# 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:** 45
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/881 "2017-12-13T19:03:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They could not, which is why they needed a law. The Civil Rights law wasn’t passed because one out of 1000 times African-Americans went to an establishment they were chased out. It was passed because it was almost every establishment. But 1 percent religious bigotry is not only real but OK, you tell us. What is the cutoff point? > [@](#): > > Now there’s nothing wrong with passing a law preventing business owners from hurting people’s feelings. It’s just not enough of a compelling interest to survive strict scrutiny. I suggest, for your sake, that you review the history of the civil rights movement before you say one more damn word about “hurt feelings”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/882 "2017-12-13T19:13:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But 1 percent religious bigotry is not only real but OK, you tell us. What is the cutoff point? There’s no specific number. The purpose of civil rights laws is to ensure equal access. Christians couldn’t get the cake they wanted from a particular baker. Gays can’t get the cake they want from a particular baker. That’s equal. Both were rejected by 1 baker. You could reasonably pass a law saying that both the Christians and the gay couple had to be accomodated. That would also be fair, and equal. But once you uphold the right of an artist to decline a job, then an artist can decline any job. > [@](#): > > I suggest, for your sake, that you review the history of the civil rights movement before you say one more damn word about “hurt feelings”. That’s the point. The civil rights movement was never about feelings. It was about being denied access to jobs, housing, and public accomodations. Are gays, as a class, being denied access to public accomodations in Colorado, more than say, white straight males? We already have two data points that says their treatment is equal. They are equally likely to not get a custom cake. ---
**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 13, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/883 "2017-12-13T19:14:51Z")
This case isn’t about gays not being allowed into restaurants. No one is challenging CO’s law wrt to its disallowing that type of discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/884 "2017-12-13T19:16:27Z")
Yes, bakeries are entirely different from restaurants. Entirely. Just like the protected class of gays is entirely different from the protected class of blacks. Your point, please? That hurting gays’ feelings is better than hurting bigots’ feelings, maybe? > [@adaher](#): > > There’s no specific number. Yes, there is. Zero. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/885 "2017-12-13T19:18:48Z")
Feelings aren’t at stake for the baker. His religion is at stake. Making someone violate their faith requires a very high bar, legally. And yes, the only issue at stake here for the gay couple is that this man hurt their feelings. They had no problem getting their wedding cake. There is no access problem for gay couples to any wedding services, even custom wedding services. ---
**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 13, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/886 "2017-12-13T19:27:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > “I only make custom cakes consistent with my values” is a fairly broad policy. Should the other bakers have consented to the Leviticus quote on a cake? If one can reject something inconsistent with their values, another can too. > > It’s often been said by those against gay rights that gays want “Special rights”. Those who support gay rights call that nonsense. Yet in this case, gay rights supporters are defending the right of a baker to refuse a customer, while wanting to force another baker to serve a customer. That is what is known as “special protection”. Christians can be refused for any reason. Gays can never be refused for any reason. That’s not equal treatment. > > Either cake artists, tattoo artists, and painters have to take on all requests, or they can be selective. Pick one. Of course they can be selective. A tattoo artist, say, can refuse a request to shave and tattoo a pet cat. So long as the refusal, the selection, is based on the nature of the work and not the nature of the customer, that’s fine. ---
**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 13, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/887 "2017-12-13T19:28:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, bakeries are entirely different from restaurants. Entirely. Just like the protected class of gays is entirely different from the protected class of blacks. Yes, that is pretty much exactly what this case is about, except it’s not just “bakeries”, but the part of bakeries that do custom work. Still, I’m glad you get it! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/888 "2017-12-13T19:31:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, bakeries are entirely different from restaurants. Entirely. Just like the protected class of gays is entirely different from the protected class of blacks. > > Your point, please? That hurting gays’ feelings is better than hurting bigots’ feelings, maybe? > > Yes, there is. Zero. Labelling Christians who define homosexuality “bigots” may be an arguable point in this forum, but legally it has no meaning, and culturally, we haven’t even had a President or Presidential candidate willing to call such people “bigots”. So expecting the court to follow along with that reasoning is foolish. We are not at that point in our culture where sincerely held religious beliefs against homosexuality are called bigoted by a majority of the country. