# 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:** 50
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/981 "2017-12-15T03:44:21Z")
I’d also note that the democratic consensus as far as protecting gay marriage has so far been to allow for religious objections. We were assured in no uncertain terms that religious people would not be forced to endorse gay marriage. We were assured that there would be tolerance for peaceful, principled, opposing views. The Obergefell decision and Presidential statements both contained such assurances. If all that was just a convenient lie to make gay marriage a reality, then that will make further advancements in civil rights difficult. You’re basically declaring war on religion, which is a class with the ultimate protection(the 1st amendment). Which of course can lead to broad decisions allowing discrimination for religious reasons, something you had wanted to avoid, but now are staring in the face. ---
**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 15, 2017, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/982 "2017-12-15T03:59:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d also note that the democratic consensus as far as protecting gay marriage has so far been to allow for religious objections. We were assured in no uncertain terms that religious people would not be forced to endorse gay marriage. We were assured that there would be tolerance for peaceful, principled, opposing views. The Obergefell decision and Presidential statements both contained such assurances. You do know that nobody is being forced to endorse anything here, right? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/983 "2017-12-15T04:12:11Z")
The baker is. He’s not alone. Some states have even required Christians to attend and help out with gay weddings, such as photographers and florists, and there have been attempts to coerce wedding planners. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/984 "2017-12-15T04:16:55Z")
I don’t bring this up just to vent. Anthony Kennedy’s Obergefell decision anticipated this very problem, whch is why it coming true might cause Kennedy to author a much broader opinion on religious freedom than expected. When kennedy gets righteous anger, as he did in Citizens United and the Obamacare case, he’s not afraid to write radical opinions. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/985 "2017-12-15T04:40:20Z")
I don’t really give a fuck about the feelings of people who mask homophobia behind religion, honestly. A baker making a cake isn’t endorsing the wedding, a band playing a reception isn’t endorsing the wedding, a photographer taking pictures isn’t endorsing a wedding. They’re doing their jobs! The only person whose job should be exempt from being performed because of religious objections to gay marriage is the minister. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/986 "2017-12-15T05:03:43Z")
That should have been made clear so that opponents would know what hill they had to die on. Now you’re facing a permanent exception to anti-discrimination laws. Well played. Instead, your side soothed them with promises of a truce. “Gay marriage won’t affect you at all! Has nothing to do with you.” And why do I get the feeling that the clergy exception is strictly “for now”? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/987 "2017-12-15T05:10:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d also note that the democratic consensus as far as protecting gay marriage has so far been to allow for religious objections. We were assured in no uncertain terms that religious people would not be forced to endorse gay marriage. We were assured that there would be tolerance for peaceful, principled, opposing views. The Obergefell decision and Presidential statements both contained such assurances. I believe this law predates same-sex marriage in every\* state. This case isn’t really related to same-sex marriage. The fact that the victims got a marriage license at the courthouse (or will get one, whatever) is not relevant. \*Edit: Not in every state, but in Colorado. This is a 2008 law, so same-sex civil marriage licenses are not part of this. ---
**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 15, 2017, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/988 "2017-12-15T05:10:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Maybe a better analogy is to hiring: every job is different, every candidate is different, and it’s extremely difficult to prove that someone is engaging in race-based hiring decisions. That doesn’t mean we don’t try. > > The “customization” isn’t important here: what’s important is that we as a society recognize that we can’t know what’s going on in someone’s head, but by their actions we can figure out whether they’re making their decision for discriminatory reasons. It’s hard, but we do it anyway. > > Similarly, we’ll never know for sure whether the baker refuses lavender flowers because they’re gay or because he’s got a policy against that particular color combination. So what? We can look at the evidence and figure out where it most likely points. Can you take a stab at how the court might word the ruling to put your ideas into practice? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/989 "2017-12-15T05:27:28Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Not in every state, but in Colorado. This is a 2008 law, so same-sex civil marriage licenses are not part of this. Evidently this all happened in **2012** , in a state that did not have same-sex marriage. So this nonexistent compromise that wasn’t actually in the Obergefell decision, wherein the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses at courthouses means that bakeries can be re-segregated in states where gay people are protected by anti-segregation laws, wouldn’t even apply. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/990 "2017-12-15T06:26:16Z")
There was no formal compromise. Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, and the 1st amendment has not been repealed. Since we were assured by the vast majority of pro-gay marriage activists that no one would ever have to participate in a gay marriage if they didn’t want to, there should be no problem formalizing that promise in a broad SCOTUS ruling. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/991 "2017-12-15T07:10:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > {…} no one would ever have to participate in a gay marriage if they didn’t want to, {…} There is no meeting of the minds on what “participate” actually means. I think, for most of us, the only people participating in a “gay” marriage are the two people actually getting married and, often, the person performing the ceremony, everyone else is just a spectator. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/992 "2017-12-15T07:14:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Since we were assured by the vast majority of pro-gay marriage activists that no one would ever have to participate in a gay marriage if they didn’t want to, there should be no problem formalizing that promise in a broad SCOTUS ruling. Nobody was told they had to participate in a gay marriage (and nobody, other than employees of the state like Kim Davis, ever does have to participate in one). This case _isn’t about gay marriage_. It’s simple to tell that, because both the law _and the case_ predate gay marriage! ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/993 "2017-12-15T07:22:42Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > There is no meeting of the minds on what “participate” actually means. I think, for most of us, the only people participating in a “gay” marriage are the two people actually getting married and, often, the person performing the ceremony, everyone else is just a spectator. Yes. The gay marriage debate was about marriage licenses, not _wedding accoutrements_ for sale in shops. Gay marriage had nothing to do with segregated bakeries, in any way. It’s legal to have a straights-only segregated bakery in some states, and not in others, and it was that way before same-sex marriage was legal anywhere (I think at least one state has had a law like this since the 90s). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/994 "2017-12-15T10:51:47Z")
It’s not a segregated bakery. It’s a dry bakery, it’s a sober bakery, it’s a Christian bakery, it’s an anti-ghosts and devils bakery. It’s even an anti-divorce bakery. I guess he can’t discriminate against a gay divorce either? But a straight divorce would be fine for him to refuse? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/995 "2017-12-15T11:00:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > His position is that he doesn’t make “the exact same cake,” but rather creates a custom cake for every wedding. > > So “the exact same service,” is not really an accurate synopsis. The exact same service is not the exact same cake. Have we ultimately reached the argument that one cannot discriminate in the provision of goods but one can discriminate in the provision of services? > [@adaher](#): > > That should have been made clear so that opponents would know what hill they had to die on. Now you’re facing a permanent exception to anti-discrimination laws. Well played. > > Instead, your side soothed them with promises of a truce. “Gay marriage won’t affect you at all! Has nothing to do with you.” > > And why do I get the feeling that the clergy exception is strictly “for now”? Because you are mischaracterizing your opponent’s positions yet again (as indeed you have done repeatedly here and above)? Why all the strawmen? Is this the hill **you** wish to die on? ---
**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 15, 2017, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/996 "2017-12-15T11:46:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you take a stab at how the court might word the ruling to put your ideas into practice? Nah. I don’t write lawyer. And the court is best at laying out principles; it’d be the executive branch that writes the regulations, much as the EEOC, not the Supreme Court, sets out anti-discrimination guidelines for hiring new employees. > [@adaher](#): > > It’s not a segregated bakery. It’s a dry bakery, it’s a sober bakery, it’s a Christian bakery, it’s an anti-ghosts and devils bakery. It’s even an anti-divorce bakery. > > I guess he can’t discriminate against a gay divorce either? But a straight divorce would be fine for him to refuse? That would be unacceptable discrimination, if he would bake a cake for a gay but not a straight divorcee. It’s about the customer, not about the product, which makes it unacceptable. > [@adaher](#): > > The baker is. He’s not alone. Some states have even required Christians to attend and help out with gay weddings, such as photographers and florists, and there have been attempts to coerce wedding planners. Selling your work !=endorsement. When I worked as a baker, I often sold cookies to overweight customers: was I endorsing their obesity? It’s a ridiculous idea. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/997 "2017-12-15T11:59:28Z")
Certainly a complex case. I am not sure this issue ought to be legislated. It would have been better not to have gotten the lawyers involved. ---
**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 15, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/998 "2017-12-15T14:39:58Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nah. I don’t write lawyer. And the court is best at laying out principles; it’d be the executive branch that writes the regulations, much as the EEOC, not the Supreme Court, sets out anti-discrimination guidelines for hiring new employees. If the court rules in favor of the gay couple, it will most certainly write guidelines for how to decide cases going forward, like The Lemon Test. I’m starting to think that maybe the court will punt on this and send it back to the lower courts if Kennedy does not rule in favor of the baker. If he rules in favor of the gay couple, he will be the one writing the guidelines and who wants to be the SCOTUS justice who laid out the rules about when it’s OK and when it’s not OK to discriminate against gays? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/999 "2017-12-15T15:13:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m starting to think that maybe the court will punt on this and send it back to the lower courts if Kennedy does not rule in favor of the baker. I understand that a member of the Colorado board that enforces this law made bigoted comments about Christians. This could be grounds to toss it back to the state and let everyone figure this out at a lower level. As I said, I suspect this ought not to have ended up in the courts. ---
**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 15, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1000 "2017-12-15T16:20:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If the court rules in favor of the gay couple, it will most certainly write guidelines for how to decide cases going forward, like The Lemon Test. I’m starting to think that maybe the court will punt on this and send it back to the lower courts if Kennedy does not rule in favor of the baker. If he rules in favor of the gay couple, he will be the one writing the guidelines and who wants to be the SCOTUS justice who laid out the rules about when it’s OK and when it’s not OK to discriminate against gays? It never needs to be okay, any more than it should be okay to discriminate against Jews. The question is whether it’s ever okay to have rules about what products you’ll make for anyone, and of course that’s okay. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=51)