It is not a Christian business, because businesses do not hold religious beliefs. If you want to say that it’s a business run by a Christian according to Christian beliefs, OK, but that’s not the same thing.
(and yes, this also means that I think that the Hobby Lobby case was decided incorrectly)
If religious people can’t run their businesses according to their faith, then there won’t be people of faith in business. So I don’t want to hear complaints about how businessmen only care about money and have no morals beyond that. You’re basically saying that’s how businesses are supposed to be run.
Is he refusing to sell unadorned cakes to gay couples? Or is he just refusing certain decoration (say, “Happy gay wedding day!”) for gay weddings?
If the first, it’s hard to see how that doesn’t violate non-discrimination laws. What religious prohibition is there from selling unadorned cakes to gay people? If it’s the second, then it’s hard to see how that would violate any laws.
He offered to sell one of his premade cakes to them. What he refused was to do a rainbow cake, as he felt that was an endorsement of homosexuality. It’s possible, although not certain, that he would have sold a normal wedding cake to them without a topper, since a man/woman topper might have been awkward.
BTW, does anyone remember that SNL skit where Patrick Stewart would only bake cakes that involved a woman on a toilet?
There are no federal nondiscrimination laws concerning businesses serving gay people, and the SCOTUS has not designated gays as a suspect class (or even a quasi-suspect class). CO has such a law, but not all states do. So when you say that something must violate non-discrimination “laws”, you really should cite the specific law you are talking about.
The law does apply in this case though, although I question having a non-judiciary body dealing with cases like this. The commission clearly has no concept of constitutional law yet that is one of the key things they are supposed to be taking into account when making their rulings. In this case they’ve violated freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal application of the law.
This assumes the cake in question implicates speech at all, isn’t contrary to public policy, and that equal protection applies in this example (speech, religion, and equal application, respectively). I’m not certain any of those are true.
That would be in question if the same commission hadn’t upheld the right of another baker to not bake a cake with a message they personally found offensive. So they have already established that speech is implicated in this case. Which also implements equal protection, because if you allow secular exemptions you have to also allow religious exemptions. The only time you can bar religious exemptions is when a law is generally applicable and you aren’t handing out exemptions for minor reasons. Once you establish that some businesses are exempt, then you’ve established that the law is not so important that exemptions can’t be granted.
I don't think he would have sold them a normal wedding cake. I haven't actually seen anywhere where he says that it was a specific design that he refused to do and the couple says he refused before they had even gotten to the point of choosing a design.
Of course he can refuse to do a rainbow cake because he thinks they are tacky, a waste of his talent, whatever. And he will be in compliance with any anti-discrimination law as long as he will sell the gay couple the same sort of wedding cake he would sell a straight couple , and as long as he would refuse a rainbow cake for a six year old's birthday party. But if he will do the rainbow for the six year old and not the gay couple, his issue isn't the design. It's the customer.
What do you mean by “normal wedding cake”? It’s clear he was wiling to sell them a pre-made cake, but I’m not sure if that’s what you mean by “normal” or not.
I’ve seen different news stories saying different things, so we do need to take into account that we don’t know all the details. The couple says they never discussed a specific design, the baker says they did.
But in regards to your argument about rainbow cakes, this would only be a question if the commission hadn’t ruled that what goes on the cake can be seen as an endorsement of a viewpoint. Once they established that cake artists can be perceived to have endorsed something by putting it on a cake, then they’ve established a right to refuse anything the cake maker doesn’t want to endorse.
If they hadn’t done that, if they had a general rule that whatever the customer requests must be on the cake, or if they had a rule that said that all reasonable requests must be granted and only hate speech or other limited forms of speech could be refused(like obscene images), then they’d be on firmer ground. Instead, they chose an abritrary standard that is now biting them in the ass.
Do you see the implicit assumption in what you’re saying?
There are plenty of religious people who run cutthroat budinesses, and plenty of atheists who care about doing the right thing.
Those are exceptions rather than the rule. For every Costco there are 100 AT&Ts. When I think of the most socially responsible businesses, I see more religious owners than non.
I’m not seeing anything about design in the court documents. Where are you finding this?
The only reference I’ve seen to it isn’t even in the story itself, it’s in a photo caption:
So I am actually assuming that some details of this case as reported by the press might have omissions or incorrect information:
The baker has described the encounter in several interviews. He states that the point at which he knew he could not provide service was once the gentlemen said they wanted a wedding cake for their wedding. The baker told them at that time that he could not make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
The baker has made no mention in those interviews about any particular design that was requested. However he states that the gay couple brought in with them some designs. Though not further described, it is *possible *that some non-verbal communication *might *have occurred such as pointing at a particular photograph or drawing, or a design that might be of a gay theme such as two male grooms as a cake topper. However neither party has alleged that a particular design was requested. It was noted that later on the gay couple procured a cake with a rainbow design element from a different bakery.
You don’t need to assume. You can read the documents they actually filed. They are not in court to keep themselves from having to make designs they don’t like. I wouldn’t make that ugly cake either. They don’t want to make even a nondescript cake, see the Dec 12 2016 Reply of Petitioners, p6.
So is his refusal of ANY cake, or just a custom cake? The stories do seem to agree that he only refused a custom cake.
Custom only. But regardless of design.
He’s still got a case though, because the commission already endorsed bakers’ right to not endorse messages they don’t agree with.