitution, e.g., the Bill of Rights, is redundant, not defining. It was inserted after the fact for emphasis and extra protection against over reaching government officials. I’m sure I can find many more cites including the Federalist Papers. I doubt these cites will do any good… We could even have a Constitutional Convention and write anything really. If the principle of power delegated from axiomatically sovereign people to a charter is still contentious that ought to remove any doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Sloe\_Moe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sloe\_Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sloe_Moe)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/84 "2018-08-17T01:51:54Z")
I want to ask something: can refusing to do business with someone or something be held discriminatory? What if it was a Nazi who wanted an Auschwitz theme? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/85 "2018-08-17T01:56:31Z")
I’m betting this might be a ploy to put the dude out of business. Or am I becoming too cynical? IF what he says is true, and he’s never made this kind of cake before, I imagine he’d probably be in the right. I believe he’s said he doesn’t make Halloween cakes, because he’s one of those uber-fundies who thinks Halloween is sinful. :rolleyes: (Maybe another test case could go in and ask him to make a cake for Solstice or whatever Wiccans call Halloween?) > [@Sloe\_Moe](#): > > I want to ask something: can refusing to do business with someone or something be held discriminatory? What if it was a Nazi who wanted an Auschwitz theme? Something similiar happened a few years ago – a bakery refused to do a birthday cake for a kid whose parents named him Adolf Hitler. (I don’t believe there was a lawsuit though, just that it was in the news) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/86 "2018-08-17T02:07:52Z")
> [@Jennshark](#): > > I’m a big 'ol gay girl and am kinda “meh” on this. Yeah, CakeMan is a bigoted shithead and needs to follow the law; OTOH, I think there are more important battles to give our time, money and attention to. If you only view it in isolation and only about whether or not that person gets a cake made then yeah. No one really cares. If you see it as a step forward or backwards on the justice ladder then it is a big deal. For instance if you viewed the anti-miscegenation case [Loving v. Virginia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) as merely about whether Mildred and Richard could get married you might be kinda “meh” about it too but at stake is a much larger question that affects the whole country. Same idea here. ---
**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 17, 2018, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/87 "2018-08-17T02:20:59Z")
> [@Sloe\_Moe](#): > > I want to ask something: can refusing to do business with someone or something be held discriminatory? What if it was a Nazi who wanted an Auschwitz theme? In the U.S., anti-discrimination laws apply only to protected classes. Political affiliation is not protected, so you can discriminate against Nazis all you want. Notably, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity are explicitly protected under Federal law (although “Sex” can be interpreted to include them), but they are unambiguously protected in Colorado and some other states. > **[Protected group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group)** > > A protected group, protected class (US), or prohibited ground (Canada) is a category by which people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In Canada and the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment and housing. Where illegal discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on more than one protected class. For example, discrimination based on antisemit... [https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/colorado-employment-discrimination-31680.html](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/colorado-employment-discrimination-31680.html) See also: > **[Suspect classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification)** > > In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. When a law or government action affects a group that falls under a "suspect classification," courts apply... And, on the type of business that is bound by anti-discrimination law: > **[Public accommodations in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations)** > > In United States law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.\[citation needed\] > Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national orig... ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/88 "2018-08-17T06:11:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If you only view it in isolation and only about whether or not that person gets a cake made then yeah. No one really cares. > > If you see it as a step forward or backwards on the justice ladder then it is a big deal. For instance if you viewed the anti-miscegenation case [Loving v. Virginia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) as merely about whether Mildred and Richard could get married you might be kinda “meh” about it too but at stake is a much larger question that affects the whole country. Same idea here. Whatever your feelings are on the whole cake thing, I don’t think comparison here fits. _Loving vs. Virginia_ involved the government, this is a private business. (No, private businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate either, but they have a bit more leeway than public ones) And it’s also about a custom made item, so it’s more of a grey area. ---