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/889 "2017-12-13T19:33:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Feelings aren’t at stake for the baker. His religion is at stake. He \*claims \*it’s religion, but I think some skepticism is valid, don’t you? There were many anti-black bigots who claimed a religious requirement too. > [@](#): > > And yes, the only issue at stake here for the gay couple is that this man hurt their feelings. It \*really \*does not help you to use that as a synonym for “were subjected to discrimination”. > [@](#): > > There is no access problem for gay couples to any wedding services, even custom wedding services. And blacks had their own schools. > [@adaher](#): > > we haven’t even had a President or Presidential candidate willing to call such people “bigots”. “Deplorable”, on the other hand … The right word is the right word. Antidiscrimination laws do target bigotry whatever word you choose to couch it in. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/890 "2017-12-13T19:33:14Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Of course they can be selective. A tattoo artist, say, can refuse a request to shave and tattoo a pet cat. So long as the refusal, the selection, is based on the nature of the work and not the nature of the customer, that’s fine. For the case at hand, is there a generally applicable law requiring those who do custom work to do any custom work requested? What kinds of exceptions are allowed if such a law does exist? For example, in Colorado, can a cake maker refuse a custom cake that conflicts with their values? The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has already ruled yes on that question. Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/891 "2017-12-13T19:34:53Z")
Bricker or another judicial expert should correct me if I’m wrong, but from everything I’ve been reading about issues like this the past 10 years or so, the only way you can violate someone’s religion is if the law in question is “generally applicable”, as in, it applies to everyone. If the law doesn’t apply to everyone, if there are exceptions granted, then exceptions for religious practice must be granted as well. ---
**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 13, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/892 "2017-12-13T19:38:08Z")
Well then there’s nothing to debate. Such a decision is wrong, and should be reversed. Until then, bigotry is legal if you invoke mythical beings to excuse it. See ya in the funny papers. ---
**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 13, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/893 "2017-12-13T19:41:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Bricker or another judicial expert should correct me if I’m wrong, but from everything I’ve been reading about issues like this the past 10 years or so, the only way you can violate someone’s religion is if the law in question is “generally applicable”, as in, it applies to everyone. If the law doesn’t apply to everyone, if there are exceptions granted, then exceptions for religious practice must be granted as well. I have my doubts about that, because I’m pretty confident 4 of the Supremes will rule in favor of the gay couple. If such a rule as you say existed, they would not. I’m gonna go with: “Things that are not as simple as they might seem” for $2,000, Alex. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/894 "2017-12-13T19:49:46Z")
Is it against the baker’s religious beliefs to make a three-tier chocolate marble cake with buttercream fondant icing? Would it have been any sort of wrong against him for the defendants to ask him to make such a cake? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/895 "2017-12-13T19:52:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Feelings aren’t at stake for the baker. His religion is at stake. **Making someone violate their faith** requires a very high bar, legally. [Bolding mine]Please. If he was a pastor refusing to marry the couple, you’d be on to something. But what part of his faith dictates that he can’t bake cakes for people who not adhering to his faith? It’s not like baking a cake for a reception (to be presented and eaten after the ceremony has taken place) is somehow approving of the marriage anymore than baking a cake for two dogs is advocating legal marriage for dogs or baking a cake for divorcees remarrying is endorsing divorce. This is where, imho, his argument falls apart. The cake baking services have nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech. I think it would have been much more acceptable for him to agree to bake the cake but place limits its design as in yes, I can bake you a cake but I won’t put rainbows on it. Fair. I won’t bake you a cake because you are gay. Not fair. ---
