Gay Marriage

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gay Wedding Cakes

Can states force religious bakers to provide services to same-sex couples?

|

wedding cake
Jonathan Alcorn/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

Is a wedding cake speech? When a baker makes a wedding cake, is he or she declaring support for the couple's marriage? Can a baker decline to bake a cake for a gay couple (and defy a state's anti-discrimination laws) because he or she objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds?

Today, the Supreme Court announced they would be taking up a case that may answer these questions for anyone who provides services for gay weddings. This is likely to be a case with a narrow ruling about religion and compelled speech and what constitutes an artistic expression. Don't expect a broad ruling that would change the nature of state-level public accommodation laws one way or the other.

In Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. Vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission the owner of a bakery in Lakewood, Colo., declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because he had religious objections to same-sex marriage. In 2014 he was ruled to have violated the state's anti-discrimination laws on public accommodation.

He is one of a handful of similarly-minded business owners who offer their goods and services to weddings but oppose same-sex marriage recognition. We've seen other cases involving bakers, florists, photographers, and owners of private wedding venues.

The Supreme Court had previously turned away challenges to state-level antidiscrimination laws, but the court has been sitting on this case for months without deciding one way or another if they'd take it. Today was the last day in this session for the court to report out whether they would grant the case. After months of rescheduling, they've decided that they will.

The case will in all likelihood be very narrowly focused on whether the free speech and free religion rights of bakery owner Jack Phillips have been violated. The Supreme Court will have to consider whether the making of a wedding cake is a form of artistic impression and whether, therefore, laws forcing Phillips to serve same-sex couples constitutes compelled speech.

Historically, as I explained about these cases in 2015, courts have not determined cakes themselves to be expressive activity (therefore not protected speech). But text, writing, and imagery placed on the cake can be considered speech, and a bakery cannot be forced to communicate text or images they deem offensive. The question is whether the creation of a wedding cake itself is a form of speech.

Libertarians hoping for a broader ruling related to whether public accommodation laws violate the free association rights of business owners will probably be disappointed. There is zero chance this court is going to rule in such a way that alters state-level public accommodation laws. This case will mostly revolve around whether the activities of people like bakers and florists are considered artistic speech and therefore are possibly exempt from such laws.

Read more about the case itself from SCOTUSblog here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Gorsuch appointment looks like a win for gun-rights supporters

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Enough with the axioms, Crusty.

    2. Espresso-based drink and cake = Fatty pretentious Euro-treat.
      Black Coffee and Pie = Dessert of champions.

      1. I like my coffee the way I like my women. Without your damn judgments.

        1. If you were truly happy with your coffee and women choices, my judgments wouldn’t matter.

    3. But you can’t really make pies that big or decorative…

      1. Submitted for your consideration: the Galette.

        1. I guess it’s just not my taste. I was thinking, if I ever do get married, and if I do choose to do something different, I would go with a s’mores bar. I saw it on Four Weddings and it looked like a lot of fun and everyone seemed to love it.

      2. Solution: In lieu of cutting a giant, expensive, disgusting cake and shoving it into the faces of each other (it’s been done to death), the bride and groom present each table with a delicious pie, and stock the open bar* with mid-shelf liquor.

        *Don’t have a wedding if you can’t afford an open bar.

        1. Haha, that seems a little extreme… but I agree you shouldn’t have dancing if you don’t have an open bar. And cash bars are as worthless as not having a bar.

    4. Nope. Unless it’s Boston Cream. Don’t make first comments if you’re just going to fuck it up.

      1. Crusty was trying to say that the pie goes inside the cake. The donut goes inside the pie. He calls it the dopicakke.

        1. But where does all the Boston “Cream” go?

          1. Oh my god you do NOT want to know.

          2. In every place he can make it fit.

    5. Dutch apple pie > most cakes > banana creme pie > all other cakes.

      1. Jesse > Tony.

        1. Awww.

          I actually kind of like Tony. He says some very clever stuff in dead threads and puts the least amount of effort in for the most amount of riling up the commenters. Assuming he’s trolling folks he’s very good at it.

          1. It’s kind of fun telling him how worthless and awful he is. I also enjoy counseling him to commit suicide.

          2. Thank you. I do have a bit of an Internet version of l’esprit d’escalier, probably because I lurk around dead threads late at night when I’m totally sauced–and thus at my cognitive best.

