Man sues because of religious discrimination when baker refuses to make anti-gay cake

[Joel]

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes...anti-gay-cake/

Because you can't have too many threads about homosexuality.

But this is really about freedom of association. Bakers should have freedom (to refuse) in both directions, yes? Hopefully the point of this legal action is really to argue the opposite--in hopes that the ruling will be in favor of freedom of association, and thus set a precedent.

[RumTumTugger]

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes...anti-gay-cake/

Because you can't have too many threads about homosexuality.

But this is really about freedom of association. Bakers should have freedom (to refuse) in both directions, yes? Hopefully the point of this legal action is really to argue the opposite--in hopes that the ruling will be in favor of freedom of association, and thus set a precedent.

[DesertBerean]

[fm93]

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes...anti-gay-cake/

Because you can't have too many threads about homosexuality.

But this is really about freedom of association. Bakers should have freedom (to refuse) in both directions, yes? Hopefully the point of this legal action is really to argue the opposite--in hopes that the ruling will be in favor of freedom of association, and thus set a precedent.

I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message on it, just as I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with a pro-gay message on it. But you present this as if it's an underhanded rejoinder to the earlier bakery incident in Colorado, which I don't agree with. It seems to me that there's a substantial difference between a baker refusing to write a pro-gay marriage message on a cake due to religious beliefs and a baker refusing to simply bake a cake that will eventually be used in a gay wedding.

[Joel]

I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message on it, just as I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with a pro-gay message on it. But you present this as if it's an underhanded rejoinder to the earlier bakery incident in Colorado, which I don't agree with. It seems to me that there's a substantial difference between a baker refusing to write a pro-gay marriage message on a cake due to religious beliefs and a baker refusing to simply bake a cake that will eventually be used in a gay wedding.

I don't know if the earlier case involved anything physically different about the cake that indicated the nature of the ceremony it was for. If it did then the distinction you make here doesn't exist.

But assuming it does, perhaps a relevant similarity is that cake creation and decoration is artistic effort involving an intent to help someone celebrate/promote something. It's not like refusing to sell a package of napkins that's on the shelf.

Another relevant similarity is that in neither case is it really a matter of discrimination against a person. I should think the CO baker would refuse to make the anti-gay message, even if the purchaser was an atheist. Just as in the former case the baker would presumably refuse to make the cake for a gay ceremony, even if the purchaser were straight.

But most fundamentally and most importantly, the relevant similarity is that they are both cases involving the right to freedom of association. The fundamental reason why everyone should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message is that in a free country everyone should be free from being coerced by others to do things for them, and everyone should be free choose whether to enter or not enter into contracts with any other people. And that applies equally in both cases.

[pancreasman]

I'm not sure if it's about 'freedom of association'. That's an individual liberty. A bakery is a business. A business has to abide by various state and federal requirements like health inspections and so on. Therefore it is not a completely free entity. A bakery also utilises space in the public square and avails itself of public infrastructure. Does a baker then really have the right to refuse an advertised service to a customer? Imagine a bakery that served 'whites only'. People have a right to their personal beliefs but if those beliefs are going to interfere with an advertised service they'd best try another occupation.

Personally I think a suit is a blunt weapon to address such an issue, on either side.

[Zymologist]

I'm not sure if it's about 'freedom of association'. That's an individual liberty. A bakery is a business. A business has to abide by various state and federal requirements like health inspections and so on. Therefore it is not a completely free entity. A bakery also utilises space in the public square and avails itself of public infrastructure. Does a baker then really have the right to refuse an advertised service to a customer? Imagine a bakery that served 'whites only'. People have a right to their personal beliefs but if those beliefs are going to interfere with an advertised service they'd best try another occupation.

Personally I think a suit is a blunt weapon to address such an issue, on either side.

Do you think the baker in the OP should be forced to bake the anti-gay cake?

[Cow Poke]

Do you think the baker in the OP should be forced to bake the anti-gay cake?

Would I really WANT a cake that a baker was forced to bake for me?

[pancreasman]

Do you think the baker in the OP should be forced to bake the anti-gay cake?

