But 1 percent religious bigotry is not only real but OK, you tell us. What is the cutoff point?
I suggest, for your sake, that you review the history of the civil rights movement before you say one more damn word about “hurt feelings”.
There’s no specific number. The purpose of civil rights laws is to ensure equal access. Christians couldn’t get the cake they wanted from a particular baker. Gays can’t get the cake they want from a particular baker. That’s equal. Both were rejected by 1 baker. You could reasonably pass a law saying that both the Christians and the gay couple had to be accomodated. That would also be fair, and equal. But once you uphold the right of an artist to decline a job, then an artist can decline any job.
That’s the point. The civil rights movement was never about feelings. It was about being denied access to jobs, housing, and public accomodations. Are gays, as a class, being denied access to public accomodations in Colorado, more than say, white straight males? We already have two data points that says their treatment is equal. They are equally likely to not get a custom cake.
This case isn’t about gays not being allowed into restaurants. No one is challenging CO’s law wrt to its disallowing that type of discrimination.
Yes, bakeries are entirely different from restaurants. Entirely. Just like the protected class of gays is entirely different from the protected class of blacks.
Your point, please? That hurting gays’ feelings is better than hurting bigots’ feelings, maybe?
Yes, there is. Zero.
Feelings aren’t at stake for the baker. His religion is at stake. Making someone violate their faith requires a very high bar, legally. And yes, the only issue at stake here for the gay couple is that this man hurt their feelings. They had no problem getting their wedding cake. There is no access problem for gay couples to any wedding services, even custom wedding services.
Of course they can be selective. A tattoo artist, say, can refuse a request to shave and tattoo a pet cat. So long as the refusal, the selection, is based on the nature of the work and not the nature of the customer, that’s fine.
Yes, that is pretty much exactly what this case is about, except it’s not just “bakeries”, but the part of bakeries that do custom work. Still, I’m glad you get it!
Labelling Christians who define homosexuality “bigots” may be an arguable point in this forum, but legally it has no meaning, and culturally, we haven’t even had a President or Presidential candidate willing to call such people “bigots”. So expecting the court to follow along with that reasoning is foolish. We are not at that point in our culture where sincerely held religious beliefs against homosexuality are called bigoted by a majority of the country.
He *claims *it’s religion, but I think some skepticism is valid, don’t you? There were many anti-black bigots who claimed a religious requirement too.
It *really *does not help you to use that as a synonym for “were subjected to discrimination”.
And blacks had their own schools.
“Deplorable”, on the other hand …
The right word is the right word. Antidiscrimination laws do target bigotry whatever word you choose to couch it in.
For the case at hand, is there a generally applicable law requiring those who do custom work to do any custom work requested? What kinds of exceptions are allowed if such a law does exist? For example, in Colorado, can a cake maker refuse a custom cake that conflicts with their values?
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has already ruled yes on that question. Case closed.
Bricker or another judicial expert should correct me if I’m wrong, but from everything I’ve been reading about issues like this the past 10 years or so, the only way you can violate someone’s religion is if the law in question is “generally applicable”, as in, it applies to everyone. If the law doesn’t apply to everyone, if there are exceptions granted, then exceptions for religious practice must be granted as well.
Well then there’s nothing to debate. Such a decision is wrong, and should be reversed. Until then, bigotry is legal if you invoke mythical beings to excuse it. See ya in the funny papers.
I have my doubts about that, because I’m pretty confident 4 of the Supremes will rule in favor of the gay couple. If such a rule as you say existed, they would not. I’m gonna go with: “Things that are not as simple as they might seem” for $2,000, Alex.
Is it against the baker’s religious beliefs to make a three-tier chocolate marble cake with buttercream fondant icing? Would it have been any sort of wrong against him for the defendants to ask him to make such a cake?
[Bolding mine]Please. If he was a pastor refusing to marry the couple, you’d be on to something. But what part of his faith dictates that he can’t bake cakes for people who not adhering to his faith? It’s not like baking a cake for a reception (to be presented and eaten after the ceremony has taken place) is somehow approving of the marriage anymore than baking a cake for two dogs is advocating legal marriage for dogs or baking a cake for divorcees remarrying is endorsing divorce.
This is where, imho, his argument falls apart. The cake baking services have nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech. I think it would have been much more acceptable for him to agree to bake the cake but place limits its design as in yes, I can bake you a cake but I won’t put rainbows on it. Fair. I won’t bake you a cake because you are gay. Not fair.
Very few designs are “normal”; most wedding cakes are unusual in some way. Imagine I had come to him and said, “My wife and I went to the beach on our first date, and there was a spectacular rainbow over the ocean–can you put a rainbow on our cake?” Or even if I had requested a rainbow without the story. Would he have engaged in the same “speech” for a het couple that he would have refused for a gay couple?
If he refuses to put rainbows on cakes, no matter the customer, I’ll give him a lot more deference–same goes if he refuses to put Leviticus quotes on cakes no matter the customer. Again, however, it seems likely that he doesn’t have a no-rainbows policy, and there’s nothing in the record indicating such a policy.
Sure–and again, if he’s refusing to bake a cake because the “speech”, i.e., the details of the cake, bother him, that’s a different kettle of fish than refusing to bake a cake because of traits of the customer. In this case, he didn’t bother to find out whether they wanted a cake that specifically glorified the same-sex nature of the relationship, so he can’t claim it was the specific content of the requested speech to which he objected.
Emphasis added. The first sentence contradicts your follow-up sentence.
And surely that first sentence is incorrect, else you’re saying a Muslim baker can be forced to bake a cake with an image of Muhammed fucking a pig on it.
If they say that sexual orientation is a suspect class then they can no more refuse to sell a cake commemorating gay marriage than they can refuse to sell a cake commemorating mixed race marriage. Even if they are willing to sell cupcakes to mixed race couples.
Holy shit!!!:smack::rolleyes::dubious: This is way past intentionally obtuse.
OK so lets say that a portrait artist is well known for making beautiful soul stirring portraits of people like Obama and Rachel Maddow. They were open to the public and proceeded to make great portraits on commission. Then Trump asks for a portrait, can the artist refuse him or offer to only make him a shitty portrait? Or does the artist have to exert their artistic talent to make a beautiful soul stirring portrait of Trump?
Symbols have different meanings depending on who is using them and who is seeing them. I wouldn’t have a problem with the baker telling a skinhead that he wouldn’t put a swastika on a cake but that he would happily do it for a Buddhist.