# 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:** 30
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/581 "2017-12-07T20:02:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And John Mace said that this argument was not created for SCOTUS, it has been there all along. It was manufactured for the suit, yes, as I fucking said. :rolleyes: Why should anyone engage with people who won’t bother to read, just broadcast-post in the blind? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/582 "2017-12-07T20:10:51Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Would they make a rainbow cake for a child’s birthday? Did they have a “no rainbows on any cakes” policy? Or does it depend on the sexual orientation of the client? Or a Noah’s Ark themed Sunday school party? ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/583 "2017-12-07T20:14:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It was manufactured for the suit, yes, as I fucking said. :rolleyes: > > Why should anyone engage with people who won’t bother to read, just broadcast-post in the blind? It was invented in response to this suit, not “for the purpose of creating this suit.” ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/584 "2017-12-07T20:40:58Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > It was invented in response to this suit, not “for the purpose of creating this suit.” Which is worth about 3 seconds of clarification, not an endless back and forth. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/585 "2017-12-07T21:41:26Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Which is worth about 3 seconds of clarification, not an endless back and forth. Agreed. It would have been very easy for **ElvisL1ves** to say “That’s what I meant.” ---
**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:** [December 7, 2017, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/586 "2017-12-07T23:12:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It was manufactured for the suit, yes, as I fucking said. :rolleyes: > > Why should anyone engage with people who won’t bother to read, just broadcast-post in the blind? Are you really proposing that cake as art is a new concept created by the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in the course of this suit? It is a proposition I find hard to take seriously, and a [rudimentary Google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=cake+as+art&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/1970,cd_max:1/1/2005&ei=IMIpWqXXEcOR_Qbpop3wBQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=1028&bih=606) returns many results predating this case. Now whether the work of Jack Phillips is art cannot, at this point, be a point of contention for legal purposes. The initial case and the appeal were all decided on summary judgment which requires viewing the evidence and arguments in the most favorable light for Phillips, so it is accepted that he is producing art for the purpose of proceedings so far. The high court \*might \*decide that this point merits consideration and kick the whole damn case back for trial and otherwise offer no opinion. But various providers of cakes have equated their work with art long before the beginnings of the case at hand. And an [artist](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jul/06/arts.highereducation) who typically worked in other media produced works in cake and displayed her works in typical art scene fashion in a gallery exhibition. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2017, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/587 "2017-12-07T23:53:53Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Would they make a rainbow cake for a child’s birthday? Did they have a “no rainbows on any cakes” policy? Or does it depend on the sexual orientation of the client? It does NOT depend on the sexual orientation of the client. If a straight person wanted to purchase a rainbow cake for use in the upcoming gay wedding of his brother, the client is not being discriminated against based upon his sexuality. No person, gay or straight, may buy a rainbow cake supporting same sex marriage or other type of gay equality at this cake shop. Such a position does not discriminate against a customer based on sexual orientation. A gay customer is free to purchase a dozen doughnuts or anything else that a straight customer can purchase. It is merely the content of any item that is not offered for sale to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/588 "2017-12-08T00:10:20Z")
Put differently, I run a haberdashery. I do not stock yarmulkes. I do, however, stock kufis. Can the government force me to stock yarmulkes? What if I stock cowboy hats or Pittsburgh Pirates hats? How far will the government intrude into my business and make a determination that I am discriminating against people instead of ideas? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/589 "2017-12-08T00:37:42Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Agreed. It would have been very easy for **ElvisL1ves** to say “That’s what I meant.” I did, several times. Scroll up. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/590 "2017-12-08T11:16:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It seems to me that it’s pretty easy to decide this case. The reason we have anti-discrimination laws isn’t so we can protect people from getting their feelings hurt. It’s to create equality in the marketplace. As that pertains to buying cakes, it means that everyone should be able to buy a cake for their wedding. Having a religious exemption would not prevent any gay couple from getting a cake and it did not prevent this couple from getting a cake. So the religious exemption should be permitted. Incorrect. “Feelings” as much as you might discredit them were a big piece of the Civil Rights Act. The Senate Commerce Committee, in its comments about the Civil Rights Act, said > [@](#): > > The primary purpose of \* \* \* (the Civil Rights Act), then, is to solve this problem, the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments. Discrimination is not simply dollars and cents, hamburgers and movies; it is the humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment that a person must surely feel when he is told that he is unacceptable as a member of the public because of his race or color. It is equally the inability to explain to a child that regardless of education, civility, courtesy, and morality he will be denied the right to enjoy equal treatment, even though he be a citizen of the United States and may well be called upon to lay down his life to assure this Nation continues. The CRA exists in large part to eliminate the dehumanizing aspects of having to ‘provider shop’ because some people think you aren’t a good enough human being to do business with. It exists precisely to prevent what happened to this couple. [Linkey-Link](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States/Concurrence_Goldberg) ---
