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

[seer]

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?

Of course. No man should be forced by law to serve another - ever.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[seer]

A bakery also utilises space in the public square and avails itself of public infrastructure.

So does a church. So should they be forced by law to officiate gay marriages?

[Sparko]

I guess what I find interesting is that most Christians here think that in both cases, the business has the right to refuse to comply with the request. And most secularists and atheists think that it is OK to force a Christian business to do something like bake a cake for a gay wedding, and OK for a business to refuse to comply with an anti-gay request from a Christian. Hilarity ensues as they try to make up twisted logic why one is different from the other, when it is obvious that in both cases they are just agreeing with the side that is more on the gay side of the debate.

[seer]

Hilarity ensues as they try to make up twisted logic why one is different from the other, when it is obvious that in both cases they are just agreeing with the side that is more on the gay side of the debate.

Liberal hypocrisy abounds!

[fm93]

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

Yeah, this is pretty much in line with what I thought.

Of course. No man should be forced by law to serve another - ever.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

But that's the thing. This doesn't seem like an issue of someone being "forced" to violate religious beliefs, because the baker in the original case didn't have to create any content on the cake that was specifically against his beliefs, whereas in this latter case, a baker is being asked to specifically write an anti-gay message.

Using your apparent reasoning and standards, it seems that a conservative Christian taxi driver could be allowed to refuse to drive a gay person to a gay wedding, a conservative Christian electrician could refuse to provide power to the facility of the wedding, and a conservative Christian doctor could refuse to treat a gay person if he knew the patient was going to get married soon.

[Darth Executor]

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.

The US still has freedom of speech, so there's no such thing as anti-hate speech laws there.

[Darth Executor]

But that's the thing. This doesn't seem like an issue of someone being "forced" to violate religious beliefs, because the baker in the original case didn't have to create any content on the cake that was specifically against his beliefs, whereas in this latter case, a baker is being asked to specifically write an anti-gay message.

He had to produce material specifically for something he found morally abhorrent. Also, the amendment seer quoted had nothing to do with religion, but with the anti-slavery amendment. The state (or anyone else) cannot force you to work.

[Sparko]

He had to produce material specifically for something he found morally abhorrent. Also, the amendment seer quoted had nothing to do with religion, but with the anti-slavery amendment. The state (or anyone else) cannot force you to work.

and lets not forget the case where a T-shirt shop in Lexington KY was forced to create Gay Pride Parade T-shirts.

[Jedidiah]

The state cannot set requirements that violate the constitution.

They have done and continue to do so in the US.

[Zymologist]

He had to produce material specifically for something he found morally abhorrent. Also, the amendment seer quoted had nothing to do with religion, but with the anti-slavery amendment. The state (or anyone else) cannot force you to work.

Oh, but they're not being forced to work. They'll just lose their business if they don't.

[seer]

Yeah, this is pretty much in line with what I thought.



But that's the thing. This doesn't seem like an issue of someone being "forced" to violate religious beliefs, because the baker in the original case didn't have to create any content on the cake that was specifically against his beliefs, whereas in this latter case, a baker is being asked to specifically write an anti-gay message.

Using your apparent reasoning and standards, it seems that a conservative Christian taxi driver could be allowed to refuse to drive a gay person to a gay wedding, a conservative Christian electrician could refuse to provide power to the facility of the wedding, and a conservative Christian doctor could refuse to treat a gay person if he knew the patient was going to get married soon.

Well of course, religion or not, I do not think that any man should be forced to serve another. No matter his reasons. Especially in a private business. This idea of using the law to force one person to serve another is a very recent aberration in US law. A man should be free to associate with whom he pleases, whether in private life or in business.

[Psychic Missile]

Well of course, religion or not, I do not think that any man should be forced to serve another. No matter his reasons. Especially in a private business. This idea of using the law to force one person to serve another is a very recent aberration in US law. A man should be free to associate with whom he pleases, whether in private life or in business.

Do you consider the legal abolition of "no coloreds" signs a recent aberration?

[Joel]

Overnight it occurred to me that one reason your distinction (about lack of message on the cake) falls flat is that the law, as currently written, doesn't make that distinction. I recall hearing about a t-shirt maker who was found guilty of breaking the law for refusing to make t-shirts with a pro-gay message.

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

A "business" is a legal fiction and a mental abstraction. The baker is an individual, and is the actual entity.

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.

Yes, of course a baker or anyone else has the right to refuse any job or exchange they want for whatever reason. And that is the reason why a baker has the right to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message. (Your "advertised service" argument on the other hand could be used to force the baker to make the anti-gay cake.)

Note that I'm not therefore saying that it's okay for a baker to serve "whites only". Rather, it is as H. L. Mencken said, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

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?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not advocating that anyone refuse anything. I'm saying that it's unjust to use force against person A merely because they declined to enter into an exchange that B would like to make with A. I'm saying that human interaction should be voluntary.

Should the baker have refused to make the cake for the gay ceremony? Probably not, but that's not the question I'm discussing. That's separate from the question of whether that should be illegal.

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....

The right of freedom of association is actually equal protection. If it were upheld as it should be, then everyone would be equally protected in their right to enter or refrain from entering what mutually voluntary interactions they wish. An individual making or refusing to make an exchange is in no sense a violation of the equal protection of the law. It's just an individual exercising his freedom of choice, which everyone should have equally.

On the other hand anti-discrimination laws are a violation of equal protection. They limit sellers, for instance, while still leaving it legal for customers in general to discriminate against sellers (e.g. based on skin color).

If person A wants to make exchange X with person B, but person B doesn't want to make that exchange, then you have two options: you can consistently defend the equal protection of each person and their property, or you can make the law unequal by forcing B to make the exchange (i.e. threatening punishment if B refuses).


(There are multiple principles violated by such anti-discrimination laws. Another example is the freedom of thought.)

[Meta Knight]

Using your apparent reasoning and standards, it seems that a conservative Christian taxi driver could be allowed to refuse to drive a gay person to a gay wedding, a conservative Christian electrician could refuse to provide power to the facility of the wedding, and a conservative Christian doctor could refuse to treat a gay person if he knew the patient was going to get married soon.

I'm sorry, what part of the business owner's traditional "right to refuse service TO ANYONE" is the confusing part?

[seer]

Do you consider the legal abolition of "no coloreds" signs a recent aberration?

Yes.