Hm, no. If it was me I'd say I'll bake you a cake and what you put on it after that is your business. I'm all about compromise.

[fm93]

I don't know if the earlier case involved anything physically different about the cake that indicated the nature of the ceremony it was for. If it did then the distinction you make here doesn't exist.

But assuming it does, perhaps a relevant similarity is that cake creation and decoration is artistic effort involving an intent to help someone celebrate/promote something. It's not like refusing to sell a package of napkins that's on the shelf.

Another relevant similarity is that in neither case is it really a matter of discrimination against a person. I should think the CO baker would refuse to make the anti-gay message, even if the purchaser was an atheist. Just as in the former case the baker would presumably refuse to make the cake for a gay ceremony, even if the purchaser were straight.

But most fundamentally and most importantly, the relevant similarity is that they are both cases involving the right to freedom of association. The fundamental reason why everyone should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message is that in a free country everyone should be free from being coerced by others to do things for them, and everyone should be free choose whether to enter or not enter into contracts with any other people. And that applies equally in both cases.

Okay, but I'm curious as to where you personally would draw this distinction. Should a conservative Christian tailor refuse to make a suit that a gay man might wear to a gay wedding? Should a conservative Christian florist refuse to sell flowers that might be used in a gay wedding?

[Sam]

I'm fairly certain the relevant distinction has been worked over many times on this forum:

A business or person is not violating equal protection when she objects to creating novel content. A wedding videographer can legitimately refuse to film a porn shoot, a landscape painter can refuse to paint genitalia, a baker can refuse to make a rainbow cake with the words "GAY PRIDE" etched on it. Essentially, it's perfectly legitimate to refuse commissioned work if the content of that work is objectionable.

What is illegitimately discriminatory, according to the "other side" here, is the refusal to provide "vanilla" goods and services to one or more groups on the basis of personal objection. A baker who has a set of basic cake designs is providing such "vanilla" services, as is a photographer who provides wedding packages. A hotel owner should provide rooms to people, regardless of whether she personally objects to some groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation.

An "anti-gay" cake seems to necessarily imply a commissioned work with specifically objectionable content. It is therefore a category error to conflate this instance with those that involve a "vanilla" service or good.

--Sam

[Darth Executor]

A business or person is not violating equal protection

Equal protection is a limit on the state, not private individuals and entities. Even bringing equal protection into this discussion is a gross perversion of the constitution.

[Darth Executor]

I'm not sure if it's about 'freedom of association'. That's an individual liberty. A bakery is a business.

There's nothing in the constitution about a business exception. It's individuals who exercise freedom of association after all, even if they're running a business.

A business has to abide by various state and federal requirements like health inspections and so on.

The state cannot set requirements that violate the constitution.

[Epoetker]

Hm, no. If it was me I'd say I'll bake you a cake and what you put on it after that is your business. I'm all about compromise.

Most leftists are about compromising things, yes.

[Tassman]

I'm fairly certain the relevant distinction has been worked over many times on this forum:

Endlessly!

A business or person is not violating equal protection when she objects to creating novel content. A wedding videographer can legitimately refuse to film a porn shoot, a landscape painter can refuse to paint genitalia, a baker can refuse to make a rainbow cake with the words "GAY PRIDE" etched on it. Essentially, it's perfectly legitimate to refuse commissioned work if the content of that work is objectionable.

What is illegitimately discriminatory, according to the "other side" here, is the refusal to provide "vanilla" goods and services to one or more groups on the basis of personal objection. A baker who has a set of basic cake designs is providing such "vanilla" services, as is a photographer who provides wedding packages. A hotel owner should provide rooms to people, regardless of whether she personally objects to some groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation.

An "anti-gay" cake seems to necessarily imply a commissioned work with specifically objectionable content. It is therefore a category error to conflate this instance with those that involve a "vanilla" service or good.

Everything you say is good. As for the bolded I think that the anti-hate speech laws would cover that. In law, hate speech is any speech, conduct, writing, or display which may incite discrimination or prejudicial action against citizens.