**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 8, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/591 "2017-12-08T18:10:49Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Incorrect. “Feelings” as much as you might discredit them were a big piece of the Civil Rights Act. The Senate Commerce Committee, in its comments about the Civil Rights Act, said The CRA exists in large part to eliminate the dehumanizing aspects of having to ‘provider shop’ because some people think you aren’t a good enough human being to do business with. It exists precisely to prevent what happened to this couple. > > [Linkey-Link](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States/Concurrence_Goldberg) Not only that, but if the only aim were “equality in the marketplace,” then Plessy v. Ferguson would likely still be the law of the land. If facilities for blacks and whites were truly equal in their quality and availability, then separate schools or cake shops or train cars would create “equality in the marketplace.” But the Supreme Court, in the Brown v. Board of Education cases, ruled explicitly that separate is inherently unequal, in part because of the stigma that it generates, especially in the case of children but also more generally. > [@](#): > > To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. Admittedly, the Brown decision applied only and specifically to education, but the principles of the decision were relied upon in other cases, and also in the Civil Rights legislation mentioned by **Cheesesteak**. I’m somewhat conflicted about this case. On the one hand, i think the notion of cake-making as expression is a stretch; i think of it as more of a skill than anything else, and if you’re producing something under the requirements laid out by the client, your exercising a skill rather than undertaking expression as i think of it under the first amendment. No-one is under any illusion that piping the words “Adam and Steve” (or whatever) onto the top of a cake constitutes a representation of the beliefs of the baker. I’m also, however, a little unimpressed by the lack of consistency demonstrated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. If the Petition for cert is correct, the Commission found that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to provide the couple with a cake, but also: > [@](#): > > found that three secular bakeries did > not discriminate based on creed when they refused a > Christian customer’s request for custom cakes that > criticized same-sex marriage on religious grounds. More generally, i also tend to think that, with some limited exceptions, society is large and complex and connected enough that this issue could, in fact, be dealt with by the free market in most cases. That is, for the vast majority of the American population, it’s going to be pretty easy to find a baker who will make the cake you want, without worrying about the existence of a few who won’t. This is not small-town Mississippi in 1956, where African Americans suffering from discrimination and living in poverty, without a car and without another town nearby, might not be able to obtain a particular service at all if a white person refused to serve them. But gay couples also shouldn’t have to suffer the indignity of walking into a shop to request a cake, only to be told that they can’t have one because the store owner believes that their “lifestyle” violates his Christian values. I could live with a solution whereby we leave this to the free market, but include a requirement that public accommodations like a cake shop make very clear, in their advertising and in a sign posted on the front of their store, which particular groups they will not serve. If you don’t want to make wedding cakes for gay weddings, that’s fine, but you have to make that clear to the public at large so that people seeking a wedding cake for a gay wedding can avoid coming into your store in the first place. And if posting that notice loses you business from other supporters of gay rights, then that’s just the price you pay in the free market. I’ll give the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop one thing: he certainly seems to be consistent in his beliefs, and willing to lose (quite a lot of) business in order to maintain them. He would probably actually be fine with the solution i’ve outlined above, given that he was willing to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/592 "2017-12-08T18:19:27Z")
**Mhendo** : The problem with your solution is that the baker would then have to list every group he does’t want to serve, not just same sex couples. No? Seems to me the problem we are facing is that we have not designated gays as being a suspect class at the national level yet. If the SCOTUS would say: OK, from now on you need to apply Intermediate Scrutiny for issue affecting sexual orientation, I think it would be much easier to navigate these issues. But right now we seem to have something, IIRC, that is “rational basis with teeth”, that exists in this undefined area. BTW, I think “Strict Scrutiny” is probably a non-starter. Gender gets Intermediate Scrutiny, so I figure sexual orientation should be about the same. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/593 "2017-12-08T18:26:37Z")
I thought Alito’s point was apt. The Legislature of Colorado is presumed to know its own enactments. The same legislature that passed the civil rights law also forbade recognition of same sex marriage. So the situation in 2012 was that this very same gay couple could not be “served” a marriage license in Colorado, nor would their marriage (that this cake was for) in Massachusetts be recognized by the State of Colorado. Since the state was denying this couple the very ability to get married, why does it come down with a ton of bricks on a lone baker who refuses to bake a cake celebrating it? IOW, whatever the legislature meant by no discrimination against sexual orientation, it simply could not mean that an acceptable of same sex marriage was required. ---
