# 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:** 47
**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, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/921 "2017-12-13T23:21:14Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > 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. Bizarre. I’d look more at the responsibilities and obligations a business owner assumes when they open a business on the grounds that I don’t care about the feelings of the people I do business with. I give money, you give cake, away I go. Feelings and beliefs of the person taking money and giving cake are not a factor. I’m not patronizing the owner, I’m patronizing the business. Don’t care about the owner’s feelings towards me one way or the other. But that’s me. If that’s not how the law sees it, I guess the laws aren’t in my favour. ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/922 "2017-12-13T23:22:59Z")
So then you agree that the bakery that refused to do the Leviticus quote was in the wrong? ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/923 "2017-12-13T23:25:20Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Bizarre. I’d look more at the responsibilities and obligations a business owner assumes when they open a business on the grounds that I don’t care about the feelings of the people I do business with. I give money, you give cake, away I go. Feelings and beliefs of the person taking money and giving cake are not a factor. I’m not patronizing the owner, I’m patronizing the business. Don’t care about the owner’s feelings towards me one way or the other. > > But that’s me. If that’s not how the law sees it, I guess the laws aren’t in my favour. Really? Let’s say you lived in a state where discrimination against gays was legal. You wouldn’t boycott a business that refused to serve gays? I certainly would, even though I think the business should be able to do so, legally. ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/924 "2017-12-14T00:24:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > So then you agree that the bakery that refused to do the Leviticus quote was in the wrong? I’m not digging through 18 pages of posts looking for details, but if the bakery was refusing to endorse right-wing bigotry then of course they weren’t in the wrong. If doing the right thing in this case comes with a fine or penalty, they should pay it. Cost of doing business. But they certainly weren’t in the wrong. Me, I’d say “sure I’ll make your cake, then I’m taking the proceeds and donating them to the ACLU or something similar.” I’m like that. > [@](#): > > Really? Let’s say you lived in a state where discrimination against gays was legal. You wouldn’t boycott a business that refused to serve gays? I certainly would, even though I think the business should be able to do so, legally. Of course I would. What does that have to do with the businesses I do want to do business with? I did say that I didn’t care about the feelings of people I choose to do business with. Their feelings and beliefs might affect that choice, but once it’s made and I walk in and slap my money down, give cake. They’re a public accommodation, I’m a member of the public. Give cake. Don’t like gays because of your religion? Too bad, give cake. Don’t like gays for entirely secular reasons? Too bad, give cake. As you can see, I’m not terribly sympathetic when it comes to bigotry. If the law is more so, then I guess the law and I don’t see eye to eye. ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/925 "2017-12-14T00:39:35Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I’m not digging through 18 pages of posts looking for details, but if the bakery was refusing to endorse right-wing bigotry then of course they weren’t in the wrong. If doing the right thing in this case comes with a fine or penalty, they should pay it. Cost of doing business. But they certainly weren’t in the wrong. So you’re ok with government treating parties differently based on viewpoint? :dubious: Good thing you’re not a judge. ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/926 "2017-12-14T00:43:50Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Of course I would. What does that have to do with the businesses I do want to do business with? OK, but you have a funny way of saying that. "I’m not patronizing the owner, I’m patronizing the business. Don’t care about the owner’s feelings towards me one way or the other. " Yes, you are patronizing the owner, and yes you do care about his feeling towards you. That is, if you would boycott the business because of the way the owner feels about you. ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/927 "2017-12-14T00:50:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. There’s no reason to retract my statement because there was no contradiction at all. Unless you think baking and designing mean the same thing, which they don’t. Try reading it again because the first three times didn’t seem to take. I’m not sure how much simpler I can make it. Denying a service which he provides to others (custom cakes) is different than refusing a specific design of that cake. He did the prior. And he did it solely because of their sexual orientation, not because they asked for a design he didn’t want to create. ---