            1. I wasn’t the best French student, so I could have this wrong, but I believe Tony has the spirit of the snail.

              1. Progtards don’t have souls.

  1. Pie : cake :: Armageddon : Deep Impact.

    1. Pie and cake are completely different. Deep Impact was a worse version of Armageddon. I disagree with this analogy.

      1. Deep Impact had a plot. A cheesy plot, but a plot. Armageddon was f/x and explosions for 2 hours.

        1. Hear hear. I much prefer Deep Impact, with two reservations: the idea that MSNBC was a major news outlet, and having to look at Frodo Baggins.

    2. Would you make up your mind, already? Do you prefer pie or cake?

      1. He prefers sufferable commenters.

  2. There’s a difference between the way the law should be and the way the law is.

    Given the way this has been interpreted in the past, if a business can’t reject a customer on the basis of race, they shouldn’t be able to do so on the basis of orientation either.

    Because free association shouldn’t have been thrown under the equality bus in the past doesn’t mean it wasn’t, and I wouldn’t expect the Court to overlook the spirit of the CRA–even if orientation isn’t listed there specifically.

    I wouldn’t expect the Court to overturn the logic of the CRA on this, just like I wouldn’t expect the Court to get in the way of the drug war–no matter how badly Wickard vs. Filburn was decided and regardless of whether they should.

    1. I’m afraid you are correct. If it’s legally OK to make businesses serve people regardless of race, which courts seem fine with, it’s hard to make the argument that the same rules regarding sexual orientation are unconstitutional.
      Maybe it’s the smart, pragmatic thing to do to try to halt the expansion of public accommodation rules to other classes, but that’s going to be hard. Opposing the CRA is a tough sell.

      1. Yes, because people falsely believe that without the CRA we would go back to segregation and Jim Crow (nevermind that’s what the modern progs actually want anyway). What most people don’t remember is that discrimination was mandatory, forced by government, not up to individual choice.

        Rosa Parks and the bus boycott… the bus company was required to segregate by law.

        1. That, plus the attitude that says that if you don’t want the government to do a thing, you don’t want it done at all. If you oppose civil rights laws you will be seen by a lot of people as opposing equal rights for minorities (as wrong as that may be). So not a lot of legislators are going to be willing to expose themselves to that by trying to change the laws.


          1. “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”


            ? Fr?d?ric Bastiat, The Law

        2. I could easily see small rural towns bringing back discrimination. Have you visited some places like that? Not hard to imagine at all quite frankly.

        3. …And what libertarians don’t remember is that the law was that way because that’s what the majority wanted.

          The law didn’t force Ax Handle Sunday. The law didn’t force Governor What’s-His-Name to shout “Segregation today, segregation forever”. The law didn’t force lynchings and show trials and so-on. That stuff happened because it’s what the white majority wanted.

      2. Well, this is actually about expanding protected class status beyond a person and to cover a ceremony. If a Catholic baker refuses to bake a cake for a second marriage, because divorce and remarriage is against his faith, that would be acceptable. But, if that same baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay marriage, because homosexual unions are against his faith, then he would be in violation of the law in many parts of the country.

        The defeatist concept that, ‘oh well, we already have some protected class statuses, so we shouldn’t try to stop new additions’ is a cope out for people that don’t really want to stand on the side of ‘icky’ people with regards to this issue. It is extremely disingenuous and cowardly

        1. Well, this is actually about expanding protected class status beyond a person and to cover a ceremony.

          I’m sure a person would currently not be able to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding according to a court’s interpretation of current law. A person/ceremony distinction is surely already murky.

          1. True, but the interracial marriage question is complicated by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

            1. Do you know what else complicated the interracial marriage question?

              Ron Goldman.

              1. Also Winnie Harlow.

                1. Bert & Ernie

        2. “Well, this is actually about expanding protected class status beyond a person and to cover a ceremony.”

          Some people might argue that you’re trying to carve out a special class just to deny them equal protection of the law.

