# 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:** 63
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1241 "2018-06-07T13:50:16Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Thanks for the reply. I was thinking of cases I heard of where Muslims didn’t have to drive an a truck with alcohol in it (not picking on Muslims or anything, just one that I had heard of). I don’t understand how that is different than this teacher. That’s why it depends on specifics. If you’re thinking of this case [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/?utm\_term=.afc40058cbd7&noredirect=on](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/?utm_term=.afc40058cbd7&noredirect=on) , the company conceded that they could easily have allowed the drivers to swap loads with other drivers. The case would have gone differently if they worked for a company where nearly every truckload contained alcohol. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1242 "2018-06-07T14:05:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t believe this is correct ( **Bricker** can correct me if I’m wrong). The government can create generic rules that incidentally affect religious people, but it can’t make rules targeted at religious people. The rule about names and pronouns are not aimed at religious people, but if the government made a rule that no crucifix-type jewelry was allowed, that would target Christians and would not be allowed. The usually “unless there is a compelling interest” rule applies, too. Any law or rule that targets religion would have pass strict scrutiny, just like any rule or law that targeted race. I wasn’t talking about the government in that post - it was about whether employers (including the government) can require employees to violate their religious beliefs. But you’re right , rules or laws targeting religious people or a particular religion are a different issue , whether imposed by the government or an employer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1243 "2018-06-07T14:52:44Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > That’s why it depends on specifics. If you’re thinking of this case [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/?utm\_term=.afc40058cbd7&noredirect=on](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/?utm_term=.afc40058cbd7&noredirect=on) , the company conceded that they could easily have allowed the drivers to swap loads with other drivers. The case would have gone differently if they worked for a company where nearly every truckload contained alcohol. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Thanks. But the school could easily allow the teacher to just call the kids by their last names. But in any event, this is straying from the topic, but thanks for the replies. ---
**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 7, 2018, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1244 "2018-06-07T15:05:31Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > “We don’t want your kind around here” is a direct contradiction of what the United States is all about. I suspect that there are many in America right now that do not agree with that statement. ---
**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 7, 2018, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1245 "2018-06-07T15:56:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You can refuse to serve a black female homosexual because she is a cleveland fan, but not because she is black, female, or homosexual. Homosexual is not a protected class under federal law. ---
**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 7, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1246 "2018-06-07T16:18:10Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Homosexual is not a protected class under federal law. We are not talking about federal law, we are talking about this case, that happened in Colorado, where sexual orientation is a protected class. But, you are correct that in most states, it is not. Did you actually have a point or a follow-up to your statement at all? Did your unnecessary and mostly incorrect nitpicking in any way invalidate the point that I made? Hey, did you know that in Somalia, sexual orientation isn’t a protected class? That has as much relevance to the thread as your post. Oh, and nitpick to your nitpick, since you seem to have a need to make sure that everything is pedantically correct to your satisfaction, female or black also are not protected classes under federal law. ---
**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 7, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1247 "2018-06-07T16:23:29Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > That’s why it depends on specifics. If you’re thinking of this case [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/?utm\_term=.afc40058cbd7&noredirect=on](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/?utm_term=.afc40058cbd7&noredirect=on) , the company conceded that they could easily have allowed the drivers to swap loads with other drivers. The case would have gone differently if they worked for a company where nearly every truckload contained alcohol. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk For instance, I run a dog grooming establishment. If I remember correctly, some muslims have a religious objection to interacting with dogs. It would not make an sense to force me to hire someone who cannot deal with my business model. But, I wouldn’t be not hiring them because they are muslim, I would not be hiring them because when I ask the question, “This job entails dogs, dog hair, and water. Will any of these factors be problematic?” they say yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bassman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bassman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bassman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1248 "2018-06-07T16:49:12Z")
I’ve brought this up before, but I think it bears repeating: The baker’s main argument was a free-speech argument. He argued that requiring him to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding constituted unconstitutional compelled speech. In this case, the reason he refused to do so was grounded in his religious views, but that’s only incidental to the argument. If he were opposed to baking wedding cakes for same-sex weddings for reasons other than religion, I think we’d have essentially the same case. Of course, the Court’s ruling didn’t address that and ruled based on the issue of religious bias of the human rights commission, but that’s not getting to the core of the issue. ---