**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 13, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/896 "2017-12-13T19:59:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It sounds like the cake that this couple ultimate got had a rainbow on it. Is that normal for straight couples? Very few designs are “normal”; most wedding cakes are unusual in some way. Imagine I had come to him and said, “My wife and I went to the beach on our first date, and there was a spectacular rainbow over the ocean–can you put a rainbow on our cake?” Or even if I had requested a rainbow without the story. Would he have engaged in the same “speech” for a het couple that he would have refused for a gay couple? If he refuses to put rainbows on cakes, no matter the customer, I’ll give him a lot more deference–same goes if he refuses to put Leviticus quotes on cakes no matter the customer. Again, however, it seems likely that he doesn’t have a no-rainbows policy, and there’s nothing in the record indicating such a policy. > [@](#): > > I think it’s trivial to think of ways that a SSM cake design might differ from one for a straight couple. Sure–and again, if he’s refusing to bake a cake because the “speech”, i.e., the details of the cake, bother him, that’s a different kettle of fish than refusing to bake a cake because of traits of the customer. In this case, he didn’t bother to find out whether they wanted a cake that specifically glorified the same-sex nature of the relationship, so he can’t claim it was the specific content of the requested speech to which he objected. ---
**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 13, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/897 "2017-12-13T20:02:19Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > [Bolding mine]Please. If he was a pastor refusing to marry the couple, you’d be on to something. But what part of his faith dictates that he can’t bake cakes for people who not adhering to his faith? It’s not like baking a cake for a reception (to be presented and eaten after the ceremony has taken place) is somehow approving of the marriage anymore than baking a cake for two dogs is advocating legal marriage for dogs or baking a cake for divorcees remarrying is endorsing divorce. > > This is where, imho, his argument falls apart. The cake baking services have nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech. I think it would have been much more acceptable for him to agree to bake the cake but place limits its design as in yes, I can bake you a cake but I won’t put rainbows on it. Fair. I won’t bake you a cake because you are gay. Not fair. Emphasis added. The first sentence contradicts your follow-up sentence. And surely that first sentence is incorrect, else you’re saying a Muslim baker can be forced to bake a cake with an image of Muhammed fucking a pig on it. ---
**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 13, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/898 "2017-12-13T20:04:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s not really what is at issue here. Under Colorado law, businesses cannot discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. This case will define the boundaries of religous freedom and where religious freedom trumps civil rights laws. Given that very few people like God more than money, this isn’t actually going to be a problem beyond hurt feelings when you walk into a store that does actually have an owner who takes his scripture seriously. And then only when you want him to help you celebrate what he sees as your sinful behavior. Gay, African-American, Jewish, female, and disabled folks will continue to be able to eat out wherever they want, buy retail wherever they want, and get emergency medical attention wherever they want. The only thing they won’t be able to do is get custom services from the 1% of business owners who are religious outside of the four walls of their church. If they say that sexual orientation is a suspect class then they can no more refuse to sell a cake commemorating gay marriage than they can refuse to sell a cake commemorating mixed race marriage. Even if they are willing to sell cupcakes to mixed race 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 13, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/899 "2017-12-13T20:08:41Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Sure, so long as that policy applies to all customers. You may roll your eyes and smack your head over that if you like. Holy shit!!!:smack::rolleyes::dubious: This is way past intentionally obtuse. OK so lets say that a portrait artist is well known for making beautiful soul stirring portraits of people like Obama and Rachel Maddow. They were open to the public and proceeded to make great portraits on commission. Then Trump asks for a portrait, can the artist refuse him or offer to only make him a shitty portrait? Or does the artist have to exert their artistic talent to make a beautiful soul stirring portrait of Trump? ---
**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 13, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/900 "2017-12-13T20:19:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Very few designs are “normal”; most wedding cakes are unusual in some way. Imagine I had come to him and said, “My wife and I went to the beach on our first date, and there was a spectacular rainbow over the ocean–can you put a rainbow on our cake?” Or even if I had requested a rainbow without the story. Would he have engaged in the same “speech” for a het couple that he would have refused for a gay couple? > > If he refuses to put rainbows on cakes, no matter the customer, I’ll give him a lot more deference–same goes if he refuses to put Leviticus quotes on cakes no matter the customer. Again, however, it seems likely that he doesn’t have a no-rainbows policy, and there’s nothing in the record indicating such a policy. Symbols have different meanings depending on who is using them and who is seeing them. I wouldn’t have a problem with the baker telling a skinhead that he wouldn’t put a swastika on a cake but that he would happily do it for a Buddhist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=46)