          1. And some people could say the same about all protect class status in the reverse? That’s circular logic

        3. This is the inherent problem with these laws: their arbitrary nature is at odds with liberty’s supposed blindfold.

          It’s the same problem that lies in hate crime legislation, etc. There will always be yet another demographic to add, another set of arbitrary criteria.

          1. The problem is that individuals have rights–not groups based on identities.

            Once you start giving “rights” to identity groups, you start start encroaching on the right of individuals to make choices for themselves.

            1. So tell Christian bakers to stop treating gays as a monolithic group they feel they have a right to deny service to.

              1. No individual has a right to the baker’s labor.

                1. That was in response to Tony’s “logic.”

                2. True, but they also have a right not to be discriminated against for their sexual orientation in certain jurisdictions. (Christians have that same right in all jurisdictions. Didn’t see anyone agitating for changing that over the past few decades, curiously.)

                  1. True, but they also have a right not to be discriminated against for their sexual orientation in certain jurisdictions.

                    Which, for all intents and purposes, means they have a right to the baker’s labor. Or, more precisely, the baker has no right to refuse to give them his labor without losing his livelihood.

                  2. Tony, where is that in the Constitution again?

                    Where does it say that people cannot not associate with other people?

                    The 1st Amendment does protect a right for people to peacefully assemble.

              2. Ao, you believe you have a right to enslave christians?

                1. Nope, only enslaving pillow biters

                2. Using your colorful metaphor, what I said was that in fact Christians have the right to “enslave” business proprietors across the entire country, a right gays only have in certain jurisdictions. Yet the same interests were not filing lawsuits to undo the terrible injustice of forcing businesses not to discriminate based on religion.

        4. The defeatist concept that, ‘oh well, we already have some protected class statuses, so we shouldn’t try to stop new additions’ is a cope out for people that don’t really want to stand on the side of ‘icky’ people with regards to this issue. It is extremely disingenuous and cowardly

          I don’t know that that is necessarily how it works. It could be disingenuous and cowardly, but it could also be a realistic view of the world. Not so much that you shouldn’t try, but that you aren’t too likely to succeed. Civil rights laws that apply to private businesses are unlikely to go away. I say good for the people who want to fight the good fight, but I don’t have great expectations for their success given the precedents of race based and other civil rights laws.

    2. So, someone’s sexual orientation is just as set in concrete and beyond the control of an individual as their race?

      I can go along with that, but it brings up the question of where you draw the line on sexual orientation and it being ‘ok’. For example, why is it that a group of seventeen individuals can’t be legally married and get their own cakes? Or why can’t someone marry their dog? The pool of human sexuality and consent gets pretty deep. Shouldn’t everybody who likes to put a thing inside another thing, or on a thing, get their own cakes too?

      Aren’t we just crafting a stack of ‘right thinkers’ who can get cakes? Why draw the line just at gay people or people who have drastic surgery to remove their man bits?

      1. And, just for the record, it’s retarded for a baker to say ‘I won’t bake your cake because you’re gay’.

        The smart thing to say is something more along the lines of ‘I have another job and can’t take yours.’

        For some reason, telling someone the ‘real’ reason why you won’t do something is what’s being made illegal. You’re still free to discriminate, just not openly. Seems like a legit area for law, am I right?

        1. The smart thing to say is something more along the lines of ‘I have another job and can’t take yours.’

          Which works right up until the gay twitterverse suddenly discovers that you’re modestly successful bakery is secretively and categorically discriminating against gay people.

          1. True enough but it’s virtually fucking impossible to prove ‘why’ someone actually did what they did. That’s the problem with thought crime statutes, they’re a punishment based on an unknowable variable.

            The real problem here is that religious people are being honest because their religion says to be honest, and that is fucking them over legally. Gotta love state mandated lying, or you get wacked on the knuckles by the state.

            And yes, I know that you can ‘prove’ intent through statements like “I’m not baking you this cake, because you are gay” but the point is that this could be your motivation in your head while you say something else and it’s totally legit.

            Go figure.

            1. They are free to dissemble, which is only to say that antigay discrimination certainly happens far more often than the cases that show up in court.

              1. A crimes punishment should absolutely not be different based on the thoughts of the individual or even the stated reason for committing the crime, barring outright insanity or other mental disability.

                Carve outs for hate crimes make a mockery of the rule of law, in my opinion.