**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 14, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/928 "2017-12-14T01:24:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, but you have a funny way of saying that. "I’m not patronizing the owner, I’m patronizing the business. Don’t care about the owner’s feelings towards me one way or the other. " > > Yes, you are patronizing the owner, and yes you do care about his feeling towards you. That is, if you would boycott the business because of the way the owner feels about you. Or others. And no, I really don’t care about their feelings about me one way or the other once I’ve decided to do business. Assuming they’re a homophobic baker and I’m a gay blushing groom, I don’t care what they think of my lifestyle. I care about the cake. If they congratulate me on my nuptials, great, but I don’t expect or demand it. If they rant and rave about how I’m in league with Lucifer that’s great too, if a bit tedious. So long as I get my 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 14, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/929 "2017-12-14T02:06:25Z")
> [@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. I’m not trying to convince you, I just want to show everyone else how weak your argument is. Your argument is that we should do what you want because you really feel strongly about it. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/930 "2017-12-14T02:07:48Z")
That’s the approach religionists use, and they’ve been pretty successful with 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 14, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/931 "2017-12-14T02:12:37Z")
> [@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). If someone doesn’t want to express themselves ina particular way, nobody can make him (so sayeth the Constitution of the United States of America). I don’t know where that leaves us but I don’t think its as easy as you think. > [@](#): > > 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. I thought the baker had stipulated this. ---
**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 14, 2017, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/932 "2017-12-14T02:40:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If someone doesn’t want to express themselves ina particular way, nobody can make him (so sayeth the Constitution of the United States of America). I don’t know where that leaves us but I don’t think its as easy as you think. If only baking a cake was “expressing oneself.” The expression is in the design. If he chooses not to express tolerance of same sex marriage in the design of his cakes, that’s fine. He can agree to a design he feels comfortable with, but to deny them his services because he doesn’t agree with their marriage is discrimination, plain and simple. He wasn’t balking about a design, he was balking about providing a service (wedding cake) to a gay couple. I guess I might be a little unclear on the details. According to what I’ve read, the baker refused to create a custom wedding cake for them. I have not read anything that indicates that he agreed to create a wedding cake to his own design specifications. Is it correct that he offered them a birthday cake instead? Is that something he often does for his wedding cake customers or did he just do it for this particular couple? ETA: Would you agree that if they requested a wedding cake of the same design that he has already created for someone else, then he’s already agreed to “express himself” in that specific way? > [@](#): > > I thought the baker had stipulated this. Um…which baker stipulated what? I thought the Muslim baker was a hypothetical. ---
**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 14, 2017, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/933 "2017-12-14T03:22:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not trying to convince you, I just want to show everyone else how weak your argument is. Your argument is that we should do what you want because you really feel strongly about it. Good luck with that. No, that’s not my argument. Bye. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/934 "2017-12-14T05:51:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It sounds like the cake that this couple ultimate got had a rainbow on it. Is that normal for straight couples? > > I think it’s trivial to think of ways that a SSM cake design might differ from one for a straight couple. I know I’m llate responding but I had to actually go to work and stuff. I had not heard about the rainbow. I think Masterpiece Bakery has every right to refuse to bake a wedding cake with a rainbow on it. If. I were the owner of Masterpiece Bakery I would probably refuse to bake a wedding cake with a rainbow on it. Because it’s tacky, whether you are straight or gay. And I could understand Masterpiece Bakery not wanting their name on it. In the same vein I could understand if they refused to bake a wedding cake with a NASCAR theme. Or text on it. Our even a tasteful cubist themed cake if their signature style is traditional. I respect their artistry. They can have free rein in deciding what cakes to bake. But that’s not the issue -unless I’ve misunderstood the entire debate. Because I don’t recall the part where the baker offered to make a traditional non-rainbow themed cake for the same sex couple. That is why I keep going back to the deception analogy- how could making this cake be harming the baker’s religious freedom if a straight couple could order the cake then turn around and give it to their gay friends. So I actually do think it’s OK for the baker not to make a rainbow cake for a gay couple as long as he wouldn’t make one for a straight couple. And I’m still really baffled by the whole “cakes that can speak” thing, but it would seem to me that if MB makes a cake for a straight couple, that same cake would still say the same thing if it were handed off to a gay couple. Because cakes don’t know if the person whose going to eat them is straight or gay. Because they’re cakes. And all this wedding cake talk has me thinking that metaphorically, maybe commissioning a beautiful custom-made one of a kind art work that you cut up, eat and totally destroy immediately after the wedding is not the most auspicious way to begin a life together. