# 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:** 54
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1061 "2017-12-23T19:20:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think he means that there are some religious laws against incest or underage marriages or polygamy or stuff like that. Some even forbid “mixed” marriages between the correct religion and “those other folks”. That’s a good guess I suppose. So, are there any legally recognized marriages that that phrase would be legally acceptable to be forbidden for religious reasons, other than SSM? Not quite ETA: (And other than that one state where you can marry your sister if she is over childbearing age or otherwise infertile.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1062 "2017-12-23T20:34:40Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > On second thought, you may be implying that there is some religion or sect that has a problem using those words at all. If that is the case, why don’t you just go ahead and say that, rather than trying to get us to guess what religion you happen to be thinking of? My point was not to identify the religion specifically, but to point out the factual error in the claim, “No religious laws/texts have anything to say about wedding cake decorating.” Of course, technically, **drachillix** merely expressed “serious doubt,” that such religious rules exist. So I offered up an example, or more specifically a question designed to highlight the example. You chimed in with a statement that also suggested error, “Apparently only if the love is between two of the same sex.” That was neither apparent, or factually accurate. Observant Jewish practice includes essentially never writing the name of God. (Again technically, the prohibition is not against writing it, but against writing in when the writing may subsequently be defaced or destroyed; see the Rambam’s _Sefer Ha-mitzvot_ (_lo ta’aseh_ 65), for example). The Rambam did not discuss eating the name, to be sure, but we may safely observe that eating it would in fact destroy it. So now, no one should entertain doubt, serious or otherwise, that religious rules or texts exist that are relevant to cake decoration. And no one, you included, you believe that these rules apply only “if the love is between two of the same sex.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1063 "2017-12-23T20:39:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > A baker could claim that “May our marriage be blessed by God” is against his religious beliefs, but in order to make that claim, he would have to deny that message to all customers, not just to some of them. That’s an awfully confident claim. It’s almost like you are announcing a rule. Can you explain why that wouldn’t constitute compelled speech under the First Amendment’s precedents? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1064 "2017-12-23T20:55:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My point was not to identify the religion specifically, but to point out the factual error in the claim, “No religious laws/texts have anything to say about wedding cake decorating.” > > Of course, technically, **drachillix** merely expressed “serious doubt,” that such religious rules exist. So I offered up an example, or more specifically a question designed to highlight the example. > > You chimed in with a statement that also suggested error, “Apparently only if the love is between two of the same sex.” > > That was neither apparent, or factually accurate. > > Observant Jewish practice includes essentially never writing the name of God. (Again technically, the prohibition is not against writing it, but against writing in when the writing may subsequently be defaced or destroyed; see the Rambam’s _Sefer Ha-mitzvot_ (_lo ta’aseh_ 65), for example). The Rambam did not discuss eating the name, to be sure, but we may safely observe that eating it would in fact destroy it. > > So now, no one should entertain doubt, serious or otherwise, that religious rules or texts exist that are relevant to cake decoration. And no one, you included, you believe that these rules apply only “if the love is between two of the same sex.” And this baker would not write those words on any cake, for any couple, for any reason, right? Not discrimination. I apologize, I was mistaken in that I thought that your example was relevant in dealing with the issue of discrimination, and not just a potential score on my next game of trivial pursuit. So, to be relevant to this thread, are there any examples of religious rules that would cause a baker that would write those words for one legal marriage, but not for another, other than SSM or that one state that allows incest? You did pick out one line of drachillix’s post out of context, I did not realize that in doing so you were also going to change the intent of the words that drachillix used. Your example was not of a religious text about wedding cake decorating, it was an example of words that cannot be used on anything that is consumable. It had nothing to do with wedding cakes, other than that you could theoretically use it on wedding cakes. You may as well have rebutted the argument by saying “A couple asks for a cake with the face of mohammed on it”, might there be any religious texts/laws about that?" At least then it wouldn’t appear as though you were going for obscure. IOW, your rebuttal had nothing at all to do with wedding cakes, weddings, discrimination, SSM, or anything else relevant to the thread. Do agree that if the baker was going to put those words on any cake, he would have to put them on all cakes if requested? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1065 "2017-12-24T04:51:18Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > IOW, your rebuttal had nothing at all to do with wedding cakes, weddings, discrimination, SSM, or anything else relevant to the thread. To the contrary, the rebuttal served a valuable purpose: to stigmatize this unfortunate tendency people have of announcing, in tones of certainty that rival Moses at Sinai, some kind of rule - a rule that doesn’t actually exist. > [@](#): > > Do agree that if the baker was going to put those words on any cake, he would have to put them on all cakes if requested? No. I think that would constitute compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment. ---