                Would you approve of giving a Nazi the death penalty for jaywalking because he hates black people, as an example? I suspect many would say ‘yes’.

                1. A crimes punishment should absolutely not be different based on the thoughts of the individual or even the stated reason for committing the crime

                  Um, well, there are different degrees of murder (etc.) charges based on the thoughts of the perpetrator and the reason for committing the crime.

                  1. The degrees of murder relate less to what the motivation was than to how much thought was put into the crime. A murder in the heat of an argument is seen as somewhat less heinous than one that is carefully thought out and executed.

                    Of course, that argument would work against those who ask to discriminate in their choice of customers on the basis of what are assumed to be deeply-held beliefs.

            2. The real problem here is that religious people are being honest because their religion says to be honest, and that is fucking them over legally.

              The real problem here is that people are being punished.

              Memories pizza catered to no one. If you came in, they would serve you without regard to sexual orientation. They didn’t even ask and it probably never seriously* occurred to them until someone asked if they would cater a gay wedding. To which they, logically or (inclusively) said ‘No’. The inclusive or was enough to ‘convict’ them.

              *As in religiously-based and discernible from good taste. I’m certain they rather knowingly served homosexuals and they’d probably throw you out for making out in their pizzeria. They were maybe more inclined to do so with same-sex couples, but they probably didn’t meditate on the scriptures in order to decide at which ‘base’ they should throw out homos vs. heteros.

              1. That’s what I said. Being fucked over legally is punishment, obviously.

                1. My point was, it’s not just religious people or people and industries religiously affiliated. Doctors and healthcare had to be revamped to be more ‘tolerant’, pizzerias are/were lumped into ‘weddings and catering’, photography is a public accommodation.

              2. Chicago Deepdish is the only pizza ever served at Gayweddings.

                /Ducks, runs and hides.

        2. Lawyers do it all the time. Once they are forced to start taking whatever case walks in the door next, we can talk about applying such laws to bakers.

          1. Indeed. Lawyers are enormously discriminative.

        3. I get you but the point is that people should not have to lie or not say what they are thinking.

          It is supposed to be a free country.

      2. Seventeen is OK; there are religions already on board with that. There is a question of consent with the dog, however.
        The state should not be ‘recognizing’ any marriage; marriage should have remained a religious convention.
        But a bunch of lazy legislators used marriage as a tool of tax policy, then a bunch of other legal issues like medical records and decisions, and inheritance, and it was off to the races.
        At the root, the state has no compelling interest in the religious beliefs and living arrangements of adults.

        On the other hand, forcing the baking of cakes is offensive to diabetics. So maybe no baking at all would solve the problem.

        1. I’m just tired of all of the bullshit legislating on what constitutes a thought crime. Because that’s what these really are; thought crime statutes.

          You can always discriminate, and your reasons can only really be known by you, and yet some of those reasons are illegal. There is, however, no statute that says you need to tell the truth about your reason nor could there realistically be one.

          So from top to bottom these types of laws are simply bullshit and I can’t support them. This is one area where it really does appear that the ratchet only goes in one direction. It’s not a legitimate State interest, and they need to get out of the marriage game entirely.

      3. “So, someone’s sexual orientation is just as set in concrete and beyond the control of an individual as their race?”

        Who said this, and what difference would it make?

        Religion isn’t set in concrete and beyond the control of an individual either–and yet businesses aren’t supposed to be able to refuse service based on religion either.

        1. Left wing Reform Party

        2. Would a caterer be sued for refusing to serve a bris based on objectinng to circumcision? Thhere is a difference betwrrn regusing to serve someone atg all and refusing to serve an event you have an ethical objection to.

        3. Immediately after that sentence, I said this:

          I can go along with that…

          I thought it was obviously implied that sexual orientation must be an immutable character trait, because it’s one of the underpinning arguments for carve outs in the Civil Rights code for preferred groups in that you can’t discriminate against someone for something that is literally beyond their control. You can discriminate against things that are within their control, such as if they are wearing shoes or a shirt.

          I don’t pretend to know if it’s immutable, but all the arguments assume that it is.

          1. You can discriminate against things that are within their control

            Unless it’s religion, for some reason.


          2. …and yet businesses aren’t supposed to be able to refuse service based on religion either.