**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 7, 2018, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1249 "2018-06-07T16:52:05Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > We are not talking about federal law, we are talking about this case, that happened in Colorado, where sexual orientation is a protected class. > > But, you are correct that in most states, it is not. Did you actually have a point or a follow-up to your statement at all? Did your unnecessary and mostly incorrect nitpicking in any way invalidate the point that I made? > > Hey, did you know that in Somalia, sexual orientation isn’t a protected class? That has as much relevance to the thread as your post. > > Oh, and nitpick to your nitpick, since you seem to have a need to make sure that everything is pedantically correct to your satisfaction, female or black also are not protected classes under federal law. Gender and Race are protected classes. Homosexuality is not. And Colorado, nor any other state, may treat people differently based on religion. ---
**Author:** ![Bassman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bassman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bassman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1250 "2018-06-07T16:59:34Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Gender and Race are protected classes. Homosexuality is not. And Colorado, nor any other state, may treat people differently based on religion. Sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado. And I think you’re conflating discrimination by the government, which directly implicates constitutional concerns, with public accommodation laws, which are legislative acts. ---
**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 7, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1251 "2018-06-07T17:04:42Z")
> [@Bassman](#): > > Sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado. And I think you’re conflating discrimination by the government, which directly implicates constitutional concerns, with public accommodation laws, which are legislative acts. And legislative acts may not impede on the Free Exercise Clause lacking a compelling governmental reason. That’s what the Colorado commission apparently doesn’t get, and why the ruling was against them. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1252 "2018-06-07T17:08:50Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > And legislative acts may not impede on the Free Exercise Clause lacking a compelling governmental reason. That’s what the Colorado commission apparently doesn’t get, and why the ruling was against them. That’s not why the ruling went against them. It went against them, at least temporarily, because of a Due Process issue. We don’t know how it would have turned out had that issue not arisen. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1253 "2018-06-07T17:13:06Z")
It didn’t really arise as such, it was apparently grabbed onto as an excuse to punt. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1254 "2018-06-07T17:14:14Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Of course there must be demonstrable harm before the government takes any action. In a free society, it is a pretty powerful government instruction to tell Citizen A that he must conduct business with Citizen B, even if Citizen A does not want to do so, whatever the reason. We’ve seen the demonstrable harm of allowing unchecked discrimination in public accommodations: Jim Crow, sundown towns, and the like. Things aren’t that bad for gay people right now, but the idea that we can’t legislate against a demonstrable harm until it’s already happened is absurd. It’s like arguing that it should only be made illegal to dump arsenic into a public reservoir after its poisoned someone. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2018, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1255 "2018-06-07T17:16:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It didn’t really arise as such, it was apparently grabbed onto as an excuse to punt. Well, yes and no. But I’d characterize it as: The Colorado Commission threw some wild balls and walked the batter. Not a base hit, and the pitcher was at fault. ---
**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 7, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1256 "2018-06-07T17:59:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not why the ruling went against them. It went against them, at least temporarily, because of a Due Process issue. We don’t know how it would have turned out had that issue not arisen. I don’t believe they ruled based on the 14th Amendment, but on the First. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. > **[Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission)** > > Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for th... ---
**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:** [June 7, 2018, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1257 "2018-06-07T18:24:49Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > And legislative acts may not impede on the Free Exercise Clause lacking a compelling governmental reason. That’s what the Colorado commission apparently doesn’t get, and why the ruling was against them. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I don’t believe they ruled based on the 14th Amendment, but on the First. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. > > [Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission) It was not the “legislative act” that was the crux of the ruling, but the application of the act by the Commission. The “legislative act” remains intact, and it was a narrow ruling aimed at the process of implementing the act in this specific instance only. Kennedy noted: > [@](#): > > …he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation. ---
**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 7, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1258 "2018-06-07T18:29:52Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Gender and Race are protected classes. Homosexuality is not. Homosexuality isn’t even a class. But, sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado. Whatever it is that you are trying to nitpick and correct here, you are failing. > [@](#): > > And Colorado, nor any other state, may treat people differently based on religion. It is not that they are treating them differently based on religion, it is that the bigots are wanting to treat people differently based on the claims they make about their religion. Or, is it your contention that people may treat protected classes differently because they believe that their god wants them to? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1259 "2018-06-07T20:37:33Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But, sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado. Apparently it wasn’t enacted yet at the time, but the fact that it now is would seem to make this whole turkey of a case moot. ---
**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 7, 2018, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/1260 "2018-06-07T20:53:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Homosexuality isn’t even a class. But, sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado. Whatever it is that you are trying to nitpick and correct here, you are failing. IMO he’s succeeding at something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=64)