I’d also note that the democratic consensus as far as protecting gay marriage has so far been to allow for religious objections. We were assured in no uncertain terms that religious people would not be forced to endorse gay marriage. We were assured that there would be tolerance for peaceful, principled, opposing views. The Obergefell decision and Presidential statements both contained such assurances.
If all that was just a convenient lie to make gay marriage a reality, then that will make further advancements in civil rights difficult. You’re basically declaring war on religion, which is a class with the ultimate protection(the 1st amendment). Which of course can lead to broad decisions allowing discrimination for religious reasons, something you had wanted to avoid, but now are staring in the face.
The baker is. He’s not alone. Some states have even required Christians to attend and help out with gay weddings, such as photographers and florists, and there have been attempts to coerce wedding planners.
I don’t bring this up just to vent. Anthony Kennedy’s Obergefell decision anticipated this very problem, whch is why it coming true might cause Kennedy to author a much broader opinion on religious freedom than expected. When kennedy gets righteous anger, as he did in Citizens United and the Obamacare case, he’s not afraid to write radical opinions.
I don’t really give a fuck about the feelings of people who mask homophobia behind religion, honestly. A baker making a cake isn’t endorsing the wedding, a band playing a reception isn’t endorsing the wedding, a photographer taking pictures isn’t endorsing a wedding. They’re doing their jobs! The only person whose job should be exempt from being performed because of religious objections to gay marriage is the minister.
That should have been made clear so that opponents would know what hill they had to die on. Now you’re facing a permanent exception to anti-discrimination laws. Well played.
Instead, your side soothed them with promises of a truce. “Gay marriage won’t affect you at all! Has nothing to do with you.”
And why do I get the feeling that the clergy exception is strictly “for now”?
I believe this law predates same-sex marriage in every* state. This case isn’t really related to same-sex marriage. The fact that the victims got a marriage license at the courthouse (or will get one, whatever) is not relevant.
*Edit: Not in every state, but in Colorado. This is a 2008 law, so same-sex civil marriage licenses are not part of this.
Evidently this all happened in 2012, in a state that did not have same-sex marriage. So this nonexistent compromise that wasn’t actually in the Obergefell decision, wherein the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses at courthouses means that bakeries can be re-segregated in states where gay people are protected by anti-segregation laws, wouldn’t even apply.
There was no formal compromise. Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, and the 1st amendment has not been repealed. Since we were assured by the vast majority of pro-gay marriage activists that no one would ever have to participate in a gay marriage if they didn’t want to, there should be no problem formalizing that promise in a broad SCOTUS ruling.
There is no meeting of the minds on what “participate” actually means. I think, for most of us, the only people participating in a “gay” marriage are the two people actually getting married and, often, the person performing the ceremony, everyone else is just a spectator.
Nobody was told they had to participate in a gay marriage (and nobody, other than employees of the state like Kim Davis, ever does have to participate in one). This case isn’t about gay marriage. It’s simple to tell that, because both the law and the case predate gay marriage!
Yes. The gay marriage debate was about marriage licenses, not wedding accoutrements for sale in shops.
Gay marriage had nothing to do with segregated bakeries, in any way. It’s legal to have a straights-only segregated bakery in some states, and not in others, and it was that way before same-sex marriage was legal anywhere (I think at least one state has had a law like this since the 90s).
It’s not a segregated bakery. It’s a dry bakery, it’s a sober bakery, it’s a Christian bakery, it’s an anti-ghosts and devils bakery. It’s even an anti-divorce bakery.
I guess he can’t discriminate against a gay divorce either? But a straight divorce would be fine for him to refuse?
Nah. I don’t write lawyer. And the court is best at laying out principles; it’d be the executive branch that writes the regulations, much as the EEOC, not the Supreme Court, sets out anti-discrimination guidelines for hiring new employees.
That would be unacceptable discrimination, if he would bake a cake for a gay but not a straight divorcee. It’s about the customer, not about the product, which makes it unacceptable.
Selling your work !=endorsement. When I worked as a baker, I often sold cookies to overweight customers: was I endorsing their obesity?
If the court rules in favor of the gay couple, it will most certainly write guidelines for how to decide cases going forward, like The Lemon Test. I’m starting to think that maybe the court will punt on this and send it back to the lower courts if Kennedy does not rule in favor of the baker. If he rules in favor of the gay couple, he will be the one writing the guidelines and who wants to be the SCOTUS justice who laid out the rules about when it’s OK and when it’s not OK to discriminate against gays?
I understand that a member of the Colorado board that enforces this law made bigoted comments about Christians. This could be grounds to toss it back to the state and let everyone figure this out at a lower level.
As I said, I suspect this ought not to have ended up in the courts.
It never needs to be okay, any more than it should be okay to discriminate against Jews. The question is whether it’s ever okay to have rules about what products you’ll make for anyone, and of course that’s okay.