# Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792 "2013-12-08T01:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/201 "2013-12-10T23:00:47Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit on “hostile work environment” grounds. This would be intolerable for _any_ reason. I hope she has a good lawyer and takes these bozos to the cleaners. She’s pursuing it, but since gender identity and expression are not yet Title VII protections, they have to rely upon Macy v. Holder and other judgments since then under the EEOC’s auspices. As a result, in the small town where she lives, no lawyer really feels they have the experience to push the envelope (whereas here in my city, my best friend is an attorney who also happens to be a transsexual woman like me, and who is salivating over taking companies to court, pro bono if she has to). **Falchion** , gender identity and expression aren’t directly addressed by Title VII. They are implicitly addressed, however, in that she is legally female (sans birth certificate), and being harassed as such. I’m certainly not the legal mind to say how it would turn out. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/202 "2013-12-10T23:08:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think **Una’s** story illustrates that the strategy of waiting for society to change, and having government stay hands-off, has real victims. In her friend’s case, strong antidiscrimination laws would make a real difference–or, if her jurisdiction has them, **will** make a real difference. Her life will be changed by the presence or absence of those laws. If they don’t exist, things will be a lot worse for her than if they do exist. Exactly, thank you. My point of bringing it up here in this thread was not to beat the drum on my pet subject, but to illustrate a case where like you say, a total lack of protections leads to an employer pushing around and abusing, then terminating an employee. Never, under any circumstances, had my friend been disciplined for showing up late, leaving early, poor or sloppy work, not enough work, rudeness to customers, or problems with fellow employees (in fact, her co-workers all supported her). This came down to a manager who used their personal religious bias in a secular establishment to practice prejudice against one of their employees. It’s one of a hundred, nay more, examples I could dig up and post just regarding my people. > [@](#): > > Consider the alternative: whose life is made worse by the existence of those laws, and how? The argument made in the 1960’s against the Civil Rights Act was that it would destroy the foundation of America, thus allowing the Godless Communists to move on in, rape our fields, and pillage our women. Nowadays we’re told that lack of faith allows the Muslim terrorists and other “scary brown people” to come into the suburbs and…well, rape our golf courses and pillage our maids, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/203 "2013-12-10T23:11:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The store would claim that its religious faith was being attacked, and every stupid bigot for miles around would come to show “solidarity”. See also: Chik-Fil-A. :mad: You see how this isn’t a good idea, guys? You see how reasonable antidiscrimination laws would have been helpful here? And too, in the small town where she works, the unemployment rate is obscene. They could replace all the workers in a day. > [@](#): > > On a slightly more tangential note, parts of this story remind me a lot of the “controversy” of trans women using the restroom, and how “harassed” some women feel by it, and how this ignores the very real fact that trans women are basically _constantly_ given shit for trying to use the restroom of their correct gender. The whole issue is completely disgusting. I daresay that the free market isn’t about to solve this problem. Mercifully, they had unisex toilets where she worked, so that issue never arose. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/204 "2013-12-10T23:18:08Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > **Falchion** , gender identity and expression aren’t directly addressed by Title VII. They are implicitly addressed, however, in that she is legally female (sans birth certificate), and being harassed as such. I’m certainly not the legal mind to say how it would turn out. It’s not directly addressed. But there is a body of authority, beginning (at least) with _Price Waterhouse_, and from which I do not know of any significant departures, that suggests that discrimination for failing to comply with accepted gender norms in a Title VII violation (there was a recent 5th circuit case on it that (I think) misapplied the principle, but did so in favor of those asserting claims).\* So if your friend was a man behaving effeminately, that would be the clearest example of this sort of claim (and, what most of those decisions have dealt with). I suppose having transitioned from male to female puts a wrinkle on that, but not really: now she’s a woman who is viewed in a masculine manner (that was, in fact, what _Price Waterhouse_ was about). I guess the complication is that we have a female being discriminated against for being too female, and that sounds a little odd, but that’s really within the bailiwick of Title VII. At a high level of generality (and obviously without offering anything remotely resembling legal advice), the facts you assert are far easier than some of the “do they think the effeminate guy is ‘guy’ or ‘unmasculine’?” cases that are out there. - There is also a movement among gay rights activists to portray claims based on sexual orientation (which Title VII does not cover) as gender stereotyping claims (i.e., a man attracted to another man fails to comply with our expectations of men). Those have been unsuccessful and, frankly, I think make it difficult to bring “true” gender stereotyping claims. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/205 "2013-12-11T03:07:33Z")
