# 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:** 37
**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 12, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/721 "2017-12-12T00:54:07Z")
I am about as far as you can get from being an expert on wedding cakes, but it does seem to make sense that an “off the shelf” wedding cake would be a quite unusual thing. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/722 "2017-12-12T01:15:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not an accurate statement of the law. It’s _generally_ accurate, to be sure, but not _absolutely_ accurate. Sure. There is the exception for theatrical casting, just for instance. But not in running a store-front in a shopping mall. You can’t open a Hallmark greeting card store, and refuse to sell to blacks. Absolutely forbidden. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/723 "2017-12-12T01:21:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > . . . Does Colorado require tattoo artists to do any tattoo a customer requests? . . . This has already been settled here: yes, a vendor may refuse to draw a specific picture. No one is asking the cake-maker to do a “gay” wedding cake. They’re only saying he cannot refuse to serve gay customers. The tattoo artist may refuse to do swastikas; he can’t say, “Oh, your skin is dark, so the tattoo won’t show properly, therefore I won’t do any work for you.” > [@adaher](#): > > He offered to sell one of his premade cakes to them. . . . That contradicts the account given above in this thread. Can you cite this for accuracy, please? The way the story is told, he refused to serve the customer, because the customer was part of a gay couple. ---
**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 12, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/724 "2017-12-12T01:54:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > … > That contradicts the account given above in this thread. Can you cite this for accuracy, please? The way the story is told, he refused to serve the customer, because the customer was part of a gay couple. The baker has stated in many interviews that he was willing to sell other goods to the couple, just not a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. Here’s [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20651832&postcount=4) from [a GQ thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=844169) that at least started out just asking about what exactly had been requested. There are links to video clips where you can hear the baker’s version of events straight from his own mouth. ---
**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 12, 2017, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/725 "2017-12-12T02:02:20Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The baker has stated in many interviews that he was willing to sell other goods to the couple, just not a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. Here’s [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20651832&postcount=4) from [a GQ thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=844169) that at least started out just asking about what exactly had been requested. There are links to video clips where you can hear the baker’s version of events straight from his own mouth. He would have sold them other items - but would he have sold them a gross of cupcakes or donuts to be used at the ‘gay wedding’? It was the purpose of the item he objected to, not the item itself. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/726 "2017-12-12T02:16:22Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The baker has stated in many interviews that he was willing to sell other goods to the couple, just not a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. . . . This contradicts the claim that he would have sold them a “standard” wedding cake. Even if he made such an offer, if he refused a service for one customer (in a protected group) that he would have made for another customer, then he is breaking the law. Would he decorate a special cake for a Presbyterian wedding? But not for a Jewish wedding? Civil rights violation, big-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 12, 2017, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/727 "2017-12-12T02:43:04Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This contradicts the claim that he would have sold them a “standard” wedding cake. > > Even if he made such an offer, if he refused a service for one customer (in a protected group) that he would have made for another customer, then he is breaking the law. > > Would he decorate a special cake for a Presbyterian wedding? But not for a Jewish wedding? Civil rights violation, big-time. I said elsewhere that I see three levels of bakers. 1. Alice offers a set of different designs for cakes. You look through the binders, you choose one, there you go. If she’s unwilling to let a gay couple choose one, that’s plain discrimination. 2. Bob is like Alice, only he allows various custom jobs chosen by the customer: he’ll draw the design they ask for, or write the message they ask for. For him, if he refuses to write a specific message because the content of the message is offensive, I can cut him some slack; but if he’d write an identical message (“Congratulations on your marriage!”) for a het couple but not a gay couple, that’s discrimination. 3. Carol is unlike the others. She meets the couple intuits their love, and creates a cake that expresses her understanding of their love, with little input from the couple. She’s a goddamned artist, and if she refuses to go through her process with any particular couple, I’ll give her a lot of deference. I’m seeing nothing to indicate that Carol exists, much less that this baker was Carol. If he would have been willing to make the **exact same cake** if he thought it was for a straight couple, then it’s not about the cake or about his artistry, it’s about the customer’s sexual orientation. And that’s discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/728 "2017-12-12T05:04:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This contradicts the claim that he would have sold them a “standard” wedding cake. > > Even if he made such an offer, if he refused a service for one customer (in a protected group) that he would have made for another customer, then he is breaking the law. > > Would he decorate a special cake for a Presbyterian wedding? But not for a Jewish wedding? Civil rights violation, big-time. No. Not necessarily accurate. Also potentially untrue, and potentially wrong. Would you like more adjectives? Decorating a special cake is speech, he can argue. Can you explain, with a compelled speech analysis, why you’re so confident? Why is it “big time,” precisely, when the compelled speech doctrine is applied? ---
**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:** [December 12, 2017, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/729 "2017-12-12T07:37:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Fuck off” is not the same as “No”. > > And McConnell is not the same as “they”. We don’t know what “they” said, because they never had hearings or a vote, did they now? And where in the law or the Constitution is the requirement for hearings and scheduling votes? ---
**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 12, 2017, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/730 "2017-12-12T12:30:51Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This contradicts the claim that he would have sold them a “standard” wedding cake. > > Even if he made such an offer, if he refused a service for one customer (in a protected group) that he would have made for another customer, then he is breaking the law. > > Would he decorate a special cake for a Presbyterian wedding? But not for a Jewish wedding? Civil rights violation, big-time. I thought hearing it direct from his mouth would suffice. However, his lawyer in arguing before the SCOTUS was asked the question and answered that the baker would indeed sell any stock item he had. It was the first question Justice Ginsburg [asked](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_onjq.pdf)(pdf link to entire transcript. See page 5). > [@](#): > > JUSTICE GINSBURG: What if – what if it’s a – if it’s an item off the shelf? That is, they don’t commission a cake just for them but they walk into the shop, they see a lovely cake, and they say we’d like to purchase it for the celebration of our marriage tonight. > The Colorado law would prohibit that. Would you claim that you are entitled to an exception? > MS. WAGGONER: Absolutely not. The compelled speech doctrine is triggered by compelled speech. And in the context of a pre-made cake, that is not compelled speech. Mr. Phillips is happy to sell anything in his store, including - > > \ > > JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, could I – but could I get the answer to the question? So - so – so if it – if you agree that it’s speech, then why can he not refuse to sell the cake that’s in the window according to Justice Ginsburg’s hypothetical? > > MS. WAGGONER: Well, in the context of if it’s already been placed in the stream of commerce in a public accommodation setting, his speech has been completed. He – he intended to speak through that cake with the purpose of whatever it was when he created it. > In contrast, though, when he has a different purpose, and is expressing a message through a cake, it would render a different result. It’s still speech. The discussion goes on for several more pages of the transcript. The line the baker’s attorney draws is that pre-made goods placed for sale must be sold to anyone as there is no compulsion of speech as the baker’s speech was complete and for the purpose of putting the good to general sale. But goods custom made to order are an artistic expression and government cannot demand a particular expressive act. Like it. Don’t like. it. It is the argument of the baker’s attorney. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/731 "2017-12-12T13:45:59Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > And where in the law or the Constitution is the requirement for hearings and scheduling votes? The oath they all swore says “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Does that mean anything? I think you know better. In any case, that’s another subject, one which we’ve gone over before, if you’d take the time to search. Nothing you’ve posted here is new, btw. ---
**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 12, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/732 "2017-12-12T16:43:10Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The discussion goes on for several more pages of the transcript. The line the baker’s attorney draws is that pre-made goods placed for sale must be sold to anyone as there is no compulsion of speech as the baker’s speech was complete and for the purpose of putting the good to general sale. But goods custom made to order are an artistic expression and government cannot demand a particular expressive act. > > Like it. Don’t like. it. It is the argument of the baker’s attorney. What if the couple said, “Look, we’re gay, but we don’t need a cake that celebrates a gay wedding. Make us exactly the same kind of cake you make to celebrate a straight wedding. Your ‘speech’ will be exactly the same.” In that case, can he be compelled to the same speech he’s publicly given before–or compelled to stop offering public accommodation? ---
**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 12, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/733 "2017-12-12T17:00:39Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Pssst: Discussion of moderator actions belongs over in ATMB \>\>\>\>\>\> > > **Cheesesteak** , while I agree with what you are saying, I do have to point out that your statement that “people who don’t share his religious views can have weddings too” is really the crux of the matter. In his mind, they really can’t (or at least shouldn’t), not if their “religious views” include the notion that marriage isn’t just between a male and a female. The real issue is that being a Christian doesn’t mean refusing to involve oneself with the activities of sinners. After all, it’s not like the person in question refuses to bake cakes for couples who commit adultery (a sin), or who steal, or etc. If he’s not consistent in refusing to do things like that, then his Christianity isn’t really impaired by being required to provide services for someone committing the “sin” of being homosexual. Yes but they won’t bake a cake celebrating adultery for their swinger party. ---
**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 12, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/734 "2017-12-12T17:02:10Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I guess, going back to my example of divorcees getting married (not re-married), then they would be living in a state of sin. They would be committing adultery. A planned wedding of divorcees is a sin in progress. > > As mentioned upthread, divorces are not a protected class, so discriminating against them is perfectly legal. If he is, if he making sure that both parties to the wedding are pure and virtuous before committing to baking a cake, then at least he would be consistent when he says he won’t sell one to a gay couple. > > If he has sold cakes to divorcees, then he is already “endorsing” a sinful lifestyle, and it is him just deciding which sins are acceptable to him at that point, and the sin he has singled out to discriminate against happens to be one that is protected by his state law. The protestant religious right came to terms with divorces a long long time ago. ---
**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 12, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/735 "2017-12-12T17:07:55Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Yet, at the same time, when they “don’t want to create” solely on the basis of the class of person of the customer, they are breaking the law. > > You can’t “be an artist” who only paints portraits of white people. That is an illegal business model. Race is a suspect class. If the Supreme Court decides that sexual orientation is also a suspect class (and it seems to me that it \very well might, considering the historical bigotry we have seen against people with non-hetero sexual preferences) then I suspect that the answer might be different. Artists can and have refused to paint Trump’s portrait for the white house. They can refuse to paint portraits of left handed people or divorced couples. ---
**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 12, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/736 "2017-12-12T17:15:49Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I did not acknowledge it, and I did not address the laws. I addressed your claim that volunteering to adhere to them, whatever they might be, constitutes being forced to do something. The claim is false, since the business owner voluntarily became such. > > I thought this was about following a religion’s alleged teachings (don’t know of a religion that requires one to open a bakery then refuse to serve gay people), not arguing that one can discriminate because they think gay marriage is abhorrent. Turns out its about feelings after all, and the guff about religion is just a blatant appeal to a false authority, i.e., “God Hates Fags”. Saying that no one is forcing a baker to run a bakery seems like a distinction without a difference. Sure he could just stop producing wedding cakes altogether (which is in fact what this baker did) but when wedding cakes represent over 20% of your business (as was the case with this baker) you are coercing the baker to use his artistic expression to do something he doesn’t want to do. ---
**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 12, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/737 "2017-12-12T17:17:19Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And the person who doesn’t serve black people is simply saying they won’t serve black people. > > Except that’s not true. They are discriminating and making it harder for black people to have the freedoms that other people enjoy. They are, in fact, limiting what black people can do. That’s why we passed civil rights laws in the first place. > > What’s more, when they go to court about it, they are trying to force the law to align with their beliefs. The law says he shouldn’t do this action, but his beliefs say he should. So he is trying to fight that law and get it overturned. He’s trying to force it where gay people have to face discrimination. > > People do not live in isolation. What he is trying to do affects the entire community. A community that voted for a law that says that discriminating the way he is doing is wrong. > > And, yes, this means people were forcing their beliefs when they forced states to allow same sex marriage. It’s not the forcing that makes it wrong. It’s the discrimination, of which laws were passed to prohibit. You get to force people to follow the law. > > This man discriminated against these people due to their sexuality. He was not made to write something he did not agree with. He was just expected not to discriminate in offering his services, because the law says so. He is trying to use his religion as a way to avoid having to follow the law, by getting the courts to invalidate the law he doesn’t want to follow. He was willing to sell them a wedding cake. He was not willing to sell them a gay themed wedding cake. ---
**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 12, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/738 "2017-12-12T17:23:43Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I don’t think he would have sold them a normal wedding cake. I haven’t actually seen anywhere where he says that it was a specific design that he refused to do and the couple says he refused before they had even gotten to the point of choosing a design. > > ``` > Of course he can refuse to do a rainbow cake because he thinks they are tacky, a waste of his talent, whatever. And he will be in compliance with any anti-discrimination law as long as he will sell the gay couple the same sort of wedding cake he would sell a straight couple , and as long as he would refuse a rainbow cake for a six year old's birthday party. But if he will do the rainbow for the six year old and not the gay couple, his issue isn't the design. It's the customer. > > ``` Its not the customer, its the event. If he will sell them an off the rack wedding cake but not gay themed wedding cake its not the customer, its the event (I don’t know if he would sell them an off the shelf wedding cake, he offered to sell the other cakes but it was not clear if his meant other “wedding” cakes). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/739 "2017-12-12T17:26:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Saying that no one is forcing a baker to run a bakery seems like a distinction without a difference. Sure he could just stop producing wedding cakes altogether (which is in fact what this baker did) but when wedding cakes represent over 20% of your business (as was the case with this baker) you are coercing the baker to use his artistic expression to do something he doesn’t want to do. No, I’m not. And I get that he doesn’t want to, I just don’t care. ---
**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 12, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/740 "2017-12-12T17:31:18Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > The issue is not the cake, the issue is the customers; they’re gay. If you believe anything else, you’ve been sold a bill of goods. The only reason these arguments center around baked goods is it’s the sort of business where you’re likely to find out the sexual orientation of the customers. If right-wing Christian bigots who ran hardware stores knew which of their customers were gay and which were not, they’d turn the gay customers away as well. This baker offered to sell them other cakes. So it was not a refusal to serve gay customers. > [@](#): > > There are no religious reasons to refuse to cater to gay customers. There are right-wing bigots using their religion as cover for their bigotry. No religion requires one to open a business but refuse to serve gay people. He didn’t refuse to serve gay customers, he refused to sell them a cake for a gay wedding. > [@](#): > > Cakes don’t have ‘viewpoints’. And even if they did, they don’t have rights to be violated. And were it open and shut I don’t think the issue would keep cropping up. Are there other cases surrounding commercial discrimination against gays? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=38)