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/935 "2017-12-14T10:52:17Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I’m not digging through 18 pages of posts looking for details, but if the bakery was refusing to endorse right-wing bigotry then of course they weren’t in the wrong. If doing the right thing in this case comes with a fine or penalty, they should pay it. Cost of doing business. But they certainly weren’t in the wrong. Well, they were not fined and it was ruled legal. So it’s legal to refuse to do cakes based on your personal values. The law has to be viewpoint neutral. That’s the very basis of the 1st amendment. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/936 "2017-12-14T10:56:47Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > If only baking a cake was “expressing oneself.” The expression is in the design. If he chooses not to express tolerance of same sex marriage in the design of his cakes, that’s fine. He can agree to a design he feels comfortable with, but to deny them his services because he doesn’t agree with their marriage is discrimination, plain and simple. He wasn’t balking about a design, he was balking about providing a service (wedding cake) to a gay couple I think this argument is excellent and what the 4 liberal justices will hang their hats on. The problem is that it’s the type of decision that if 5 justices do endorse it, another case like this will be before the court very soon. They actually do need to establish what the balance is between religious freedom and civil rights. Because the next cake maker, or tattoo artist, or painter, is going to make sure to agree to perform the service but place difficult conditions on how the service will be performed. Let’s decide that now and get it out of the way. ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/937 "2017-12-14T12:39:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, they were not fined and it was ruled legal. So it’s legal to refuse to do cakes based on your personal values. > > The law has to be viewpoint neutral. That’s the very basis of the 1st amendment. Well, it’s too bad that right-wing bigots can take advantage of that to justify their bigotry. Smacks of your Jim Crow laws to me. I’d say ‘come join the 21st Century, America!’ but it has Trump and nazis in it. Cheers! ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/938 "2017-12-14T12:41:09Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > There’s a difference between a rainbow over the ocean, and the rainbow that has been depicted as a symbol of Gay Pride. Yes, there is. And if you want to drill down to that layer of symbolism, I think my position is clear, but in case it’s not, here it is again: if the baker would refuse to bake the cake for a het couple, I have little problem with his refusal to bake the cake for a gay couple. If he has a policy of decorating with depictions of curved rainbows but not of rectangles colored in a rainbow fashion, a la the flag, that doesn’t particularly bother me. But refusing to bake a cake because of who’s asking for it? Not cool. ---
**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 14, 2017, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/939 "2017-12-14T13:04:59Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > No, that’s not my argument. Bye. Despite all your “arguments” (for lack of a better word) to the contrary. ---
**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 14, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/940 "2017-12-14T13:14:10Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > If only baking a cake was “expressing oneself.” The expression is in the design. If he chooses not to express tolerance of same sex marriage in the design of his cakes, that’s fine. He can agree to a design he feels comfortable with, but to deny them his services because he doesn’t agree with their marriage is discrimination, plain and simple. He wasn’t balking about a design, he was balking about providing a service (wedding cake) to a gay couple. I guess I might be a little unclear on the details. According to what I’ve read, the baker refused to create a custom wedding cake for them. I have not read anything that indicates that he agreed to create a wedding cake to his own design specifications. Is it correct that he offered them a birthday cake instead? Is that something he often does for his wedding cake customers or did he just do it for this particular couple? AFAICT, he offered them other cakes but not a custom wedding cake. I had read that the wedding cake was gay themed (something about a rainbow). > [@](#): > > ETA: Would you agree that if they requested a wedding cake of the same design that he has already created for someone else, then he’s already agreed to “express himself” in that specific way? So lets say that the famous artist that drew the famous Obama poster had painted a famous mural for Obama’s inaugural ball. Could we compel that same artist to paint a similar mural for Trump’s inaugural ball? You seem to be saying that the artist could be compelled to paint the Obama mural for the Trump inauguration but not a Trump mural. Is this right? > [@](#): > > Um…which baker stipulated what? I thought the Muslim baker was a hypothetical. That he couldn’t refuse to bake a cake for a protected class. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=48)