[quote=“Farin, post:189, topic:675792”] > [@](#): > > Mercy: compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm. I fail to see how the baker had the power to punish or harm, unless causing any discomfort ammounts to harm. > [@](#): > > Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with Can you show an example of Jesus condoning something He had explicitly called wrong? > [@](#): > > Matthew 25:40:" “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" The “least of these” did not impose themselves on others but rahter were attacked. > [@](#): > > Luke 6:27-36: 27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew 10:34) I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father\* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53) > [@](#): > > Una was using the terms correctly and speaking of Jesus’s teachings correctly. Perhaps you should take your own advice on checking up on mercy and tolerance and reading about Him and what He said. No, she wasn’t. The fact the Jesus showed mercy and compassion does not mean he would approve of everything that causes a person to be oppressed. When he spoke for the adulterous woman He told her to “sin no more”. So compassion yes and mercy yes, but no acceptance. I will stop now any further religious point as per Jonathan Chance’s instructions. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/206 "2013-12-11T03:56:30Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Can you show an example of Jesus condoning something He had explicitly called wrong? Pro tip: “Condone” and “tolerate” are two different words. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/207 "2013-12-11T04:22:45Z")
Isn’t the whole point of Jesus the forgiveness of sin? So long as you’re sorry, almost any behaviour would appear to be condoned (or tolerated, for that matter). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/208 "2013-12-11T04:23:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Can you show an example of Jesus condoning something He had explicitly called wrong? Can you show an example of Jesus explicitly condemning transsexuals? Can you point to Jesus making any explicit statement regarding transsexuals or sexual identity in any situation? Barring an affirmative answer to those questions, you are at best projecting your own personal beliefs onto Scripture. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/209 "2013-12-11T06:46:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What relevant difference do you see between a business owner choosing not to serve a customer and a business owner choosing not to continue employing an employee? Well, despite the fact that i’m happy to have protections for trans people in both cases, it seems to me that there are some important differences that might justify legal intervention in one case, but not the other. Whatever one thinks about the basic morality of discrimination, laws also address issues of harm, and the relative level of harm in particular instances. Discriminating against a person in the arena of employment is likely to have far greater practical consequences than discriminating against a person in the arena of customer service. If one bigot fires an employee for being trans, and another bigot refuses to sell a cake to a trans person, the bigotry behind the two incidents might be the same, but the consequences for the victim of discrimination are far greater in the former case. The laws already make distinctions like this. Sexual harassment laws, for example. Sexual advances that would be illegal if made by a boss to an employee might, depending on your point of view, be merely gross or inappropriate when made in situations where no employer/employee relationship exists. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/210 "2013-12-11T07:13:53Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, despite the fact that i’m happy to have protections for trans people in both cases, it seems to me that there are some important differences that might justify legal intervention in one case, but not the other. > > Whatever one thinks about the basic morality of discrimination, laws also address issues of harm, and the relative level of harm in particular instances. Discriminating against a person in the arena of employment is likely to have far greater practical consequences than discriminating against a person in the arena of customer service. If one bigot fires an employee for being trans, and another bigot refuses to sell a cake to a trans person, the bigotry behind the two incidents might be the same, but the consequences for the victim of discrimination are far greater in the former case. > > The laws already make distinctions like this. Sexual harassment laws, for example. Sexual advances that would be illegal if made by a boss to an employee might, depending on your point of view, be merely gross or inappropriate when made in situations where no employer/employee relationship exists. I’m not disagreeing with you, But I would like to add that (in my mind at least) a not insignificant part of anti-discrimination laws are to 1. Draw a clear line in the sand that, as a society, we do NOT accept this sort of behaviour - making it “wrong”, and telling the perpetrator in no uncertain terms that they don’t have right, morality or anything else on their side 2. Particularly in the case of employment - while the law won’t stop people from holding such stupid ideas - at the very least the laws make the person examine their position - if I don’t want to hire someone because they’re black, the laws can at least make the person admit this to themselves and try to come up with another justification. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/211 "2013-12-11T09:11:26Z")
