# Did the Colorado cake maker refuse to sell the gay couple any cake, or just a custom "gay" design? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 8, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925 "2017-12-08T16:50:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 9
**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:** [June 15, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/161 "2018-06-15T15:17:46Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > There is no law that states that. GQ is supposed to be for factual answers, not hypotheticals. 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) ---
**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:** [June 15, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/162 "2018-06-15T16:31:11Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You said: > > There is no law that states that. GQ is supposed to be for factual answers, not hypotheticals. There is no law that says that you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in Colorado? Then what did this baker spend so much time, effort, and money fighting? He should have just said, “Some guy on the internet said, ‘There is no law that states that.’” then he could have gone back to his normal bigoted day. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2018, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/163 "2018-06-15T17:30:50Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) I thought you were making a joke the first time. Now I think you do not know what those mean. [21 USC §461](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/461) is a federal law defining the penalty for various offences related to mishandling, mislabeling, or impermissible processing of poultry products. It also defines assaulting or murdering a poultry inspector in the course of his duties as a federal offence. [9 CFR §381.171(d)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171) is in a regulation providing **Definition and standard for “Turkey Ham.”** > [@](#): > > (federal d) The product name on the label shall show the word “Turkey” in the same size, style, color, and with the same background as the word “Ham” and shall precede and be adjacent to it. So Turkey Ham is ok on a food label. But Ham Turkey is not - wrong word order. And Turkey Ham is not - different fonts Neither have anything to do whatsoever with the issues at hand in the _Masterpiece Cakeshop_ case. ---
**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:** [June 15, 2018, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/164 "2018-06-15T17:52:46Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > I thought you were making a joke the first time. Now I think you do not know what those mean. > > [21 USC §461](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/461) is a federal law defining the penalty for various offences related to mishandling, mislabeling, or impermissible processing of poultry products. It also defines assaulting or murdering a poultry inspector in the course of his duties as a federal offence. > > [9 CFR §381.171(d)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171) is in a regulation providing **Definition and standard for “Turkey Ham.”** > So Turkey Ham is ok on a food label. > But Ham Turkey is not - wrong word order. > And Turkey Ham is not - different fonts > Neither have anything to do whatsoever with the issues at hand in the _Masterpiece Cakeshop_ case. This is true, but I think he was responding to **D’Anconia** ’s posts, wherein D’Anconia claimed that government officials cannot “trump the first amendment”. Not that D’anconia’s posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that **kayaker** was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials _can_ “trump the first amendment”, and provides these as his cite. ---
**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:** [June 15, 2018, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/165 "2018-06-15T17:56:42Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > This is true, but I think he was responding to **D’Anconia** ’s posts, wherein D’Anconia claimed that government officials cannot “trump the first amendment”. Not that D’anconia’s posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that **kayaker** was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials _can_ “trump the first amendment”, and provides these as his cite. If I could speak half as eloquently as that, I’d never stop talking. Now, back to my delicious Turkey Ham Angelfood cake. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2018, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/166 "2018-06-15T18:16:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > This is true, but I think he was responding to **D’Anconia** ’s posts, wherein D’Anconia claimed that government officials cannot “trump the first amendment”. Not that D’anconia’s posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that **kayaker** was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials _can_ “trump the first amendment”, and provides these as his cite. This I assume was a way to set out what the law requires to avoid deceptive labelling. Truth in labelling and advertising is in the public interest. The first amendment is not absolute, or there wouldn’t be a law against perjury. The government can describe what it takes to accurately label a product, or any other activity where dishonesty is a crime. (Including playing font games to mislabel something). I think it was Robert Heinlein who said if you want to see what people were in the habit of doing, look at what they have laws against. ---
**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:** [June 15, 2018, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/167 "2018-06-15T18:28:01Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > This is true, but I think he was responding to **D’Anconia** ’s posts, wherein D’Anconia claimed that government officials cannot “trump the first amendment”. Not that D’anconia’s posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that **kayaker** was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials _can_ “trump the first amendment”, and provides these as his cite. Commercial speech is not held to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as Free Exercise of religion is. As business owners, both you and **kayaker** should already know that. ---
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2018, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/168 "2018-06-20T05:00:54Z")
Since the reason he didn’t make the cake was that it was for the wedding of a gay couple (a legal act in the entire USA since Obergefell v. Hodges), and homosexuality is against his religious beliefs. Using that same reasoning, he shouldn’t make any other product for homosexuals. Yet he says that Craig and Mullins are welcome in his shop to purchase any other products. So birthdays for gays are OK, just not weddings? The foundation for the biblical stance against homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13: > [@](#): > > If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Yet Phillips did _not_ put the men to death, as the Bible commands. How is he following his religion if he doesn’t kill same-sex couples that have admitted to him (by inference) that they have layed down with each other? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2018, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/169 "2018-06-20T21:00:11Z")
