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

[Pcdunn]

Good point, Wickerman, ànd I think it started with the lawsuit brought by the prospective clients, because of the baker's stated reason for his refusal of their business. Colorado law doesn't allow discrimination against others on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual preference, legal status, or mental or physical handicap. Colorado judges have supported the plaintiffs, and the Baker is hoping a conservative Supreme Court will overrule our State Supreme Court.

it is definitely politicized, I think.

[Wickerman]

.... So, why can't an owner turn down a special order when it conflicts with his personal beliefs?

It was my understanding a private business owner can refuse service to anyone.
He doesn't have to give a reason, like a landlord in a pub who can refuse service without giving a reason.
I don't agree with the reason this baker gives for refusing service, but it's his right to refuse service. If I understand this correctly, it's the reason he chose to give which makes it unlawful, race, religion, sex, etc. are not justifiable reason's.

This is why I think he is making a political issue out of it, he didn't need to give a reason, but he chose to give a controversial reason instead of avoiding the controversy altogether. But, as with many others, I maybe have not heard the whole story yet.

[curious]

During oral argument the justices were asking about a message that you don't agree with. What if someone came into a Jewish bakery and requested a cake with a message that said we need another Holocaust? Should the Jewish baker be required by law to make it? These are tough questions.

c.d.

Or should a Muslim caterer be required to make sausage balls for a brunch? Would they be required to cook bacon recipes, etc. There has to be a way to respect everyone . . .

[c.d.]

I feel sorry for the baker, but I can't really see how his freedom of speech is being impinged upon. When a customer commissions a baker to make a cake with a message on it, the "speech" is that of the commissioner, not that of the baker. He's simply employing his specialized skills to make something to order.

During oral argument the justices were asking about a message that you don't agree with. What if someone came into a Jewish bakery and requested a cake with a message that said we need another Holocaust? Should the Jewish baker be required by law to make it? These are tough questions.

c.d.

[c.d.]

During oral argument one of the justices made a good point. He said if a woman comes into a bakery and orders a birthday cake for her child that says "Happy Birthday, Bobby" does any adult at the party believe that the baker was in fact wishing the child a happy birthday?

c.d.

[Robert]

I'm more interested in the cake.

[curious]

I feel sorry for the baker, but I can't really see how his freedom of speech is being impinged upon. When a customer commissions a baker to make a cake with a message on it, the "speech" is that of the commissioner, not that of the baker. He's simply employing his specialized skills to make something to order.

I think there has to be a middle ground because small business owners are the backbone of this country and should not have to check their consciences at the door when they arrive at work. Also, I can see that some people might be afraid to follow their dream for fear of being forced to participate in areas they prefer to avoid.

I can see the dividing line being the "special services" arena. Everyone is served in the day-to-day. However, owners should not be forced to accept special assignments for events contrary to their religious beliefs. If the business owner was already booked, he could turn down the special order, going to be out of town, he could turn down the order. So, why can't an owner turn down a special order when it conflicts with his personal beliefs?

I'm not sure how the "Freedom of speech" area ties in either.

[Pcdunn]

I feel sorry for the baker, but I can't really see how his freedom of speech is being impinged upon. When a customer commissions a baker to make a cake with a message on it, the "speech" is that of the commissioner, not that of the baker. He's simply employing his specialized skills to make something to order.

This case is a local one for me, originating in my city of Lakewood. I think the Baker is making a mountain out of a molehill for political reasons. He says as he objects to same-sex marriage, it infringes upon his civil rights as a fundamentalist Christian to be required to make a wedding cake with two groom figures topping it. He says he is an artist, and doesn't want to use his art to support a lifestyle he doesn't believe is right.

That's fine, he can just say he doesn't make cakes for same-sex weddings. But now he is objecting to the lack of business his bakery gets from the publicity about this case, as people disagreeing with his stance on gay marriage are not patronizing his bakery (which is their right, just as it is the baker's right to turn down work for a gay couple). I think it could be a case of wanting to have his cake and eat it as well.

[Ginger]

I feel sorry for the baker, but I can't really see how his freedom of speech is being impinged upon. When a customer commissions a baker to make a cake with a message on it, the "speech" is that of the commissioner, not that of the baker. He's simply employing his specialized skills to make something to order.

[c.d.]

Hello GUT,

It's a tough one. It seems like everything is complicated nowadays. People should not be discriminated against but people should also have their religious beliefs respected.

c.d.

[GUT]

https://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/gay-we...eme-court.html

A very interesting landmark civil rights case is before the court. I can see the arguments of both sides. The same sex couple seem like nice people as does the baker who has suffered financial hardship as well as death threats. I listened to some of the oral argument before the court. The justices were trying to get an understanding of the repercussions from their decision. Their concern is whether anyone can site religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate. As far as I can tell they were attempting to ascertain whether simply baking a cake (as opposed to a cake with a message the baker didn't agree with) constitutes an endorsement of same sex marriage.

It will be interesting to see how they decide the case.

c.d.

And it looks like we will soon be facing the same issues in Aus, despite the promises of protections.

[c.d.]

https://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/gay-wedding-cake-case-heads-to-supreme-court.html

A very interesting landmark civil rights case is before the court. I can see the arguments of both sides. The same sex couple seem like nice people as does the baker who has suffered financial hardship as well as death threats. I listened to some of the oral argument before the court. The justices were trying to get an understanding of the repercussions from their decision. Their concern is whether anyone can site religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate. As far as I can tell they were attempting to ascertain whether simply baking a cake (as opposed to a cake with a message the baker didn't agree with) constitutes an endorsement of same sex marriage.

It will be interesting to see how they decide the case.

c.d.