# 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:** 46
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/901 "2017-12-13T20:22:34Z")
What if he was a Buddhist Skinhead? ---
**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, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/902 "2017-12-13T20:23:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > On this messageboard, it is that you cannot compel me to answer this sort of leading question. Just say what you want to say, Bricker. For real, Bricker, I wasn’t kidding. If there’s something about compelled speech you think I’m missing, I encourage you (BUT DON’T COMPEL YOU) to spell it out, rather than popping a quiz on me. I may well not understand it. I think your idea that an idea must be repeated several times before it becomes a standard is a bit misleading when it comes to wedding cakes. Each cake may be unique, but not in the way that a novel is, in which words combine to form related concepts. The uniqueness of cakes generally has to do with factors I mentioned above: color themes, number of slices, favorite flavors, matching floral arrangements, and the like. There may be some nod to interests of the couple, but not always, not even, I’d hazard a guess, usually; of all the weddings I’ve been to, only my brother’s amazing goth wedding featured a cake with such nods. If the baker is recombining elements from his repertoire, this is fundamentally different from an author combining different words from her repertoire: there is not an idea communicated by “ivory fondant with lavender piping over yellow cake” that’s qualitatively different from the idea communicated by “lemon buttercream with lemon piping over white cake.” Even if I bring something new into the baker’s repertoire (“I really want the buttercream flavored with KUMQUATS!”), we’re not talking about significantly different speech. Now, a baker may reasonably object to certain combinations–“Lemon buttercream over ivory fondant over chocolate cake? Get the hell out of my bakery!”–and may even make this objection on free speech grounds. But again, that’s not what happened here. The baker didn’t find out that the particular speech requested was objectionable; he didn’t even get to the level of finding out what “speech” was requested. He objected based, not on the “speech” he’d be asked to perform, but on the customer. And that’s why I think a free speech argument fails. ---
**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 13, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/903 "2017-12-13T20:24:13Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > … > 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. > > … **bolding** mine Given news media reports I would be so sure on that. [Mom says Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to put rainbows on daughter’s birthday cake](http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/supreme-court-to-hear-colorado-same-sex-wedding-cake-case-in-december) Not that I have any policy manual from this bakery (if it even has one) but Jack Phillips has reportedly refused to incorporate a rainbow design feature in at least this one other case in which homosexuality was not an issue. ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/904 "2017-12-13T20:25:30Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > 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. Look, if we need an overarching principle–and I think we do–I’d be happy forcing that baker to take an all-or-nothing approach. You can choose to put swastikas on cakes, or not, but you can’t do so based on the customer’s protected traits. In this case, natch, the baker could agree to put the Buddhist swastika on a cake but not the Nazi one, since these are different symbols. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/905 "2017-12-13T20:27:57Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > **bolding** mine > > Given news media reports I would be so sure on that. > > [Mom says Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to put rainbows on daughter’s birthday cake](http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/supreme-court-to-hear-colorado-same-sex-wedding-cake-case-in-december) > > Not that I have any policy manual from this bakery (if it even has one) but Jack Phillips has reportedly refused to incorporate a rainbow design feature in at least this one other case in which homosexuality was not an issue. Fair enough–but again, this couple didn’t ask him for a rainbow themed cake. If he’d said, “I’ll make you the same wedding cake I’d make for a het couple, but I wouldn’t make them a rainbow cake and I won’t make one for you either,” I’d have a lot less problem with it. ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/906 "2017-12-13T20:28:44Z")
No, I’m not being intentionally obtuse. You just keep trying to equate one action with another and I’m not having it. You’ve gone from cakes to pictures \*of _Trump to pictures_ for \*Trump. I’m cool with refusing to serve Trump altogether because Trumps aren’t a protected class. This business about the quality of the work is a red herring and would probably have more to do with refund policies and guarantees than discriminatory business practices. Now: if the law’s not on my side regarding justifying bigotry in the name of religion, then it’s not on my side and I concede. If we’re discussing the issue and not the laws concerning the issue, then I’m not giving an inch and you’ll never convince me to do so. ---