            Supposedly so, although I think the justifications for the ‘why’ are different when considering religion since it’s protections are specifically listed in the foundation documents themselves a la the Constitution. I see no similar listing for ‘fucking preference’ since that would be something left up to the states or, more probably in this case, the individual themselves.

            1. Seems to me that free exercise would protect religious discrimination by private parties, if anything. If one religion thinks another religion is wrong (which is usually the case), then some kind of religious discrimination would be protected as free exercise. I don’t think you can force a Catholic church to host a Hindu wedding, for example.

              1. I would love to see that court battle, and if the government wasn’t in the business of ‘officially’ recognizing various union status to award people money and/or tax breaks than it would be entirely moot since it is quite definitely a religious ceremony and has been for thousands of years across multiple cultures.

                Of course, instead of the State getting the hell out of a religious practice entirely they double down and still require you to get their permission slip before marrying a half-dozen consenting adults.

                Figures. Why does the government hate Mormon’s and polyamorous couplings? Who knows, but this subject will become increasingly ludicrous until it goes full plaid.

              2. They don’t see them as “private parties,” but instead as “public accommodations.” As in “the building, assets, and headaches are yours, but ownership of HOW you run your business is now at least partially the property of the State.”

              3. I don’t think you can force a Catholic church to host a Hindu wedding, for example.
                At the heart of such a case would be whether or not it was really a church or if it was just a venue.

                If you run your church as a church and only “rent” it out to church members? Then it’s a pretty easy argument.

                If you’re trying to claim that your farm, which you rent out for everything from office picnics to Buddhist weddings, is suddenly a Christian church (that has no preacher) because a Muslim is trying to rent it, then it’s a much harder argument.

                If you have a website advertising your hosting services for all wedding ceremonies, claiming that you have non-denominational officiants and even a secular officiant ready for hiring? It’s really hard to argue it’s a church.

                So yeah. There’s a reason the “wedding venue” cases don’t feature actual churches. Because actual honest-to-God churches don’t behave like public accommodations.

          3. Religion, veteran status, marital status, being a police officer, political ideology/action…

            Depending on jurisdiction, there’s all sorts of things that are 100% within the control of the individual that are still protected classes.

            So if you thought that “immutable trait” was the basis for non-discrimination law, you were misinformed.

      4. “why can’t someone marry their dog?”

        Because the dog cannot give informed consent.

        1. And just try to get a court to enforce any kind of contract against your dog.

        2. Yes. I always try to discuss polyamory as a basis for marriage because it is still consenting adults.

          But, it is so ingrained in many that 2 is a magic number for love.

          Of course, the reason 2 is a magic number for love, is that humans (like all mammals) have 2 sexes.
          So if people of the same sex can get married (which I don’t have a problem with at all), then the number 2 no longer means anything significant, and is completely arbitrary.

          1. I think that the fact is that most people, straight, gay or whatever, will always prefer 2 person romantic relationships. It’s just how people are. Not too many people can deal with a polyamorous relationship for very long without jealousy becoming an issue.

            I definitely agree with you that forbidding plural marriages is arbitrary at this point. But it’s also not as if people are going to start getting into group marriages a lot more if it were legally recognized.

            1. It’s just how people are.

              And it just happened that way, magically, completely unrelated to biology as Bear suggested.

              1. Yes, I was agreeing.

                Nothing about biology to stop a man from having children with lots of women at once.

                But obviously, monogamy is an evolved trait that benefits people somehow. There are very few animals in nature that are as monogamous as people. Even among birds and things that supposedly mate for life, there is a lot of action on the side.


            2. But it’s also not as if people are going to start getting into group marriages a lot more if it were legally recognized.

              Err…have you even been to Utah man?

              Yeah, there would be a whole lot more considering the only legal number of these types of marriages is zero right now, and let us not pretend that multiple faiths don’t encourage this exact thing.

              1. I’m not denying that (and no, I’ve never been to Utah). Yes, plenty of religions have allowed or encouraged polygamy. But I do think that most people who want to do it already are doing it, legal or not.


                1. I’m not denying that (and no, I’ve never been to Utah). Yes, plenty of religions have allowed or encouraged polygamy. But I do think that most people who want to do it already are doing it, legal or not.

