Sorry to respond to this so late, but the RFRA was found to be unconstitutional in regard to state law in Boerne vs Flores.
The doctrine that laws must be generally applicable still applies however. Once you’ve established that cakemakers can choose not to decorate a cake inconsistent with their moral beliefs, that’s the law of the land unless the legislature specifically requires all cakemakers to make any and all designs without exception.
Once you allow exceptions, the law is no longer “generally applicable”. And you must also consider religious exceptions as well.
Yes, that’s true. But what happened here wasn’t that the baker refuses to decorate the cake because the decoration was inconsistent with his beliefs. He refused to sell then a wedding cake at all. They didn’t even discuss the decoration of the cake. The question is, “Can a business violate the state’s nondiscrimination laws if the business owner has a moral objection to following them?”
So he could lose, but still win, because he did offer to sell them a premade cake. he could just nix any design that wasn’t already one of his standard cakes going forward.
I don’t think the baker cares much whether he has to go to classes or make sure all employees know the policy. What he’s concerned about is whether he’ll have to provide cakes that specifically endorse gay weddings, like “Congratulations to Bob and Jim”. According to his state’s own commission, he can object to that.
No, it’s my understanding that he refused to do consider making ANY custom design for a gay wedding. It had nothing to do with the particulars of the design.
And really, maybe I’m a blue state elitist but, aside from tastefully incorporated initials, who puts freaking text on a wedding cake? Certainly none of the wedding cake designs displayed on the Masterpiece Cakeshop webpage incorporate text…I checked. If the red state folks customarily serve sheet cakes embellished with stuff like “ Have a Blessed Wedding Day, Jim Loves Mary, Mary Loves Jim, God Loves Mary and Jim”, then the divide is deeper than I thought.
Usually not words, but often a cake topper features a man and a woman. He could sell cakes for gay weddings with a male/female topper on them. The couple would of course be free to get a male/male topper or just remove it later on of course.
Oh, you think you’re going to make people actually pay attention to the facts in this? :dubious:
Good Luck (and I actually do mean that! :))!
CMC fnord!
Who wins and loses this case isn’t as important as the details of what SCOTUS decides. If they rule that he has to serve gay couples but he gets to dictate what kind of cake he’ll sell them, that’s pretty significant.
While overt discrimination is illegal, businesses that are more welcoming to certain groups and lightly discourage non-members of that group from walking in the doors is perfectly legal and a natural part of how commerce works. Christian book stores serve primarily Christians. No, they do not have to order you “The Case For Gay Marriage”. There’s no real conflict because no one walks into a Christian book store looking for kosher cookbooks or witchcraft. An overtly Christian bakery is likewise going to be a less welcoming place for non-practicing Christians and non-Christians. You’re not going to walk into a Christian bake shop for a kosher cake.
But the problem isn’t what he’says willing to make, but who he’s willing to make it for. It’s not like a Christian bookstore refusing to carry “The Case For Gay Marriage” or a Christian bakery selling a kosher cake.
The issue is that he’s willing to sell an item to a straight person and not sell the idea to call item to a gay person. He’s discriminating based on sexual orientation, not on purchase.
That’s what he actually DID, but that’s not something he seems to care about as a general principle. I’m sure he’s served tons of gay customers, Jewish customers, divorced customers, alcoholic customers, etc. What he seems to want is to avoid endorsing any of those things. I suspect that even if he loses he’ll be pretty satisfied with the latitude SCOTUS gives him.
He seems to care a lot about not serving gay people wedding cakes.
If so, he’s probably not going to get what he wants. But if the reports that he was willing to give them a pre-made cake are true, it doesn’t look like he’d have a problem selling to gays for weddings. Just custom-making cakes.
No, that is precisely what he cares about as a general principle, or he would have made a cake for the couple and we wouldn’t be having this lawsuit.
You do understand that, almost, no one walks into a bakery and walks out minutes later with a wedding cake . . .
What am I saying, it’s obvious you don’t! :smack:
CMC fnord!
There are other ways to get wedding cakes besides going to a bakery.
He did not offer them a generic wedding cake, as he claims those don’t exist. He offered them other items in his bakery that were not wedding cakes-or so he eventually claimed.
I think it would be pretty easy to establish that there are some parts of a wedding cake that are truly creative expression, and parts that aren’t. You don’t need to have a generic cake, just some generic options, I’d think.
It’s true the court probably couldn’t make that determination on every case, but they don’t bother with that on fair use, either. They just make certain guidelines, and then it’s decided on a case-by-case basis. That should be what happens here, too.
I think what would be easiest would be to look at what parts of a wedding cake are commonly available in all wedding cakes, regardless of the sex of the participants, and what parts are exclusive to cakes made for same sex cakes, or what things are so uncommon as to clearly be individual. And then throw in something about actual words, which can’t be compelled at all, and you have what I would see to be a good way to determine the issue.
I do see a potential freedom of speech case in a similar scenario, IF the baker had been asked to include any sort of message on the cake that he didn’t want to say, and offered them an alternative to be sure they’d still get their cake.
That is what I hope the Court is doing with this. Because otherwise this was a bad case to take. If they don’t use this to establish anything, then they should have just let the ruling stand. Well, unless they actually plan to try and override such laws, which would be horrible.
Because it would actually be removing freedoms: the freedom of the people of the State to pass such a law. It would be federal overreach.
I think they took it because the Colorado commission seemed to be actively hostile to religion, but friendly to secular concerns. As I’ve said before, these commissions really should go away, they are usually stocked with activists rather than serious legal minds. The courts are the proper case to adjudicate these types of disagreements.
And if he was willing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple (and all wedding cakes are custom to some degree - nobody would call a sheet cake a “wedding cake” even if it was served at a wedding)) and simply didn’t carry their preferred cake topper, leaving them to buy one of the eleventy bajillion cake toppers available online , there probably wouldn’t have been a complaint to that commission and therefore no lawsuit. Lots of wedding cakes don’t have toppers, and even some of those that do don’t have a man and a woman, just words that are suitable for any wedding , like “And so the adventure begins” or “Happily Ever After” or “Best day ever”. I can’t remember the last time I saw a wedding cake with the old fashioned, got-it-from-the-bakery generic bride and groom topper.
Which are? I mean, you could go to a professional baker who doesn’t also sell premade baked goods, or you could get the wedding cake from the venue but that’s not different than going to a bakery in any significant way.
Or your wife could have like the biggest family ever and so pretty much every profession is covered so your wedding is basically free.
She had a pastor, a photographer, a band, a family member who owned a small venue, a dressmaker(made all the dresses for the bridesmaids too), a chef, and yes, a baker. Wedding cake was awe inspiring to look at, but man did it taste shitty.
Those reports, if they exist anywhere outside you’re imagination, are not true.
He doesn’t just have pre-made cakes laying around in case someone wanders into his store and wants to buy a wedding cake on the spot. At no point was he willing to sell them a pre-made cake. There were no pre-made cakes sell. Please stop talking about pre-made cakes.