# 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:** 60
**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:** [June 5, 2018, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1181 "2018-06-05T23:01:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Yeah, the exercise thereof is “worship”. Who is stopping them from doing so? They can pray to their god any time, any place. Nobody will bother them in the slightest. It is only when you wish to impose your religion upon others that there becomes a problem. You have a right to exercise your religion, but you don’t have a right to involve me in it. Why do your rights to discriminate against me because of your religion trump my rights to not be discriminated against because of your religion? > > I assume that you do not think that this is an absolute right, correct? That if I have sincerely held Aztec beliefs, that I cannot sacrifice even a willing human participant. There is no right to impose belief on another, but there is no right to never be exposed to religious belief as a non-believer goes about his or her public life. In that sense the believer perhaps is in the proverbial driver’s seat. Such is the price we pay for freedom of religious expression. This line between imposing belief and exposing someone to a religious practice seems to raise the hackles of some. When a proselytizing believer knocks on your door and says, to borrow [a phrase from the musical The Book of Mormon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zevRiQkfX-o) (video at link), “Hello, would you like to change religions? I’ve got a free book written by Jesus.” is that imposing belief in a legally impermissible way or the free exercise of the believer’s religion? I suspect the law would say that the believer’s proselytizing is protected and permissible. And you are stuck responding in a civilized manner. Civilized in that your response must not be an assault or the like, but you can freely communicate your answer. Freedom of Speech and all. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1182 "2018-06-05T23:10:59Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > …This line between imposing belief and exposing someone to a religious practice seems to raise the hackles of some. When a proselytizing believer knocks on your door… On the contrary, it seems to me that there is a bright and obvious line between the right to proselytize (which I have seen nobody dispute) and the infringement of civil rights under the banner of religious belief. Any discussion about “imposing belief” here has been entirely about the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1183 "2018-06-06T00:07:53Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > And the court’s prior ruling was essentially that a person could determine where the boundaries of their own personal belief lay. The court is not going to dissect such a belief and decide it is right or wrong, or if it is a requirement of a particular denomination. The court will only look at whether the belief is sincerely held, even if imperfectly so. A professed Jew can still claim a religious exemption to wear a kippah even if you once saw him eating a bacon cheeseburger. Great! Does Gorsuch tell us which religions get this deference? If I start a religion today does that count? If not where is the line drawn? ---
**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:** [June 6, 2018, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1184 "2018-06-06T00:28:39Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > There is no right to impose belief on another, but there is no right to never be exposed to religious belief as a non-believer goes about his or her public life. In that sense the believer perhaps is in the proverbial driver’s seat. Such is the price we pay for freedom of religious expression. > > This line between imposing belief and exposing someone to a religious practice seems to raise the hackles of some. When a proselytizing believer knocks on your door and says, to borrow [a phrase from the musical The Book of Mormon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zevRiQkfX-o) (video at link), “Hello, would you like to change religions? I’ve got a free book written by Jesus.” is that imposing belief in a legally impermissible way or the free exercise of the believer’s religion? I suspect the law would say that the believer’s proselytizing is protected and permissible. And you are stuck responding in a civilized manner. Civilized in that your response must not be an assault or the like, but you can freely communicate your answer. Freedom of Speech and all. There is a bright and simple line. If you choose to open your business to the public, you follow public accomodation laws. If those laws are a problem to you and your religion, then don’t open a business open to the public. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2018, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1185 "2018-06-06T00:49:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There is a bright and simple line. > > If you choose to open your business to the public, you follow public accomodation laws. > > If those laws are a problem to you and your religion, then don’t open a business open to the public. Too bad (for you) that the Supreme Court disagrees. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1186 "2018-06-06T01:01:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, \*sincere \*religious belief requires some respect, but so do its victims. That seems to be Kennedy’s message, along with the nearly explicit in the statement that the ruling would have gone the other way if the Court hadn’t preferred to duck this silly case instead. Do you have a cite for the “victim” part? We accept Catholicism even though everyone else is supposedly doomed to Hell. And who is a “victim” of religion? Two guys that could have popped into the next cake shop down the road? I understand how times have changed regarding beliefs about homosexuality, but the Constitution guarantees a FREEDOM of religion, not just respect for it, or tolerance, or any notice of its “victims” as you call them. If we were talking about hanging witches or burning at the stake, I could understand this “victim” talk, but it’s not being able to buy a fucking cake…at one single store. oh, the horrors! ---
**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:** [June 6, 2018, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1187 "2018-06-06T01:04:01Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Too bad (for you) that the Supreme Court disagrees. cite please? That’s not what happened here. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1188 "2018-06-06T01:05:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > And who is a “victim” of religion? Two guys that could have popped into the next cake shop down the road? Since when does the SCOTUS decide cases based on the victim being able to go somewhere else? Jim Crow got you down? Move to New York! Creepy boss groping you? Get a new job! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1189 "2018-06-06T02:49:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It doesn’t say “freedom of worship” in the Constitution, it says “freedom of religion” which includes daily living. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you are going to claim to quote the amendment, at least actually quote the amendment. Or at least cite where it says “freedom of religion”. > [@adaher](#): > > Fine; " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Exercise of religion doesn’t just involve what you do in a house of worship out of the public eye. It means public displays of religion are permitted as well. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Too bad (for you) that the Supreme Court disagrees. > [@simster](#): > > cite please? That’s not what happened here. Interesting couple of exchanges there; thanks everyone. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1190 "2018-06-06T02:58:00Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Yeah, the exercise thereof is “worship”. Who is stopping them from doing so? They can pray to their god any time, any place. Nobody will bother them in the slightest. It is only when you wish to impose your religion upon others that there becomes a problem. You have a right to exercise your religion, but you don’t have a right to involve me in it. Why do your rights to discriminate against me because of your religion trump my rights to not be discriminated against because of your religion? > > I assume that you do not think that this is an absolute right, correct? That if I have sincerely held Aztec beliefs, that I cannot sacrifice even a willing human participant. It’s not an absolute right. It just means laws that force people to violate their faith have to meet strict scrutiny requirements. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1191 "2018-06-06T03:08:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s not an absolute right. It just means laws that force people to violate their faith have to meet strict scrutiny requirements. What happens if your faith and my faith clash? ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1192 "2018-06-06T03:10:57Z")
It is easy for us when we look at other societies and other religions. In those cases, we habitually note the human-rights violation that is being promoted or perpetrated, and assume with hardly a second thought that only a defective religion (or defective religious leaders) could produce such a situation. It just turns out that enough of us are becoming grown-up enough to realize that our own religion is not exempt. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1193 "2018-06-06T11:24:36Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > As much as this is framed as an LGBT/civil-rights issue, I can’t help but suspect that another, underlying motive beneath much of this is a desire to see religious people squirm. Like a “let’s see how this Muslim reacts in the presence of pork” curiosity. Sure, some are genuinely in this for gay rights, but some others are motivated by “His religious views object to LGBT, therefore, let’s FORCE him to promote LGBT to see the contorted expression on his face!” That is _more than_ utterly ridiculous. It is just a way to claim the people fighting for LGBT rights are all horrible people. Yes, you included a disclaimer, but it’s not really any different than Trump’s “And some, I assume, are good people.” I mean, if that was anyone’s goal, they would have already lost, since the guy has made it quite clear that, if he can’t discriminate, he will just stop making wedding cakes altogether. So no one would ever forced to “promote LGBT [sic].” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1194 "2018-06-06T11:28:41Z")