**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 17, 2018, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/89 "2018-08-17T08:01:31Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Whatever your feelings are on the whole cake thing, I don’t think comparison here fits. _Loving vs. Virginia_ involved the government, this is a private business. (No, private businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate either, but they have a bit more leeway than public ones) > > And it’s also about a custom made item, so it’s more of a grey area. Yes. Is the baker a jerk? Yes he’s a jerk. But we can’t force him to do the right thing, he has his protections just like you and I do. ---
**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 17, 2018, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/90 "2018-08-17T08:31:05Z")
> [@BeenJammin](#): > > At least I’m clear about not answering diversionary questions. 🙂 You’ve made several statements about the Supreme Court ruling that suggest that you do not understand what the reasoning behind the Supreme Court ruling was, so asking you about your understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is not only not “diversionary”, it’s entirely on point. Your response, however, \*is \*diversionary. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/91 "2018-08-17T10:34:34Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I’m betting this might be a ploy to put the dude out of business. Or am I becoming too cynical? It would be interesting to see the results if he were to be inundated with business now. All of which he turns down. That is, twenty consults a day taking thirty minutes apiece, each eventually turning out to be a cake he refuses to make. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/92 "2018-08-17T12:35:25Z")
> [@BeenJammin](#): > > Civil rights laws have been well codified for quite some time. Bigots will always be bigots. No amount of legislation or public opinion will ever change that. If you can’t wait for them to die off, you can just go on enjoying the frustration of trying to change their minds. Better still, we can keep them from being business people in the public sector, since they obviously don’t want to serve the public, only people they deem worthy. Fuck them. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/93 "2018-08-17T12:36:46Z")
removed by author ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/94 "2018-08-17T12:42:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The tantrums over Kavanugh and Gorsuch are because of Garland. Not ultimately. The tantrums are because liberals believe Justices come in two flavors - [ul][li]Moderates, and[/ul][/li][ul][li]Homophobic anti-woman extremists[/ul]Garland was, by liberal standards, a moderate, which means that by conservative standards, he was a liberal. Obama picked someone who he thought was reliably liberal enough to be liberal on the Court, meaning would vote against any change to Roe v. Wade and SSM, but might still slide past the Senate. He, along with everyone else, figured Hillary would win the election and if the Senate flipped, Hillary could re-nominate Garland, or someone even more liberal. The GOP gambled that they would retain the Senate, which they did, and that the next nominee would be at least as moderate as Garland, or perhaps even more so. Which is how it worked out, because Trump won. So the gamble paid off big-time, and thus the Dems do not get any “moderates” nominated - they get what they characterize as anti-woman/homophobic/transphobic/neo-fascist extremist crooks, by which they mean “not liberal”. [/li] I didn’t quite get the rest of your post. You kept mentioning Gorsuch - did you mean Garland? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/95 "2018-08-17T12:49:19Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > (and many times I have “put my money where my mouth is” and actually been a full participant in religious ceremonies I don’t agree with.) And the government forced you to do so? Because that’s what we’re talking about. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/96 "2018-08-17T13:12:20Z")
> [@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. The fact that this specific baker won’t bake a cake for gay or trans people isn’t really the issue here. LGBT people have pretty extensive social knowledge and in-group lore about how so-and-so place is LGBT friendly or how their friend got harassed in the bathroom, or a waiter made fun of two girls for being a couple. We’re not exactly in the business of shopping from vendors who hate us, even when it’s just a sitdown restaurant or something that doesn’t provide any service even tangentially related to LGBT issues. This takes place in the Denver area, this guy almost certainly had a rep in the community before and was targeted for the lawsuit, and any of the candidates could’ve gone to a dozen other bakeries for a cake. The principle of this is more to protect gay or trans people stuck in smaller, more rural, spread out, or fiercely conservative areas. It’s to prevent people from being denied services or humiliated in places where you **can’t** just easily go down the street and find Rainbow Bakery, run by everyone’s favorite baker twinks and a dykes. People stuck in Nowhere, Texas or who don’t have access to a bunch of queer friends who have a network that can vet places before they ask for queer-adjacent services. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Indeed the inability to access a variety of services was so pervasive a guide book was published that helped black motorists know where they could find the things they needed while traveling in the US. > > […] > > This is more of the same except with gay people in place of black people. Or this, essentially. While I would never suggest we’re in anywhere near as dire a situation as Jim Crow POC were, it’s actually striking how much a similar “guide” very much exists even in the most diehard blue corners of Oregon, albeit in spoken word. Sure, it’s not as brazen as people putting “No Fags” signs outside their restaurants or whatever, but the LGBT community very much has lore around avoiding places where we may be either given the very subtle runaround, bathroom policed (for butch lesbians and trans people), or denied certain kinds of service linked with LGBT culture despite not being substantially different from other services (e.g. finding people who will cut LGBT peoples’ hair in queer styles or as the correct gender as a newly transitioning person can be difficult). ---
