# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/221 "2013-12-11T17:29:30Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I fail to see how the baker had the power to punish or harm, unless causing any discomfort ammounts to harm. Perhaps you should read Una’s story. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Can you show an example of Jesus condoning something He had explicitly called wrong? Jesus never said to hate others. You are thinking of the Old Testament. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The “least of these” did not impose themselves on others but rahter were attacked. What? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew 10:34) The sword is idelogy. Not violence. He will come and divide the world by His words. He does not say to shun or kill those you are divided against. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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) Cutting into the middle of Luke 12:51 and pretending it supports you is wrong. The full verse is: > [@Luke12:49-53](#): > > 49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth—and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is finished! 51 Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52 For from now on there will be five in one household divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” He is, again, talking about his ideology and not violence against members of your own house. Disagreement does not mean you take up against them. The statement is warning you that _they_ may take up violence _against you_ because of His message. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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. John 7:53 - 8:11 is to teach forgiveness and should also teach you that you should not condemn (or cast the first stone at) someone. Instead, you have taken away the opposite: we must all cast the first stone. Note that the passage does not say “He who is without **this** sin” it is “He who is without sin.” And don’t forget: > [@Luke 6:37-38](#): > > 37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you: A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be poured into your lap. For the measure you use will be the measure you receive.” ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/222 "2013-12-11T19:06:59Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > 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. And? Being sorry is enough? If the law said that criminals who provably commited a crime but who were genuinely sorry about it get off scot-free, i’d call that condoning and tolerating (and forgiving). If it said that the price of murder was a £100 fine so long as you’re sorry, that would be condoning and tolerating. The end result either way is “Hey, it’s fine if you do that, so long as you’re truly sorry afterwards, we’ll say no more about it and you are the equal of any innocent”. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/223 "2017-06-26T17:45:52Z")
Updating this thread: > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider next term whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake. > > Lower courts had ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had violated Colorado’s public accommodations law, which prohibits refusing service to customers based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. > **[Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-take-case-on-baker-who-refused-to-sell-wedding-cake-to-gay-couple/2017/06/26/0c2f8606-0cde-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html)** > > Lower courts had ruled that the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who cited his religious beliefs, had violated the state’s public accommodations law. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/224 "2017-06-26T22:44:13Z")
Am I missing it, or does your link fail to say on what basis the appeal to SCOTUS was made? Perhaps this was noted earlier in the thread? I tried reading back in the thread but it had apparently taken some serious turns away from this specific topic. I assume, since this appeal to SCOTUS is against a state law, that the basis is that the state law violates the US constitution in some way. [National Review](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448990/three-thoughts-masterpiece-cakeshop-cert-grant) suggests that the argument is that forcing the baker to make a cake with a message supporting same sex marriage is requiring him to support something verbally, i.e. by the message on the cake, that is against his religious beliefs. NR says this makes it a first amendment issue. Their specific language suggests it is a free speech issue, but the implication seems to be that it is really an issue of free exercise of religion. Am I anywhere near the ballpark here? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/225 "2017-06-26T23:19:05Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Am I missing it, or does your link fail to say on what basis the appeal to SCOTUS was made? Perhaps this was noted earlier in the thread? I tried reading back in the thread but it had apparently taken some serious turns away from this specific topic. > > I assume, since this appeal to SCOTUS is against a state law, that the basis is that the state law violates the US constitution in some way. [National Review](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448990/three-thoughts-masterpiece-cakeshop-cert-grant) suggests that the argument is that forcing the baker to make a cake with a message supporting same sex marriage is requiring him to support something verbally, i.e. by the message on the cake, that is against his religious beliefs. NR says this makes it a first amendment issue. Their specific language suggests it is a free speech issue, but the implication seems to be that it is really an issue of free exercise of religion. Am I anywhere near the ballpark here? IANAL, but that sounds about right to me. In the “[petition for writ of certiorari](http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf)” they write: > [@](#): > > The question presented is: > Whether applying Colorado’s public > accommodations law to compel Phillips to > create expression that violates his sincerely > held religious beliefs about marriage violates > the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of > the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/226 "2017-06-27T08:26:33Z")
