Even if it is deemed art, a position I’m sympathetic to, I’m not sure it helps them.
Tattoo artists and hair stylists can’t refuse to service gay people after all.
Which federal statute or federal court ruling are you thinking of? Don’t you think if your last sentence were true, that the SCOTUS wouldn’t need to have taken this case?
Ibn Warraq:
No, but they can probably refuse to tattoo into skin or shave into hair the words “Hooray for Marriage Equality” or “Congratulations on Adam’s and Steve’s wedding”
Perhaps I’m wrong but I thought hair stylists and tattoo artists were like other self-employed small businessmen bound by anti-discrimination laws.
Am I wrong?
Does the Nation of Islam require its members to not serve whites? If so, the exemption might be justified. Far be it from me to make people take my money. It’s only a concern if I can’t go to the restaurant across the street.
I’d also note that the Obergefell decision itself, as well as Presidential statements at the time, acknowledged the legitimacy of religious opposition to gay marriage and called for compromise, not submission.
The problem with the discrimination against the Christians is that the Colorado commission stated that if they had to write that on a cake that it could be construed as endorsement of the views in question. Then they tried to say that a baker baking a cake for a gay marriage was not an endorsement of gay marriage.
Also, if you allow customized messages you can’t discriminate on content unless you have generally applicable policies against things like obscenity, profanity, hate speech, etc. If this is a company that was willing to put cuss words, boobs, middle fingers and such on cakes it’s hard for them to argue that a Bible verse is a problem.
It’s not Kennedy’s fault he’s the only guy who goes into cases actually unbiased. The other justices would matter if they approached cases in similar fashion.
I’m sure that you have a cite for that, right?
It’s my understanding that there was no request for “writing” or a “gay” cake topper. A typical, custom, wedding cake was requested and service was refused purely on the grounds that the wedding being celebrated was a same-sex one. I’d have hoped that by this point what was requested, and what and why it was refused, would be absolutely clear . . . I should have had no hope.
CMC fnord!
The Colorado commission ruled in the secular cake maker’s favor that if they had to write a Bible verse on a cake that it was an endorsement of the view expressed. That is also the argument the Christian cake maker is making. That one of his cakes at a gay wedding would imply an endorsement of gay marriage.
That seems to be Kennedy’s issue. Kennedy HATES differential treatment of different kinds of speech by the government. That’s the whole reason he ruled as he did in Citizens United. If governments would just not engage in viewpoint discrimination the government might win his vote more often.
If a government entity rules that cakes are expression and that they can refuse service on the ground of “compelled speech” then that applies to ALL cakes.
Also, in regards to the writing on the cake issue, was there anything about the cake that denoted that it was for a gay marriage, such as a cake topper with two men, or writing on it like, “Doug and Greg”, or something like that?
He is not refusing service to gay people. He is refusing to make a gay themed wedding cake. The bakery has stipulated that if the gay couple had come in for an off the rack wedding cake, they would have to supply them.
To use your example, lets say there was a state statute that said you cannot refuse service based on political ideology. You still can’t force a Jewish tattoo artist to draw tattoos of swastikas and other Nazi symbols, can you?
Sure the tattoo artist cannot refuse to serve Nazis but they don’t have to create art that is offensive to them, correct?
True, the bakery is just the name on it. The suit is actually being pressed by Alliance Defending Freedom ,
IOW those guys again.
No, they hadn’t even gotten to the question of the design of the cake before the baker refused based on the fact that it would be used in a gay marriage ceremony (well, after the ceremony, I guess).
Can I have a cite for this part? The government can’t discriminate on content, but I’m pretty sure that the Colorado commission said it was fine for a baker to discriminate on content, but not against people.
And, we’re back to the design-based question again. My understanding is that, in Colorado, it’s fine to discriminate against certain designs (another baker refused to decorate a cake with the words Being Gay is Really Icky or something like that, and the commission said fine). That really is expression, right? However, the baker in question for the SCOTUS case refused to create any custom cake at all for the wedding in question.
I wish a real lawyer would chime in about whether this really is a meaningful distinction, but I wish we wouldn’t keep going back to design-based discrimination, which seems really different to me than customer-based discrimination.
Design, again. Nobody knows if it was going to be a gay-themed wedding cake (whatever that is) because they hadn’t even gotten to the design. He was refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding at all, whatever the design.
OK, I think I’ve repeated this enough, and this whole thread will just be going around in circles until the SC makes their decision, so I think I’ll step away.
But if he did say they could have an off the rack cake, then that makes it pretty open and shut.
As for the design issue, the commission agreed that a designed cake implied endorsement of the message. That would apply to a cake at a gay wedding just as much as a cake at a fundie gay hating church.
But which federal law specifically prohibits discrimination against gay people? You can’t just say “anti-discrimination laws”.
SCOTUS has determined that marriage cannot be denied to same sex couples, but that’s it. There are some states that have laws protecting gays against discrimination, but not to at the federal level.
ETA: States also can’t pass laws explicitly allowing discrimination against gays. But there is no federal statute. Yet.
But…but…[del]her emails[/del] what about the design?
And just to be clear, the 1st amendment issue being raise in the SCOTUS also arose during the appeal process in the CO state court. So, to say:
The “cake baking is actually art” stuff was invented for the purpose of creating this suit.
Is simply factually incorrect.
How would its presence in the suit from an earlier date make it incorrect to say it was invented for the purpose of this suit?