As for the ruling, my reading is that Kennedy actually leaned a lot towards saying that religion could not trump anti-discrimination. He included a lot of unnecessary stuff otherwise. All he had to show was that the original hearing was hostile towards religion and must be redone. It seems he basically went out of his way to tell them it would be okay if they ruled the same way again, as long as they left out the remarks that were even slightly negative towards religion. But, even if that reading is wrong, he definitely did not say the opposite. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2018, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1195 "2018-06-06T11:43:58Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > And who is a “victim” of religion? Two guys that could have popped into the next cake shop down the road? > > I understand how times have changed regarding beliefs about homosexuality, but the Constitution guarantees a FREEDOM of religion, not just respect for it, or tolerance, or any notice of its “victims” as you call them. If we were talking about hanging witches or burning at the stake, I could understand this “victim” talk, but it’s not being able to buy a fucking cake…at one single store. oh, the horrors! So individual rights are dependent on the proximity of a reasonable alternative and the degree to which the product being sold is deemed to be a necessity? What if the nearest store that would sell them a cake was a mile away? 10 miles? 100 miles? The next state? Where do you draw the boundary that says “Past this point - but no closer - your rights have been violated”? And what if they were trying to buy bread and milk instead of a cake? Or baby food? Or gas for their car? What if the nearest gas station that would serve them was further away than they had fuel to reach? Should we have a government-approved list of essentials that store owners are required to sell to everyone, and anything else is discretionary? The reason rights aren’t conditional on these bases is because these bases are irrelevant to the validity of the rights. You can scoff and say “oh the horrors”, but the very real horrors of sundowner towns are still visible in our rearview mirrors, which is why such antidiscrimination laws came into being in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1196 "2018-06-06T12:12:59Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > The reason rights aren’t conditional on these bases is because these bases are irrelevant to the validity of the rights. You can scoff and say “oh the horrors”, but the very real horrors of sundowner towns are still visible in our rearview mirrors, which is why such antidiscrimination laws came into being in the first place. Look, there’s a signpost up ahead: [A South Dakota lawmaker on Monday said businesses should be able to turn away customers based on race.](https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/05/s-d-lawmaker-says-businesses-should-able-turn-away-customers-based-race/673317002/) > [@](#): > > Clark’s initial comment came in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow decision Monday siding with a Colorado baker that refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding. > > “He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants,” Clark wrote. “If he wants to turn away people of color, then that('s) his choice.” > > Clark posted a story and in the description celebrated the decision as a “win for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” ---
**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:** [June 6, 2018, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1197 "2018-06-06T12:17:27Z")
Freedom of religion means that the government treats people equally regardless of their religious views. It means a Christian has a right to obey the law in the same way as a non-Christian. (And the ruling of the court was in keeping with that. So far. Who knows what the next case will bring.) I have my doubts about whether he would have said the same thing about members of a non-minority faith, but in any case, Justice Scalia was correct about how absurd it is for religious freedom to work any other way. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2018, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1198 "2018-06-06T12:22:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Look, there’s a signpost up ahead: That made me think of the opening of The Twilight Zone. Unfortunately, this is all actually happening. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2018, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1199 "2018-06-06T12:26:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s not an absolute right. It just means laws that force people to violate their faith have to meet strict scrutiny requirements. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected strict scrutiny for religion in 1990 (_Employment Division v. Smith_), and further prohibited Congress from imposing it on the states in 1997 (_City of Boerne v. Flores_). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2018, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1200 "2018-06-06T12:32:53Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Do you have a cite for the “victim” part? Gays who are hindered in their attempts to buy wedding cakes. It’s been in the news. > [@](#): > > Two guys that could have popped into the next cake shop down the road? Just like blacks in the South could have just traveled on to a non-sunset town, right? > [@](#): > > I understand how times have changed regarding beliefs about homosexuality, but the Constitution guarantees a FREEDOM of religion, not just respect for it, or tolerance, or any notice of its “victims” as you call them. Not just respect? Not even in the clause saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? That’s as far as it goes, telling the government to stay out of it. This is a case, once again, of two rights conflicting, this time the ones defined in the 1st and 14th. Neither has precedence, and the conflict must be resolved with justice, in a justice system that does, however, place consideration for the real over consideration for the theoretical or feigned. > [@](#): > > but it’s not being able to buy a fucking cake…at one single store. oh, the horrors! Where is the line for you? When does the special pleading stop, or does it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=59) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=61)