I see it as a freedom of religion case too. Would you legally require a devout Muslim to sell ham sandwiches in his restaurant? Absolutely not. But, you are free to dine in his restaurant and eat whatever is on the menu. Christian owned bakeries aren’t refusing to sell to the Gay community. Anyone can buy bread, cookies, and cakes that they sell. It’s only personalized wedding cakes that conflicts with their religious views. The courts should respect people’s sincere religious beliefs. The desire to practice ones religion, without interference, is a founding principal of this country. The obvious remedy is organize a local boycott of the business. Then the owner has to decide if it’s really worth the sacrifice to uphold his religious views. Btw, this is not a civil rights case. Businesses that refused to sell to a minority were not basing this on religious beliefs. It was based on bigotry and the courts had to act. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/227 "2017-06-27T08:32:07Z")
But I thought conservatives said that boycotts were “economic violence” or something like that? And I hope you’re not saying that sexuality is as optional as whether to eat a ham sandwich at a specific restaurant… ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/228 "2017-06-27T08:47:08Z")
I’m definitely not saying sexuality is an option. Consumers do have options in where they spend their money. Bakeries (run by devout Christians) may have to stop selling personalized wedding cakes. That would eliminate any conflict with their beliefs. They’d sell fresh baked cakes. With no writing or wedding decorations. What people do with the cakes is their personal business. AFAIK these Christian bakery owners aren’t refusing to sell to the gay community. It’s the personal message on the cakes that conflicts with their beliefs. I think selling generic cakes to everyone would satisfy the courts. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/229 "2017-06-27T12:42:54Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > AFAIK these Christian bakery owners aren’t refusing to sell to the gay community. It’s the personal message on the cakes that conflicts with their beliefs. Did the cake in question have a personal message? I’ve never been to a wedding where the cake had one. Birthdays, yes. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/230 "2017-06-27T13:13:29Z")
Sometimes they say something like till death do us part. I trying to make the point that the Christian owned bakeries may need to focus on everyday bakery items. Avoid wedding cakes all together. That may be the best way for them to honor their own religious beliefs and still stay within the law. Depends on how the Supreme Court rules. I have a hunch they’ll side with Gay rights over religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/231 "2017-06-27T13:18:15Z")
Suppose an African-American cake artist refused to create a cake symbolizing white-supremacism (in a positive way) for the Aryan Nation? Or a an Islamic cake artist refused to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church? Or a secular cake artist refused to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage requested by a Christian patron? And then suppose that the state commission was presented with complaints about each but refused to apply the state anti-discrimination act to order them to complete the work. If those suppositions were true, could it be possible that a cake artist might have some sort of legitimate gripe at being ordered to produce an original cake design celebrating a same-sex marriage when he is religiously opposed to it? ---
**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:** [June 27, 2017, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/232 "2017-06-27T13:21:53Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Btw, this is not a civil rights case. Businesses that refused to sell to a minority were not basing this on religious beliefs. It was based on bigotry and the courts had to act. Oh, how quickly we [forget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). [QUOTE=Judge Leon Bazile] Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. [/QUOTE] Christian doctrine - real or imaginary - was a cornerstone of the enslavement and later less explicit subjugation of African-Americans. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2017, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/233 "2017-06-27T13:32:39Z")
I assume some people who believe this bigotry should be acted upon by the state also think prostitution should be legal. Should a prostitute be allowed to discriminate on whatever socially unacceptable attitudes he or she holds? