Supreme Court to Hear Case of Bakery That Refused to Bake Cake for Same Sex Marriage

[caz]

"But I'd still like to see them exposed and ridiculed for their stupidity and to lose business as a result."

Hello Caz,

I can certainly sympathize with this point of view but seeing the baker interviewed he did seem like a nice person and did attempt to offer other accommodations. The florist lady seemed nice as well. It is too bad that it has come down to this. Such is modern life.

c.d.

Hi c.d,

Fair enough, but presumably the couple concerned don't think a 'nice' person would treat them like they were doing something wrong.

Do they also refuse to make wedding cakes for straight couples not choosing to have a religious marriage ceremony? Or is it a case of what the eye doesn't see?

It just seems such an unChristian attitude to take, as if anyone can choose to be gay or straight, and if they choose the 'wrong' path they deserve to lose out on what others are able to take for granted.

I'm bloody glad I've only ever had to contend with the odd male chauvinist pig.

Love,

Caz
X

[Magpie]

Hi c.d,



Do they also refuse to make wedding cakes for straight couples not choosing to have a religious marriage ceremony? Or is it a case of what the eye doesn't see?

X

Or for that matter a marriage where one of the betrothed is divorced? Or mixed-race marriages

[Pcdunn]

Hi, all,

Unlike mixed-race marriages, which at one time were actually illegal in many states (often due to what were called "Jim Crow" laws), same-sex marriages or partnerships were not illegal in Colorado, just not recognized by state and municipal laws. This is what the whole Gay Rights Movement is about, really-- the chance to have a partner recognized by banks, medical facilities, schools, etc., as a part of one's family.

The fact that gay partnerships may now be recognized by religious as well as civil ceremonies in Colorado may offend some people, but is it really their preogrative to forbid others from living their own lives?

Jesus Christ never said anything about same-sex relationships, to my recollection of the New Testament. The Old Testament did forbid "that a man lay with a man as if with a woman", but that's another religious text. Christ, on the other hand, stated "there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, rich nor poor in My Father's house."

[GUT]

Hi, all,

Unlike mixed-race marriages, which at one time were actually illegal in many states (often due to what were called "Jim Crow" laws), same-sex marriages or partnerships were not illegal in Colorado, just not recognized by state and municipal laws. This is what the whole Gay Rights Movement is about, really-- the chance to have a partner recognized by banks, medical facilities, schools, etc., as a part of one's family.

The fact that gay partnerships may now be recognized by religious as well as civil ceremonies in Colorado may offend some people, but is it really their preogrative to forbid others from living their own lives?

Jesus Christ never said anything about same-sex relationships, to my recollection of the New Testament. The Old Testament did forbid "that a man lay with a man as if with a woman", but that's another religious text. Christ, on the other hand, stated "there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, rich nor poor in My Father's house."

But the baker isn’t forbidding them getting married, aren’t they now trying to forbid the baker living their own life, by forcing them to do something they don’t agree with.

[Pcdunn]

Right, GUT, but he said he made wedding cakes, not that he only made cakes for heterosexual weddings. Isn't that like the landlord saying he has an apartment to rent, but claiming he hasn't got it available any more when he sees the prospective renter is Black?

[Ginger]

But the baker isn’t forbidding them getting married, aren’t they now trying to forbid the baker living their own life, by forcing them to do something they don’t agree with.

It falls under a concept of American law called "public accomodation", which, broadly speaking, requires that businesses serve everyone equally. It has a convoluted history. Just after the Civil War, there was a strong movement in government to link the west coast to the rest of the country, and develop the interior, as this was seen as a method of guaranteeing stability and prosperity. Railroads were the best technology available to accomplish that goal, but there seemed no economic incentive for them to build rails into and through the trackless wilderness. Congress came up with a scheme whereby railroads agreeing to develop a route would be granted alternating one-mile square blocks of public land on either side of the right of way. This land was theirs, unencumbered, to be used or sold as they saw fit.

The plan worked very well, and the railroads would build hotels, restaurants, and maintenance facilities around most of the coaling and watering stops for trains crossing the great plains. People worked at these places, of course, and so they soon developed into small towns, with the railroad leasing the land at favourable rates to businesses who wanted to set up there. The blocks of land near the towns were sold for farms. Up until the First World War, this was working out great for everyone.