**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 17, 2018, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/97 "2018-08-17T14:12:06Z")
[quote=“Shodan, post:94, topic:819732”] Not ultimately. The tantrums are because liberals believe Justices come in two flavors - [ul][li]Moderates, and[/ul][/li][ul][li]Homophobic anti-woman extremists[/ul][/li][/quote] Whereas you appear to believe liberals come in one flavor: straw-filled. > [@](#): > > Garland was, by liberal standards, a moderate, which means that by conservative standards, he was a liberal. Obama picked someone who he thought was reliably liberal enough to be liberal on the Court, meaning would vote against any change to Roe v. Wade and SSM, but might still slide past the Senate. You seem to have accidentally omitted the part where Orrin Hatch said on multiple occasions that he and his fellow Republicans would absolutely approve Merrick Garland (a judge he had supported since the 1990s) if only Obama would nominate him for the Supreme Court, and that Hatch himself would work to get Garland approved… right up to the moment Garland was nominated by Obama, at which point Hatch and the other Republicans vowed to block him from the Supreme Court. So did Hatch suddenly discover Garland’s deeply hidden liberal bent after years of supporting him as a staunch conservative, or have we always been at war with Eastasia? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/98 "2018-08-17T14:58:10Z")
Gyrate: > [@](#): > > You appear to also be unclear on the concept of “metaphors”. I guess it went over his head. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/99 "2018-08-17T15:13:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **JRagon** : > The principle of this is more to protect gay or trans people stuck in smaller, more rural, spread out, or fiercely conservative areas. It’s to prevent people from being denied services or humiliated in places where you can’t just easily go down the street and find Rainbow Bakery, run by everyone’s favorite baker twinks and a dykes. People stuck in Nowhere, Texas or who don’t have access to a bunch of queer friends who have a network that can vet places before they ask for queer-adjacent services. I think the conservatives might have some problems comprehending this argument, as it’s based on caring about someone other than one’s self. ---
**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 17, 2018, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/100 "2018-08-17T15:13:28Z")
> [@Kyomara](#): > > I’d love to drop you into 1960 at the time of the Woolworth’s lunch counter sit-in and hear you ask “Why do all these black people want to be served lunch by people who don’t even like them?” Is that your cultural touchstone? 1960s? And ideological liberals wonder why people look at them so quizzically. > [@Gyrate](#): > > Ah. So the acceptability of bigotry is dependent on the product or service involved? Schools and housing, no; cake, yes? What about other types of food - can supermarkets discriminate, or does it depend on what the person is buying? Gas for their car - yes or no? Is furniture something one can discriminate about or does it depend on whether you’re trying to by something essential like a bed or something decorative like a display cabinet? And where do we draw the line on services - medical care, no; waitstaff table service, yes? What about dry cleaning? Or does that depend on what is being cleaned? > > Or is the “it’s only cake, bruh” argument fundamentally flawed? The idea that someone would hold a gun to someone’s head and make them produce a cake they like is beyond reprehensible. Use this test and come back to me. Or don’t. > [@Miller](#): > > No, we’re talking about the principle of non-discrimination legislation. If it doesn’t hold at a cake, it doesn’t hold anywhere, and queers (and, soon enough, blacks, Jews, women, or any other group some shit-eyed bigot decides isn’t good enough for him) can be denied any service or accommodation, anywhere, simply by invoking a fucking fairy tale monster. > > I know you don’t actually care about that, because it would mean valuing humans lives more than money, but stop with the “It’s just a cake,” bullshit. That’s not the issue, and you know it’s not the issue. Yes you are so caring for human lives that you would physically force someone living his to do what you want. What is life to you? Doing what is socially acceptable 100% of the time. Forcing others to do so? > [@Gyrate](#): > > You mean like religious conservatives used to do to gay people and still actively advocate for? > > Neither are my preferred punishment, FWIW. So do you prefer the stockade for bigots? Stoning? How will you make him conform? > [@Riemann](#): > > And the same arguments were made about hotel rooms, restaurants, whatever - who would want to patronize a business that doesn’t want them as customers? > > There are two established principles here: > > (1) Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hold bigoted views if we so choose. > > (2) The government can and will restrict our freedom to discriminate among customers _if we choose to run a public business_. > > If we don’t like those restrictions, we are free to choose not to run such a business, just as we are free to refrain from driving if we dislike the restriction to driving only on the right. Your claim to a qualitative distinction based on the government owning the roads is bogus. The underlying principle is that the government places restrictions on public activity of all kinds for the common good. We may disagree on what should be the extent of those restrictions, but the restrictions do not fall into a different category based on government ownership of one thing but not the other. Do you believe government owns your body? If so it makes sense when you deny the freedom to do what you want with your body. If my body wants to open a bakery, fine. If my body does not want to make a certain cake, you commandeer the body in service of the state and its clients. > [@begbert2](#): > > Are you so desperate to ad hominem when you’re not in the wrong? > > Now that we’ve gotten past your desperate ad hominems, we are at the crux of your argument. “It’s just a cake, so it shouldn’t be a big enough deal to matter to the baker that they have to stop acting like a bigot long enough to engage in business without illegally discriminating against their customers.” > > Oh, wait, you meant “Cake is SUPER IMPORTANT if it being important supports my side, and NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL when we’re just talking about something petty like denying business to a protected class.” > > Wait, I’m getting confused. When is cake important again? > > Keeping in mind that ‘my’ Batman is a person who is concerned with whether the criminal in question is normalizing an environment where businesses can ostracize an entire subclass, I’d say probably not. Sex workers aren’t in a position to normalize anything. You upped the ante on the crazy, I’m glad you’ve calmed down a bit, I was a bit worried. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732.md?page=6)