**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 24, 2017, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1066 "2017-12-24T07:59:11Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … > Do agree that if the baker was going to put those words on any cake, he would have to put them on all cakes if requested? [Justice Alito clearly showed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20665937&postcount=970) the problem with the idea of requiring a baker to duplicate any message that had previously be provided to a different customer. In short, whatever ruling the court fashions will not require such a simplistic rule. And any notion that a person offering a religious objection must be able to point to some written command in whatever text his faith adheres to is one huge No True Scotsman argument. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. A court may examine if the religious belief of a single individual is sincerely held. But courts will not put an entire religion on trial to determine if a particular belief corresponds to a professed faith or decide which version of a particular belief system is the “right” one. ---
**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 24, 2017, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1067 "2017-12-24T09:49:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > {…} to stigmatize this unfortunate tendency people have of announcing, in tones of certainty that rival Moses at Sinai, some kind of rule - a rule that doesn’t actually exist. {…} Like the Biblical “rule” that Christians aren’t allowed to make cakes for “gay” weddings? CMC fnord! ---
**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 24, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1068 "2017-12-24T15:06:48Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > And any notion that a person offering a religious objection must be able to point to some written command in whatever text his faith adheres to is one huge No True Scotsman argument. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. > > A court may examine if the religious belief of a single individual is sincerely held. But courts will not put an entire religion on trial to determine if a particular belief corresponds to a professed faith or decide which version of a particular belief system is the “right” one. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Like the Biblical “rule” that Christians aren’t allowed to make cakes for “gay” weddings? > > CMC fnord! Read up. ---
**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 25, 2017, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1069 "2017-12-25T09:05:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Read up. Fortunately, for me, I’m not “a court”. CMC fnord! ---
**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 25, 2017, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1070 "2017-12-25T11:23:00Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Fortunately, for me, I’m not “a court”. > > CMC fnord! I agree. Fortunately there is sufficient jurisprudence to establish that no one must be perfect to be able to raise the issue of a right of religious expression or conscientious objection. In fact a person’s sincerely held beliefs [need not arise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Seeger) from organized religion at least in the case of conscientious objection. That could be extended beyond the context of a military draft. There was even a [rather famous person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali) whose case made its way to the high court in which the justices granted him conscientious exemption from the draft since “beliefs are founded on tenets of the Muslim religion _ **as he understands them** _.” _ **emphasis** _ mine. So Jack Phillip’s personal beliefs may be assessed, but only as to whether he sincerely holds those beliefs about marriage as he understands that his faith requires. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1071 "2017-12-25T17:54:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > A baker could claim that “May our marriage be blessed by God” is against his religious beliefs, but in order to make that claim, he would have to deny that message to all customers, not just to some of them. That wouldn’t be an accurate statement. That implies all marriages are approved by said religious belief or for that matter any belief system. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1072 "2017-12-25T19:28:43Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Fortunately, for me, I’m not “a court”. > > CMC fnord! Fortunately for ME, it’s a court that decides the issue, not you. ---
**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 25, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1073 "2017-12-25T20:36:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fortunately for ME, it’s a court that decides the issue, not you. Good that you know exactly how I would rule on this case . . . since I, actually, don’t know! CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1074 "2017-12-25T21:30:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fortunately for ME, it’s a court that decides the issue, not you. Fortunately for all of us, personal opinions are still allowed. Aren’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1075 "2017-12-25T21:41:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Fortunately for all of us, personal opinions are still allowed. > > Aren’t they? Sure, in fact, I hear tell of an entire forum on this site dedicated to their exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1076 "2017-12-25T21:47:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, in fact, I hear tell of an entire forum on this site dedicated to their exchange. The implication being, that matters of opinion are not suited to this forum? Because that’s also wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1077 "2017-12-26T01:14:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The implication being, that matters of opinion are not suited to this forum? > > Because that’s also wrong. I notice that you did not speak as a moderator, but I nonetheless am concerned about contradicting you. So I’ll just say nothing. ---
**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 26, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1078 "2017-12-26T01:35:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, in fact, I hear tell of an entire forum on this site dedicated to their exchange. I hear tell of only one forum on this site not dedicated to the exchange of personal opinions, GQ, and even it’s infested with them. Are you, a 99er, under the impression that “IMHO” is special??? 😕 CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1079 "2017-12-26T01:39:50Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I hear tell of only one forum on this site not dedicated to the exchange of personal opinions, GQ, and even it’s infested with them. > > Are you, a 99er, under the impression that “IMHO” is special??? 😕 > > CMC fnord! I, a 99’er, am an incurable optimist in this regard. But I certainly admit you have the realistic side of this exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1080 "2017-12-26T02:48:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I notice that you did not speak as a moderator, but I nonetheless am concerned about contradicting you. So I’ll just say nothing. I was speaking as a poster, and not a moderator. But you’ve been here how many years, and never noticed the forum description for GD? “For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.” The forum was initially conceived for “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” type questions. Obviously, objective facts are welcome when they’re applicable, but the only forum here that’s specifically supposed to only be about factual matters is GQ. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=53) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=55)