In the 1920s, the US started developing federal highways, and long-distance trucking became a competitor to the railroads. The railroads attempted to protect their market by forbidding businesses on their land (restaurants, hotels, gas stations, etc) from selling to truckers. As might be imagined, that resulted in much litigation, and the upshot of it was that the courts held that the government had a legitimate interest in encouraging commerce, and that some public accomodations such as hotels, restaurants, etc, were important enough that denying their services to broad categories of patrons harmed the peoples' interests.

It's arguable how much the ability to purchase a wedding cake might be deemed as economically crucial, but the same principle has been used to argue that black people have the right to sit in the same portion of the restaurant as white people, so the historical interpretation has been pretty broad. I'm expecting the plaintiffs to win.

[caz]

But the baker isn’t forbidding them getting married, aren’t they now trying to forbid the baker living their own life, by forcing them to do something they don’t agree with.

If a baker doesn't agree with same sex marriage he is free not to marry a bloke. Why should it remotely concern him if others do so? He shouldn't be free to inflict his own narrow views on them by treating them differently. I wonder how he'd feel if a gay person refused him a product or service on the grounds of his sexuality.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Caz, he's not imposing his views on anyone. It's his shop. It's his cake.

If a gay baker doesn't want to serve a hetero then he should be free to refuse. It's his shop. It's his cake.

As to how someone would feel - irrelevant. Feelings sometimes get hurt. Life isn't a giant group hug.

[c.d.]

Hello Robert,

The bakery shop had to have a license to operate in the state of Colorado. By obtaining the license and signing it they agreed to operate under the laws of Colorado. Those laws prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation.

https://acluco-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Know-Your-Rights-Public-Accommodation-Discrimination-2.pdf

c.d.

[Robert]

Hi CD

I am not disputing about the legal situation : if there's some law which the bakery has broken, then the bakery hasn't got a leg to stand on.

My point is whether a country ought to have stupid laws in the first place.

[Ginger]

Judgement in a different, though related, case: https://pdx.eater.com/2017/12/29/168...y-wedding-cake

[Pcdunn]

Judgement in a different, though related, case: https://pdx.eater.com/2017/12/29/168...y-wedding-cake

Interesting article, Ginger, thanks. This has the added flourish that the bakery refused to pay the court-ordered sum of money to the clients. So, civil disobedience, if the bakery owners believe it was an unjust law? But not in my opinion, because I think to maintain social order, we should follow laws that try to protect the rights of people.

[Ginger]

Interesting article, Ginger, thanks. This has the added flourish that the bakery refused to pay the court-ordered sum of money to the clients. So, civil disobedience, if the bakery owners believe it was an unjust law? But not in my opinion, because I think to maintain social order, we should follow laws that try to protect the rights of people.

"Civil Disobedience" is just another name for crime.

[Pcdunn]

What would Henry David Thoreau do?

"Civil Disobedience" is just another name for crime.

Or for passive resistance, if the law is truly unjust, such as the local Jim Crow regulations making it difficult (if not impossible) for African-Americans to register to vote. If the law says all voters must be allowed to sign onto electoral rolls, but staff don't bother to do their jobs, based on the color of the prospective voters' skin, isn't that a crime?

[Ginger]

Or for passive resistance, if the law is truly unjust, such as the local Jim Crow regulations making it difficult (if not impossible) for African-Americans to register to vote. If the law says all voters must be allowed to sign onto electoral rolls, but staff don't bother to do their jobs, based on the color of the prospective voters' skin, isn't that a crime?

Crime is crime. The robber who relieves you of your wallet at gunpoint no doubt feels that society is unfair for rewarding your native talents with prosperity and security, while his own meager gifts meet with no such recompense. And he may have a point at that.

Regardless, as I'm one of the people for whom the law and society serve to provide a good life, I'm eager to see civil order maintained. In the end, I draw a sharp line between Law and Justice. Law is black and white. Justice is often a thousand shades of grey. when anything approximating it can even be found.