**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 13, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/907 "2017-12-13T20:38:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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? There’s a difference between a rainbow over the ocean, and the rainbow that has been depicted as a symbol of Gay Pride. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/908 "2017-12-13T20:46:11Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > No, I’m not being intentionally obtuse. You just keep trying to equate one action with another and I’m not having it. You’ve gone from cakes to pictures \*of _Trump to pictures_ for \*Trump. I’m cool with refusing to serve Trump altogether because Trumps aren’t a protected class. We’re in Federal Court, dealing with the Federal Constitution and gays are not a suspect\* class, either. \*what you are calling a “protected” class. ---
**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 13, 2017, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/909 "2017-12-13T20:59:44Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > No, I’m not being intentionally obtuse. You just keep trying to equate one action with another and I’m not having it. You’ve gone from cakes to pictures \*of _Trump to pictures_ for \*Trump. I’m cool with refusing to serve Trump altogether because Trumps aren’t a protected class. This business about the quality of the work is a red herring and would probably have more to do with refund policies and guarantees than discriminatory business practices. > > Now: if the law’s not on my side regarding justifying bigotry in the name of religion, then it’s not on my side and I concede. If we’re discussing the issue and not the laws concerning the issue, then I’m not giving an inch and you’ll never convince me to do so. The Justices themselves attempted to equate one action with another. It is part of the process of how they explore the consequences and limitations of various approaches to possibly formulate a rule or test that could be used by lower courts for future similar cases. Yes, the Justices compared cake decorating to paintings by Jackson Pollock or great works of architecture such as the Laurentian steps by Michelangelo. So it is no surprise the discussion hear would be rife with analogies. ---
**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 13, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/910 "2017-12-13T21:21:55Z")
What the baker is really after is avoiding ‘guilt by association’ - he doesn’t want to be known as the baker that provided a cake to the gay wedding - because, fr him, that equates to supporting gay marraige. There is no ‘speech’ being compelled by the cake itself (as it has no words being put on it) - but by other customers associating his service with SSM - something he, personally, abhors. It’s similar to the case in Ky where a t-shirt shop refused to do an order for a gay pride parade , because they didn’t want to be associated with it - and ‘shirts provided by X’ becomes a statement. They were happy to provide shirt printing in general - but once it became associated with an event , it changed. (still yet to be finalized) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-kentucky-supreme-court-to-hear-gay-pride-t-shirt-case/2017/11/29/2fb1e58e-d546-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05\_story.html?utm\_term=.e02d1a372362](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-kentucky-supreme-court-to-hear-gay-pride-t-shirt-case/2017/11/29/2fb1e58e-d546-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html?utm_term=.e02d1a372362) and [Kentucky court sides with owner who refused printing gay pride shirts - UPI.com](https://www.upi.com/Kentucky-court-sides-with-owner-who-refused-printing-gay-pride-shirts/6201494708022/) ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/911 "2017-12-13T21:41:22Z")
> [@simster](#): > > What the baker is really after is avoiding ‘guilt by association’ - he doesn’t want to be known as the baker that provided a cake to the gay wedding - because, fr him, that equates to supporting gay marraige. I haven’t seen any evidence supporting that claim. Do you have any? ---
**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 13, 2017, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/912 "2017-12-13T21:43:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I haven’t seen any evidence supporting that claim. Do you have any? Sorry - I should have framed that more as ‘my take’ on it - or another way to look at it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/913 "2017-12-13T22:05:46Z")
> [@simster](#): > > There is no ‘speech’ being compelled by the cake itself (as it has no words being put on it) - but by other customers associating his service with SSM - something he, personally, abhors. In 1984, the Republicans held their presidential nominating convention in Dallas. Outside the convention center, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag, and was as a result charged with and convicted of “desecration of a venerated object,” in violation of Texas criminal law. His case was reversed by the US Supreme Court, which noted: > [@](#): > > Johnson was convicted of flag desecration for burning the flag rather than for uttering insulting words. This fact somewhat complicates our consideration of his conviction under the First Amendment. We must first determine whether Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. I won’t leave you in suspense: the Court decided that even though no words were on the flag or Johnson’s lips, his conduct was protected by the First Amendment. We thus learn that whether cakes have words is not a particularly dispositive inquiry. ---
**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, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/914 "2017-12-13T22:52:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. Nope. You’ve either failed to read beyond what you emphasized and/or you’re conflating cake baking services with design. As I indicated, I think it’s perfectly kosher for a baker to restrict what designs he will incorporate into his cakes as long as he’s consistent about it with every customer. In other words, if he wants to say no rainbows, he does so with everyone. But if he says no custom cakes, he needs to do that with every customer not just the ones whose sexual orientation he disagrees with (so sayeth Colorado). Similarly, using your hypothetical, the Muslim baker may refuse the customer of protected class a cake design that includes the image, but to refuse to create a cake at all, even one that he would willingly produce for any other customer, based on their protected class status is discrimination. ---
**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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/915 "2017-12-13T22:54:40Z")
By the way, refusing to put rainbows on a kid’s birthday cake, just makes him an asshole making an unreasonable statement. Perfectly legal, though. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/916 "2017-12-13T22:56:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. I’m sure the 4 will rule for the gay couple although I don’t think we can ever assume, because unlike in Congress they actually have to explain and justify their reasoning. From what I can tell, the 4 liberal justices will focus on the fact that he clearly didn’t want to serve the gay couple at all and that there was no way he was ever going to custom make a cake. Bypass the expression issue entirely. And the “general applicability” rule does actually exist: > **[Rules of General Applicability](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2071411)** > > In the context of constitutional adjudication, the concept of general applicability is commonly used to distinguish general laws being applied to regulate speec The problem with this case is that there is no generally applicable law requiring cake makers to make any custom cake requested. They can and do refuse certain designs. The article also adds that laws of general applicability have to be neutral. Colorado did not enforce the law in a neutral fashion. They endorsed discrimination against Christians, but condemned it against gays. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/917 "2017-12-13T23:00:43Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Nope. You’ve either failed to read beyond what you emphasized and/or you’re conflating cake baking services with design. As I indicated, I think it’s perfectly kosher for a baker to restrict what designs he will incorporate into his cakes as long as he’s consistent about it with every customer. In other words, if he wants to say no rainbows, he does so with everyone. But if he says no custom cakes, he needs to do that with every customer not just the ones whose sexual orientation he disagrees with (so sayeth Colorado). > > Similarly, using your hypothetical, the Muslim baker may refuse the customer of protected class a cake design that includes the image, but to refuse to create a cake at all, even one that he would willingly produce for any other customer, based on their protected class status is discrimination. Yep. And I read your whole post 3 times. Point being, you made an over-arching declarative statement which is not consistent with the rest of your post. If you wish to withdraw that statement, fine. But there is no context you can add to the statement that makes it correct and that also makes your subsequent posting correct at the same time. If I say: “Asians are sub-human. Sometimes Asians perform at a human level.” I don’t get a pass on the first sentence, just because of the 2nd one. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/918 "2017-12-13T23:05:12Z")
> [@simster](#): > > What the baker is really after is avoiding ‘guilt by association’ - he doesn’t want to be known as the baker that provided a cake to the gay wedding - because, fr him, that equates to supporting gay marraige. > > There is no ‘speech’ being compelled by the cake itself (as it has no words being put on it) - but by other customers associating his service with SSM - something he, personally, abhors. > > It’s similar to the case in Ky where a t-shirt shop refused to do an order for a gay pride parade , because they didn’t want to be associated with it - and ‘shirts provided by X’ becomes a statement. They were happy to provide shirt printing in general - but once it became associated with an event , it changed. (still yet to be finalized) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-kentucky-supreme-court-to-hear-gay-pride-t-shirt-case/2017/11/29/2fb1e58e-d546-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05\_story.html?utm\_term=.e02d1a372362](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-kentucky-supreme-court-to-hear-gay-pride-t-shirt-case/2017/11/29/2fb1e58e-d546-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html?utm_term=.e02d1a372362) and [Kentucky court sides with owner who refused printing gay pride shirts - UPI.com](https://www.upi.com/Kentucky-court-sides-with-owner-who-refused-printing-gay-pride-shirts/6201494708022/) If you can refuse to do any type of legal event, you can refuse to do any type of legal event. Period. There are no “protected” classes of people you must provide services for, while being free to refuse it to others who are not protected. That’s not how civil rights law works. Civil rights law is to promote EQUALITY, not SPECIAL rights. ---
**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 13, 2017, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/919 "2017-12-13T23:12:34Z")
One point which was touched on only very briefly was the penalty imposed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. One part of the penalty was the baker was ordered to train his own staff on compliance. Justice Gorsuch noted that this IS compelled speech and a lesser intrusive option (the state formulate its own class so the state can do its own speaking) is available. And that forced speech would have to state things that violate the beliefs of the baker and his family members who are employees. Justice Ginsburg posited that the baker could educate its staff on the requirements of the law and didn’t necessarily have to say that their beliefs were wrong. IMHO that point is a clear enough compulsion that we might see that point split out in the holding. So even if the major issues are a win for the state I think there is likely a solid majority that would say the commission has to come up with a different penalty for education rather than making the baker do it himself. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/920 "2017-12-13T23:19:33Z")
Now that’s interesting because while I don’t know of any cases of a judicial or quasi-judicial body forcing a company to retrain employees, that is very often something companies do to avoid further enforcement actions. Which is fine if the issue is that employees aren’t trained properly. That comes up a lot in disabled access cases. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=45) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=47)