> [@AWB](#): > > Since the reason he didn’t make the cake was that it was for the wedding of a gay couple (a legal act in the entire USA since Obergefell v. Hodges), and homosexuality is against his religious beliefs. > > Using that same reasoning, he shouldn’t make any other product for homosexuals. Yet he says that Craig and Mullins are welcome in his shop to purchase any other products. So birthdays for gays are OK, just not weddings? > > The foundation for the biblical stance against homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13: > Yet Phillips did _not_ put the men to death, as the Bible commands. How is he following his religion if he doesn’t kill same-sex couples that have admitted to him (by inference) that they have layed down with each other? If you’re bored, google and read “letter to Doctor Laura”. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/170 "2018-06-20T21:07:15Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Commercial speech is not held to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as Free Exercise of religion is. As business owners, both you and **kayaker** should already know that. I missed this before. The entire point of this argument is in determining whether or not the baker is performing commercial speech or free exercise of religion. So, it’s not really a done deal as you seem to be thinking it is. And in any case, you have not explained why you think that you should be using the hypothetical case that the law may be overturned when talking to your pastor about a law that is on the books. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2018, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/171 "2018-06-20T21:42:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I missed this before. > > The entire point of this argument is in determining whether or not the baker is performing commercial speech or free exercise of religion. So, it’s not really a done deal as you seem to be thinking it is. > > And in any case, you have not explained why you think that you should be using the hypothetical case that the law may be overturned when talking to your pastor about a law that is on the books. No, the question is whether one person’s free exercise of religion (one right) trumps (sorry) the other persons’ right not to be discriminated against or vice versa. It is perhaps a relevant but peripheral question how much the work of the baker is commercial speech vs. personal speech. Artwork is personal, making commodities for sale is commercial. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2018, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/172 "2018-06-20T22:19:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The entire point of this argument is in determining whether or not the baker is performing commercial speech or free exercise of religion. So, it’s not really a done deal as you seem to be thinking it is. That’s not correct. Commercial speech is primarily advertising. Free Exercise is totally different, and has a higher level of Constitutional protection. > **[Commercial speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech)** > > In law, commercial speech is speech or writing on behalf of a business with the intent of earning revenue or a profit. It is economic in nature and usually attempts to persuade consumers to purchase the business's product or service. The Supreme Court of the United States defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction". > In the United States, commercial speech is "entitled to substantial First Amendment protection, albeit less than political, ideological, or artistic... ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/173 "2018-06-20T23:49:34Z")
> [@AWB](#): > > Since the reason he didn’t make the cake was that it was for the wedding of a gay couple (a legal act in the entire USA since Obergefell v. Hodges), and homosexuality is against his religious beliefs. > > Using that same reasoning, he shouldn’t make any other product for homosexuals. Yet he says that Craig and Mullins are welcome in his shop to purchase any other products. So birthdays for gays are OK, just not weddings? > > The foundation for the biblical stance against homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13: > Yet Phillips did _not_ put the men to death, as the Bible commands. How is he following his religion if he doesn’t kill same-sex couples that have admitted to him (by inference) that they have layed down with each other? Very fair question! ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2018, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/174 "2018-06-21T05:41:09Z")
Do I really have to post the whole thing? > [@](#): > > Dear Dr. Laura: > Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. > I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I > can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that > Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. … End of debate. > I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Law and how to > follow them. > > 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – > Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite > them? > 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, > what do you think would be a fair price for her? > 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual > uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take > offence. > 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are > purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not > Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? > 5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly > states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? > 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a > lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there “degrees” of > abomination? > 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to > admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room > here? > 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even > though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? > 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still > play football if I wear gloves? > 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as > does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). > He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of > getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death > at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) > I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such > matters, so I am confident you can help. > Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. > Your adoring fan, > Anonymous I think the guy that wrote this is trying to make a point. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/175 "2018-06-21T16:36:53Z")
Once again we see a sort of No True Scotsman argument. Court precedent clearly indicates that a person raising a religious objection argument need not conform to what another person thinks should be his beliefs. From [United States v. Seeger (1965)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/case.html) which dealt with religious objections raised to the military draft: > [@](#): > > Local boards and courts are to decide whether the objector’s beliefs are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious; they are not to require proof of the religious doctrines, nor are they to reject beliefs because they are not comprehensible. So it does not matter if a baker says his Christian beliefs preclude him from baking a cake for a same sex wedding even though the baker wears a shirt made of mixed fabrics that an outside observer might think he shouldn’t wear if he was a “true” Christian. The court precedent robustly permits religious claims from so called [Cafeteria Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity) who pick and choose which beliefs to adhere to. This is not to say that a court could not rule against such religious objection on other neutral grounds. But a court is NOT in the business of deciding whether a particular religious faith requires holding a particular belief. A court can examine whether a professed belief is sincerely held. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925/176 "2018-06-21T19:10:21Z")
I had not seen the “Dr. Laura letter”, which I assume did not actually come anywhere near the good doctor? Pretty funny. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-colorado-cake-maker-refuse-to-sell-the-gay-couple-any-cake-or-just-a-custom-gay-design/803925.md?page=8)