I am trying to work with your example. Much of it is centered on the inscription on the cake. Is that what makes or breaks the case here? If for a moment we assume that wedding cakes do not have inscriptions - they are all the same - would you then agree that the baker should not be allowed to refuse making such a cake for the wedding of Joe and John?
As far as I can see you still haven’t answered the following question that has been asked multiple times: do you feel the same way about a baker who has a religious objection to interracial marriage?
Let’s say I own several apartment buildings. I happily rent apartments to African Americans. However, I will not rent apartments to African Americans in the complex in which I live.
Do you really believe that my refusal to do certain things is not discriminatory on the basis that I happily do other things involving this protected class?
That’s all true. However, I only asked magellon about the strict-scrutiny classifications from the CRA. He’s spent many pages arguing, that CRA-type protections against discrimination in public accommodations should not apply to sexual orientation. I would like to know whether he thinks that CRA-type protections should not exist, period, or should not exist for gay people.
Is there any case law that supports these contentions? (That refusing to serve the WBC is and can only be discrimination on the basis of their religion, as opposing to their political activities and protests?)
Right. And the baker in question discriminated against individuals based on their membership in a protected (locally, not federally) class. You’re the one bringing motivation into, trying to argue that there’s a legitimate reason to discriminate against gay people. I’m just talking about the action: refuse to serve someone because they’re gay, you’ve violated the law.
This is just semantic jiggery-pokery. You can take any act of bigotry, and describe it as having a problem with an “event,” instead of a person. Don’t think blacks should vote? You don’t have a problem with black people, you just have a problem with the “event” of black people participating in elections. Don’t think women should be allowed to work outside the home? You’re not a misogynist, you just object to the “event” of women going to work. Don’t think Jews should be allowed to live in the nice part of town? You don’t hate Jews, you just object to the “event” of a Jew moving in next door.
And, again, the fact that someone is willing to deal with a class of people in one context, does not mean his refusal to deal with them in a different context is not bigoted. Short of outright genocide, there’s always contexts in which bigots are willing to deal with a discriminated minority. Back when redlining was a thing in real estate, there were sellers who would work with Jews or blacks - but only if they bought in certain neighborhoods. If you were willing to sell a house in Harlem to a black guy, but wouldn’t sell him a house in Tribeca, you’re still a bigot.
I want bigoted actions to be recognized for what they are, and I don’t believe you can excuse your own bigotry by pinning it on imaginary people. “God said to do it,” does not make a bigot into a non-bigot. It makes him into a bigot who doesn’t have the courage to own his own convictions.
Yeah. I don’t have a problem with that. Can you give me a reason why I should?
If I buy a birthday cake for my Jewish friend, and the baker refuses to take my order when he finds out the name he’s supposed to put on the cake, is that evidence that the baker is not anti-Semitic? Or is the baker merely objecting to the “event” of a Jew living for another year?
Are divorced people a protected class? Are poly people a protected class? No? Then I guess you have your answer.
A baker can decline to make any cake, for any reason, so long as it’s not in violation of equal protection laws. If he is violating equal protection laws, then, “My religion says it’s okay to be a bigot,” is not an excuse.
We’ve already had this argument in a different context (and perhaps different rules apply). The fact that the baker would be more than happy to make a wedding cake for a gay man marrying a lesbian does not mean he is not a bigot for refusing to make a wedding cake for two gay men or two lesbians.
Well that’s the issue. They’re willing to sell wedding cakes to gays but only if they are marrying someone of the opposite sex.
Lets use caterer or band. Somehow we have gotten caught up in intellectual property issues and its getting silly. I understand that the actual case is a baker but lets say that there is only one really good caterer in town and the cost of a good caterer from another town is a little higher because the travel involved.
The food is about as necessary for the wedding as the cake, so can the caterer refuse to serve at a gay wedding based on religious objection?
And what does that have to do with bigotry? Just because there isn’t a critical mass pushing for a particular label doesn’t mean that bigotry against polygamy or other non protected classes is any less wrong.
There are probably some relevant cases, but I’m not the one to know how to search 'em out.
But you’d have to be careful to prevent this from being generalized.
e.g., “I would happily rent an apartment unit to a Catholic, but not to anyone who belongs to an organization that opposes abortion rights.”
The key is still discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation.
My opinion: No he should not be allowed to refuse, just as he should not be allowed to refuse service to a Jewish or mixed-race wedding.
I believe it is the duty of the state to protect minorities, i.e. to make sure that people of a minority race, religion or sexual orientation do not suffer worse living conditions than the majority. If you allow to deny them services that the majority has access to, you have not sufficiently protected them.
Hiker: Agreed. And doubly so when the group in question has suffered systematic and organized repression.
Presumably he would have been willing to cater a wedding between a gay man and a lesbian. If that is the case then its the event and not the people.
And that is not something that a court can do on its own. Congress must do it and they just might but right now you are stuck with gay friendly states and gay hostile states.
“It’s not discrimination! Gay people can still marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people!” was a stupid argument when I first heard it ten years ago. It has not gotten any less stupid in the intervening decade.
I’m willing to allow Republicans to eat in my restaurant…so long as they don’t vote Republican on election day.
No, the caterer is willing to sell stuff to the gay couple even after they get married as long as it isn’t for the wedding. He does not condition his services on their promise not to be gay in the future. There is a particular event that he objects to.
Of course that is how the law works. The law prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.
The government is in a different position than private citizens because private citizens are not bound by the due process clause. The burden on government (and society) is no greater with gay couples than with straight couples. This is not so with a person that has religious convictions that view gay marriage as an abomination. Unlike corporations (which apparently can have religious convictions), our government cannot and must make the decision to permit gay marriage on more reasoned rational bases. People on the other hand may be as irrational as they wish as long as they are not breaking the law. And no law is being broken here. At least at the federal level.
I’m not sure if you heard the news, but it turns out you’re wrong.
Are we talking about federal law?
No. No, we are not talking about federal law.
The model I was responding to was that the baker would sell a cake for the marriage of a gay man and a lesbian. i.e., that the non-discrimination was based on behavior, not on the actual personal individual traits.
I gave a counterexample involving discrimination based solely on behavior…showing that in many cases behavior is intrinsic to the person in question. A gay man who never has gay sex is a very, very limited example of a gay man, just as a Republican who never votes Republican would be.
If we are allowed to discriminate on the basis of behavior, then my example is as good as the example I responded to.
That “there is a partiular event that he objects to” is the common point of the original example and my rebuttal.