**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 8, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/594 "2017-12-08T18:42:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Mhendo** : The problem with your solution is that the baker would then have to list every group he does’t want to serve, not just same sex couples. No? Yes. And, quite frankly, i’m not especially concerned, for the purposes of my post, about suspect classes and levels of scrutiny. I’m talking principle, and my sense of what might be a relatively equitable outcome, rather than about exactly what might and might not stand up under current interpretations of the Constitution. The baker in this case (or, more correctly, his lawyers) managed to list, in his Petition, the different types of cakes that he refuses to make. It took up one relatively short paragraph. If he can do it in a lawsuit, he can slap it on a sign, and his customers can then make the decision about whether they want to patronize his business. ---
**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 8, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/595 "2017-12-08T19:07:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It seems to me that it’s pretty easy to decide this case. The reason we have anti-discrimination laws isn’t so we can protect people from getting their feelings hurt. [Dr. Kenneth Clarke’s “Doll Test:”](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html) > [@](#): > > In the “doll test,” psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark used four plastic, diaper-clad dolls, identical except for color. They showed the dolls to black children between the ages of three and seven and asked them questions to determine racial perception and preference. Almost all of the children readily identified the race of the dolls. However, when asked which they preferred, the majority selected the white doll and attributed positive characteristics to it. The Clarks also gave the children outline drawings of a boy and girl and asked them to color the figures the same color as themselves. Many of the children with dark complexions colored the figures with a white or yellow crayon. The Clarks concluded that “prejudice, discrimination, and segregation” caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred. This photograph was taken by Gordon Parks for a 1947 issue of Ebony magazine. This study was entered into evidence during Brown v. The Board of Education, as proof of the destructive influence of segregation on black people. It was a major part of the argument for overturning these laws. And it was 100% about how segregation made black people feel. > [@mhendo](#): > > But gay couples also shouldn’t have to suffer the indignity of walking into a shop to request a cake, only to be told that they can’t have one because the store owner believes that their “lifestyle” violates his Christian values. > > I could live with a solution whereby we leave this to the free market, but include a requirement that public accommodations like a cake shop make very clear, in their advertising and in a sign posted on the front of their store, which particular groups they will not serve. If you don’t want to make wedding cakes for gay weddings, that’s fine, but you have to make that clear to the public at large so that people seeking a wedding cake for a gay wedding can avoid coming into your store in the first place. And if posting that notice loses you business from other supporters of gay rights, then that’s just the price you pay in the free market. Oh, God, no. That’s a terrible idea. I get where you’re coming from with it, but if a baker’s going to be allowed to discriminate against me, I’d much rather he do it in private, where only the people he’s directly hating on are affected, rather than having to walk past a bakery with a “No Gays Allowed” sign everyday, regardless of whether I intend to buy any baked goods. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/596 "2017-12-08T19:13:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It was manufactured for the suit, yes, as I fucking said. :rolleyes: > > Why should anyone engage with people who won’t bother to read, just broadcast-post in the blind? So then we go back to the question of why you think the baker created this lawsuit. he didn’t sue anyone. He appealed a lawsuit and the argument pre-existed the appeal. So, perhaps you should try to follow the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/597 "2017-12-08T19:15:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I did, several times. Scroll up. cite? All I see is you taking shots at people. I think you need to work on writing more clearly. And perhaps thinking more about what you want to say before you say it. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/598 "2017-12-08T19:17:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Oh, God, no. That’s a terrible idea. I get where you’re coming from with it, but if a baker’s going to be allowed to discriminate against me, I’d much rather he do it in private, where only the people he’s directly hating on are affected, rather than having to walk past a bakery with a “No Gays Allowed” sign everyday, regardless of whether I intend to buy any baked goods. Rather than being specific about their particular form of hatred, it could just be a sign that says “Bigots inside”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/599 "2017-12-08T19:26:11Z")
That may not be entirely bad. The repugnance of such a sign could be a stimulus for more comprehensive anti-bigotry legislation than we have now, perhaps including that which would put the burden on the bigot to prove rather than merely assert a valid religious excuse for it. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/600 "2017-12-08T19:50:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I thought Alito’s point was apt. The Legislature of Colorado is presumed to know its own enactments. The same legislature that passed the civil rights law also forbade recognition of same sex marriage. > > So the situation in 2012 was that this very same gay couple could not be “served” a marriage license in Colorado, nor would their marriage (that this cake was for) in Massachusetts be recognized by the State of Colorado. > > Since the state was denying this couple the very ability to get married, why does it come down with a ton of bricks on a lone baker who refuses to bake a cake celebrating it? IOW, whatever the legislature meant by no discrimination against sexual orientation, it simply could not mean that an acceptable of same sex marriage was required. Did he really say that? Wow! That’s amazingly disingenuous of him. The change in society’s and Colorado’s attitude towards SSM has been extremely rapid and the SC itself swept away the anti-SSM laws nationwide. Using his own standard, the very same SCOTUS that swept away anti-SSM laws nationwide should be expected to rule in favor of the gay couple in their anti-discrimination suit. I’m really shocked by how disingenuous that argument is. I could see that kind of debating tactic here (“you know, more Democrats fought the civil rights laws than Republicans…hurr hurr”), but I didn’t expect it at SCOTUS level. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=31)