Drawing a Line in the ‘Gay Wedding Cake’ Case (NYT alert)

New York Times ^ | November 27, 2017 | John Corvino

[reaganaut1]

At first glance, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case — for which the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Dec. 5 — looks easy. In 2012 Charlie Craig and David Mullins attempted to buy a wedding cake at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The owner, an evangelical Christian named Jack Phillips, refused to sell them one. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found Phillips liable for sexual-orientation discrimination, which is prohibited by the state’s public accommodations law. State courts have upheld the commission’s decision.

The reason the nation’s high court is giving the case a second glance is Phillips’s First Amendment claim that he was not, in fact, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.

One might better appreciate Phillips’s position by considering a second case. In 2014, not long after the commission announced its Masterpiece decision, William Jack attempted to buy a cake at Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colo. Specifically, he requested a Bible-shaped cake decorated with an image of two grooms covered by a red X, plus the words “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22.” The owner, Marjorie Silva, refused to create such an image or message, which conflicts with her moral beliefs. She did, however, offer to sell him a Bible-shaped cake and provide an icing bag so that he could decorate it as he saw fit. The customer filed a complaint alleging religious discrimination, which is also prohibited by Colorado’s public accommodations law.

[reaganaut1]

Freedom of speech is for leftists only /s.

[a fool in paradise]

I thought it was long ago settled that printers do NOT have to publish your manuscript if they find it morally/politically repugnant, and newspapers are under no obligation to publish your letter or editorial.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“She did, however, offer to sell him a Bible-shaped cake and provide an icing bag so that he could decorate it as he saw fit. The customer filed a complaint alleging religious discrimination, which is also prohibited by Colorado’s public accommodations law.”

Was she forced to do it?

[generally]

“sexual-orientation discrimination” = refusal to participate in the mental illness of others

[John O]

This is actually not a freedom of speech case. It is a freedom of assembly case. The first amendment guarantees our freedom to assemble, which MUST also include the freedom to not assemble at all. Every anti-discrimination law FORCES us to assemble with people we don’t want to assemble with.

If we cannot refuse to assemble then we have no freedom of assembly.

Every anti-discrimination law that applies to private individuals or businesses is un-Constitutional.

If a business can reserve the right to refuse service to those who are not dressed “properly”, and they can, then they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they bloody well choose.

[jaybee]

For once, a reasonably well thought-out article.

I don’t think the baker has a case if you’re just talking “3-layer with white icing” cake for a gay couple. (except maybe for the free association argument made above)

But the minute you ask for it to be decorated in some specific “gay marriage” theme, then all bets are off.

[i_robot73]

“public accommodations ‘law’”. What a disgusting perversion of the language

A biz is no more a ‘public accommodation’ than one’s home (location of many a small biz).

Do biz still go OUT of biz? Does the public pay the rent, payroll, taxes when times get tough? No, there is NOTHING *public* about ‘public accommodations’.

If the baker were online ONLY, w/ NO offering for the perpetually offended....would they still be in legal trouble??

Sorry, just another indication of the (long ago) loss of the Republic.

[arthurus]

If the "Civil Rights" crisis of the 50s on had been resolved by the simple passing of laws or one Amendment to forbid any government requirement or practice of discrimination for any reason other than merit had been put in place with NO bar to any sort of "discrimination" by non governmental entities or persons, we would have a much more racially peacefuland prosperous society now. A business that refuses to hire from an identifiable group due to anything other than merit is raising its costs of doing business because it has a smaller pool of potential employees and therefore must pay higher wages. The busiiness that selects from the entire population has thus lower wage costs and will outcompete the first business all other things being equal.

And then there is the War on Poverty which caused as much damage to the society and the economy as the Civil Rights government assumption of the duty to apportion those theretofore unalienable rights referred to in the Constitution.

[Thibodeaux]

Since being queer is a mental construct, there are no rights that accrue to that which is not real.

There can be no penalty for not dealing with that which is not real

[jonno]

“...refused to sell them one.”

Nope - stopped reading right there.

The owner refused to make them a CUSTOM cake - a world of difference.

[DungeonMaster]

John 6:11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

[super7man]

I wonder if they could sue a baker if there were a sign behind the counter that said “20% of all Wedding Cake proceeds is donated to Getoutofbeinggay.org”. This would be applied to all wedding cakes.

[fwdude]

Here’s the deal: What is the differentiating, observable expression in two such transactions, one in which a baker is thrilled to provide the cake and one which a baker is being forced in protesting disagreement? None whatsoever. The protesting baker is emitting the exact same expression as the agreeing baker. If not, where is the difference? What is the protesting baker allowed to express in opposition?

[jonno]

“What is the protesting baker allowed to express in opposition?”

Opposition is verboten. Celebration - only & always, celebration.

[chesley]

There is ALWAYS a reason why the rules they impose upon us don’t apply to them. Congressional sex scandals and Roy Moore, for example.

ALWAYS.

[Albion Wilde]

This reads like what Vizzini argued to Westley before drinking the iocane powder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0UURBihH8

[daniel1212]

The author tries to argue that Phillips has no real case for refusing to sell a cake due to what it would be used for, since “No one looks at a wedding cake and reflects, ‘the baker has blessed this union.’ ” and that while "Phillips’s cakes are undeniably quite artistic, he did not reject a particular design option."

But how two lawyers think people look at wedding cakes, or even how they do does not matter unless they can prove this is always the case, while it is still irrelevant since Phillips cares about what God thinks.

And even if a particular design option was not rejected, from my understanding is Phillips did not refuse to sell then any cake, but was asked to create a work of art.

When the author states that a Jewish or Black or Muslim sign maker must create a sign for a KKK celebration then I will believe he is being objective.