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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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."

[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

[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

[c.d.]

Same sex marriage was never illegal in any state. There were just states where it was not recognized as a legally binding contract. Even if you went through with a same sex marriage ceremony it was not recognized as being valid by that particular state.

c.d.

[curious]

"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.

There are many nice people with very different views. Most of the views are cultural, which usually changes fairly slowly, but at this moment is changing rapidly.

Unfortunately, we are at a very low place in relationship to respect of differing views. I think people have to be allowed to follow their conscience and still make a living. And people have to be free to live their lives. I hope someone will be smart enough to find a middle ground -- which will, of course, mean that both sides are mad.

[curious]

Was it illegal, or just not legal.

I don't know.

Ally makes a great point.

However, gay rights are a major cultural change that is happening very quickly. In many places, participating in acts of gay love have actually been illegal and people have been put in prison. I have a feeling that mostly the laws were not enforced, but they were still on the books in some places.

I don't know what the real status was in the location at the time of the incidence. Maybe PC Dunn has a grasp of that. Isn't he the one who lives in the area?

I found it interesting that one of the justices mentioned the point that gay marriage was not legal in that state at the time of the incidence.

I am only recently beginning to understand the fear some of my gay friends have expressed. And maybe that's some indication of how far the pendulum has swung since I can be completely oblivious fairly often. My age shows here as this was a subject never discussed in my youth. So that is also an indication of how quickly this is changing as opposed to other cultural changes in the past.