So, just as long as it’s just this one baker in town that won’t serve a gay couple, that’s fine, there are others to go to, right?
Even if there are half the bakers that refuse, there’s still the other half, right?
I mean, really, what are they complaining about, as long as there is one baker within a 200 mile radius of them that will take their business, they aren’t really being denied access, right?
We decided that we didn’t want to paint these lines, of how much public accommodation is enough to serve a discriminated against group, and simply said, all of it.
You have a choice as a baker, you can choose as to whether or not you want to serve the public. If you want to serve the public, you serve all of it, no picking and choosing. You are free to not serve the public, in which case, you do not have to make a cake for a gay wedding.
And segregation, while it did some other things, did also hurt some feelings.
Whether or not discrimination is likely to be widespread is I’m sure something the justices are considering. Then it wouldn’t be a religious exemption, which by definition is something meant to protect minority religious viewpoints.
The reason for the Civil Rights Act was because there were substantial burdens on African-Americans trying to get jobs, medical care, and access to public accomodations. If it had just been a matter of one business owner in ten denying African-Americans equal access there probably would never have been a Civil Rights Act. The attitude would have been, “Screw it, those 10% of business owners who don’t like money will just make less money.”
This is true. But the Civil Rights Act is not Supreme Law like the Constitution, it’s a simple statute. Even the Civil Rights Act cannot require violations of basic constitutional rights. State laws especially cannot do that.
That could very well be the thinking of the court in the end. And if so, the baker who discriminated against Christians will also have to serve all customers. I think Kennedy was rather peeved that Colorado was actively hostile to religious practice but was totally cool with secular discrimination.
Religion was sometimes used to justify discrimination but I have never heard of a court case surrounding anyone asking for a religious exemption that would allow race discrimination.
The quite recent Obergefell decision foresaw that such conflicts would arise and the majority opinion did not call for forcing everyone to accept gay marriage. The court sounds like it really wants to balance these competing claims and probably will.
I think any reasoning fails if it starts with the idea that christianity is a minority religion.
Yes, the civil rights act was forced into being because the problems with discrimination were so bad that it caused congress to actually do something about them. That doesn’t mean that that was the reason for it. The reason for it was because civil rights were not being protected.
And what is the constitutional right that is being violated? Keep in mind, the religious freedom act is a law, not a part of the constitution.
AIUI, there was a person described has having Judeo Christian beliefs who wanted cakes made stating his opposition to same sex marriage, and the baker(s) refused to make the cakes. Three complaints were made to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who said it was okay for the bakers to refuse.
In the article I mentioned above, the difference seems to be that an service provider can refuse a certain design (“I won’t make cakes with messages that disparage X for anyone”), but not a certain type of customer. In the lawsuit at hand, the baker refused even before discussing any designs. The baker claims that providing any custom cake to a gay wedding is forcing him to express himself in a manner that offensive to his religious beliefs.
So, design-based refusals seem to be OK in Colorado, but customer-based refusals are not.
It seems like this distinction comes up every 20 or 30 posts or so in this thread. It doesn’t seem like a very subtle distinction to me, but there you go.
That one argument by Kennedy is unpersuasive to me. The only difference between a straight marriage and a gay marriage is the sexuality of the people involved. Gay marriage is a right specifically because all people have a right to get married, including gay people. The whole concept is that it is the same thing as straight marriage. So refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple but being okay with it for a straight couple is discrimination because the potential customers’ sexuality.
I’d also argue that any potential bias in the language used by the state should be irrelevant: what is under question is the legal analysis. Is the analysis flawed? If it is, it doesn’t matter if bias caused it or not. If it’s not, it doesn’t matter whether they were also biased.
I really hope Kennedy is just feeling out different ideas to make sure he weighs all sides. I’ve seen cases before where people tried to determine what Kennedy thought from his questions and were ultimately wrong.
Definitely true, and they may even conflate the two types of refusals. I think they are different situations, but I was passed over for a SCOTUS nomination, so my opinion means nothing.
Sort of - you can pick and choose for many reasons, just not race, national origin, religion, and in some places, sexual orientation. It’s perfectly legal for any business to refuse to serve skateboarders or people who drive Chevys.
The fact that this involves a baker muddies a couple of the issues, IMO. If instead it were a lobbyist firm the issues would be more clear. In that example, should they be compelled to lobby for something they oppose? If the alt-right wants to hire someone to push their agenda in Congress, can they be refused? Sure it’s not marriage but it’s political speech.
What if the pro prop 8 folks (anti SSM) wanted to hire the lobbyist, can they be refused based on the positions they espouse?
And that to me is why I think the first hurdle the court will need to address is whether cake making in this example constitutes speech first, and even if it does, does commercial speech accrue a level of protection to overcome the interests of the aggrieved party.
Kennedy must love this. Being the linchpin, the swing vote. The other 8 justices added up don’t matter as much as Kennedy the lone man. Who would ever retire with that much attention lavished on him?
In the sense that a Colorado judge ordered the baker to comply and the baker is “appealing” upwards, then yes it is the baker who is bringing suit. The baker could have just complied and it would have been over.