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/234 "2017-06-27T13:42:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose an African-American cake artist refused to create a cake symbolizing white-supremacism (in a positive way) for the Aryan Nation? Or a an Islamic cake artist refused to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church? Or a secular cake artist refused to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage requested by a Christian patron? > > And then suppose that the state commission was presented with complaints about each but refused to apply the state anti-discrimination act to order them to complete the work. > > If those suppositions were true, could it be possible that a cake artist might have some sort of legitimate gripe at being ordered to produce an original cake design celebrating a same-sex marriage when he is religiously opposed to it? I’m not a fancy law talkin’ dude but wouldn’t the fact that the black, Islamic, or secular artists would not make such cakes for anyone but the Christian artist does make wedding cakes, just not for those people, be a large difference? I will not make this kind of cake for anyone is a defensible position. I will make this kind of cake for anyone but you is less so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/235 "2017-06-27T13:47:42Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > But I thought conservatives said that boycotts were “economic violence” or something like that? Why did you think that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/236 "2017-06-27T13:50:01Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > I’m not a fancy law talkin’ dude but wouldn’t the fact that the black, Islamic, or secular artists would not make such cakes for anyone but the Christian artist does make wedding cakes, just not for those people, be a large difference? > > I will not make this kind of cake for anyone is a defensible position. I will make this kind of cake for anyone but you is less so. “Such cakes?” Each cake maker makes non-birthday, party celebration cakes. “Hi, it’s Steve, owner of Steve’s Poodle Grooming. We’d like a cake for our business’ tenth anniversary, something with a poodle theme, maybe with clippers or trimmers too?” “No problem; what size do you want?” Versus: “Hi, it’s Daniel, the local Aryan Nation leader. We’d like a cake for our local chapter’s tenth anniversary, something with the Aryan Nation symbol, maybe with the AB hand signal symbolized too?” -click- ---
**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:** [June 27, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/237 "2017-06-27T14:03:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose an African-American cake artist refused to create a cake symbolizing white-supremacism (in a positive way) for the Aryan Nation? Or a an Islamic cake artist refused to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church? Or a secular cake artist refused to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage requested by a Christian patron? > > And then suppose that the state commission was presented with complaints about each but refused to apply the state anti-discrimination act to order them to complete the work. > > If those suppositions were true, could it be possible that a cake artist might have some sort of legitimate gripe at being ordered to produce an original cake design celebrating a same-sex marriage when he is religiously opposed to it? Does the state’s law prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on viewpoints unrelated to the race, gender, age, nationality, religion or sexual orientation of the customer? That would seem to be a necessary first inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/238 "2017-06-27T14:11:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Does the state’s law prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on viewpoints unrelated to the race, gender, age, nationality, religion or sexual orientation of the customer? That would seem to be a necessary first inquiry. That inquiry might dispose of the Ayran Nation. Seems to leave the Quran and Christian patron in the mix, via religion. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/239 "2017-06-27T14:14:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Such cakes?” Each cake maker makes non-birthday, party celebration cakes. > > “Hi, it’s Steve, owner of Steve’s Poodle Grooming. We’d like a cake for our business’ tenth anniversary, something with a poodle theme, maybe with clippers or trimmers too?” > > “No problem; what size do you want?” > > Versus: > > “Hi, it’s Daniel, the local Aryan Nation leader. We’d like a cake for our local chapter’s tenth anniversary, something with the Aryan Nation symbol, maybe with the AB hand signal symbolized too?” > > -click- Again, a clear difference in that the bakery can state that they will not use the Aryan Nation symbol on any cake where I’m not sure what the difference in wedding cakes would be between an opposite sex marriage and a same sex one. Perhaps the cake topper? I could see not requiring a baker to stock a cake topper showing a couple of the same sex but I can’t see why he couldn’t bake a cake to allow for a topper to be placed after delivery. Can you detail the difference between cakes of a same sex marriage vs an opposite sex marriage? A brief search of google images shows cakes that are not materially different from any cake I’ve seen at an opposite sex wedding. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/240 "2017-06-27T14:23:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Does the state’s law prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on viewpoints unrelated to the race, gender, age, nationality, religion or sexual orientation of the customer? That would seem to be a necessary first inquiry. To answer the question, CRS 24-34-601(2)(a) provides in pertinent part that it is a discriminatory practice and unlawful: > [@](#): > > . . .that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=13)