Fuck. Fuck the religious. Some Muslim cleric has gone and appealed against the high court ruling that decriminalised homosexuality. The Supreme court upheld the appeal, and nobody knows how long it will take parliament to act, what with elections mid next year. Fuck. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/212 "2013-12-11T09:19:16Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Isn’t the whole point of Jesus the forgiveness of sin? So long as you’re sorry, almost any behaviour would appear to be condoned (or tolerated, for that matter). No, almost any behaviour is _forgiven_, with a side order of “Go, and sin no more”. Being “sorry” with the intention of carrying on right as you are isn’t sorry at all. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/213 "2013-12-11T09:33:51Z")
People, I apologise - What with work and this new development which is already causing the emails to go around, I’m going to have to drop out of this thread. Thank you for the debate. Again I would like to reiterate my position that the end we seek is not different, only the means we seek to adopt are. Most likely, our perspectives on that are different because our backgrounds are different. In India, government has too long been over invasive and involved in too much. It has stifled the country’s growth and led to extreme and unnecessary suffering for far too many people, well beyond the struggles of discrimination, bad as those are. And of course it makes discrimination worse too. Right now, today, 150 years after the British decided that it was ok for government to legislate against voluntary interactions between two people that do not affect people at large, any bigot who dislikes gay men in my country has the force of criminal law behind him. In a country as large and as beset with problems as ours, to focus government attention on this is going to be difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/214 "2013-12-11T11:29:29Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > And of course it makes discrimination worse too. Right now, today, 150 years after the British decided that it was ok for government to legislate against voluntary interactions between two people that do not affect people at large, any bigot who dislikes gay men in my country has the force of criminal law behind him. The same was true in the US within living memory. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/215 "2013-12-11T11:47:16Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > And of course it makes discrimination worse too. Right now, today, 150 years after the British decided that it was ok for government to legislate against voluntary interactions between two people that do not affect people at large Wait, I know you’re dropping out of the thread and all, but are you implying that prior to the British, the government was hands-off on all “voluntary interactions between two people that do not affect people at large”? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/216 "2013-12-11T13:00:22Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I’m not disagreeing with you, > > But I would like to add that (in my mind at least) a not insignificant part of anti-discrimination laws are to > > 1. Draw a clear line in the sand that, as a society, we do NOT accept this sort of behaviour - making it “wrong”, and telling the perpetrator in no uncertain terms that they don’t have right, morality or anything else on their side > 2. Particularly in the case of employment - while the law won’t stop people from holding such stupid ideas - at the very least the laws make the person examine their position - if I don’t want to hire someone because they’re black, the laws can at least make the person admit this to themselves and try to come up with another justification. I thought the employment part (In this thread) was firing the ‘bigot baker’ that was refusing to serve the individual - not firing a transsexual baker for being transsexual. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/217 "2013-12-11T13:21:29Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Fuck. Fuck the religious. Some Muslim cleric has gone and appealed against the high court ruling that decriminalised homosexuality. The Supreme court upheld the appeal, and nobody knows how long it will take parliament to act, what with elections mid next year. Fuck. **AK84** has provided a link to articles on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in this thread: [Supreme Court of India restores gay sex ban](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=710143). ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/218 "2013-12-11T13:40:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Wait, I know you’re dropping out of the thread and all, but are you implying that prior to the British, the government was hands-off on all “voluntary interactions between two people that do not affect people at large”? Prior to the British, there wasn’t “the government” at all AIUI, although the Mughals ran most of the subcontinent for a time. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/219 "2013-12-11T14:16:27Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Prior to the British, there wasn’t “the government” at all AIUI, although the Mughals ran most of the subcontinent for a time. There wasn’t a nation state perhaps, but there was a government, to the extent that there were people in charge. From my understanding there were minor things like, say, the caste system, that interfered with free contracts between willing parties. Edit: reading a bit about the caste system, turns out there’s controversy over the degree to which the British formalized it; that may not be the best example. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/220 "2013-12-11T14:27:43Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Prior to the British, there wasn’t “the government” at all AIUI, although the Mughals ran most of the subcontinent for a time. Eh? Of course there was government. Not a unitary one; the subcontinent was basically a bunch of city-states with some larger accretions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=12)