                  Of course they are, and were, and always will. The point is that every single argument you use to justify gay marriage can be used across the board for pretty much any configuration of any number of orifices. I only bring up Utah because it’s the stronghold of Mormon’s, who generally speaking aren’t huge proponents of monogamy. They tend to downplay that aspect of their faith, and I’m not sure how many of them would actually go for it if it were legal, but rest assured it will be a sum greater than zero. And this is just one of our home grown variants of polygamy.

                  The fact that only a certain number, and certain configurations, of orifices are legally allowable has absolutely no legal legs to stand on anymore. Those legs were broken, but somehow the whole edifice remains standing.

                  The State isn’t going to give this up, so we can expect a new grievance group each decade until the laws surrounding marriage are at least as complicated as the Federal tax code.

          2. But, it is so ingrained in many that 2 is a magic number for love.
            Except that we have a ton of cultures, historical and modern, that are dandy with polygamy?. And even in supposedly monogamous societies, we still see a lot of non-monogamous behavior: cheating, mistresses, divorce and remarriage…

            Fact is, “2 is a magic number” is a cultural concept, not a biological one. So you can blame the Christians that decided to ignore all the polygamy in the bible for that one.

            ________
            ?Polygyny more often, but there’s been the occasional polyandry cultures.

        3. Does humping your leg in front of the judge show the dog’s consent?

          1. You guys must be specists! That’s pretty sick, thinking that only humans have agency and free will!

            And yeah, I think that’ll probably be an argument in 50 years.

    3. But he hasn’t refused to serve a class of people, but a particular product – a cake for a same sex wedding. From what I understand, he’s fine selling pre-baked Valentine cakes and whatever else gays wish to buy. He just won’t take a special order to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.

    4. The inconsistency is shown by the fact that no court will rule that a black baker must bake a KKK cake or a moslem deli must serve bacon or bake a gay cake or a progressive baker must bake a tea party cake. There is a difference between a simple cake (not at issue here) and a cake with art/lettering that supports an ideology. It is also interesting that t-shirt companies have been granted an ok to not print slogans on shirts that they don’t like. Why is it ok for them but not the baker?

      1. Ok, let’s see…

        KKK and Tea Party? Non-discrimination laws don’t cover idealogy.

        Muslim baker? Still has to obey non-discrimination laws. It’s just that the “gotcha” cases conservatives forced were all in states where the state non-discrimination laws didn’t include gay people.

        As far as your “cake with art/lettering that supports an idealogy”, the problem for Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Masterpiece Cake Shop is that they said no before things got that point. They didn’t say “only a simple cake” and refuse the artistic parts only, they refused any wedding cake. So they discriminated before they could claim they were only objecting to the specific lettering, decoration, etc.

        Which brings us to the T-Shirt company, which discriminated after the discussion of specific lettering/decoration came up.

  3. RIP Reserving the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone

    Next up, those fuckers what make you wear shoes to shop in their hoitytoity retailiaratti palaces.

    1. Yes, but what if this can be turned against all those safe space snowflakes in college, where they will fera getting sued should any non-marxian get any grade less than an A?

      The reap-what-you-sow lesson could be hilarious.

      1. “To each according to need” or whatever, and those students obviously didn’t need A’s.

        Court is Adjourned.

    2. This is the kind of shit we were always going to end up with as soon as we stopped beating the shit out of hippies.

      1. I wonder if I can get the hippies in the kiosk down at the mall to put that on a T-shirt for me?

    3. … I haven’t been able to “refuse service” to Christians for having a holy book that literally calls for my death since before I was born. So you’re a bit late with your melodramatics.

  4. These are the dumbest laws ever. As if people have some innate right to have cakes baked for them.

    The gay lobby got their marriage rights. The more they keep pushing this stuff they are going to spark a backlash, just like the antifa-retards are doing with their commie/anti-free speech bullshit.

    1. The more they keep pushing this stuff they are going to spark a backlash

      Not that I necessarily disagree, but you have to admit this quote sounds lifted from a few decades ago.

      1. Not that I necessarily disagree, but you have to admit this quote sounds lifted from a few decades ago.

        And it seems the critics of gay marriage have been proven to be correct in their concerns.

        1. Can we at least stop collectiving the “gay lobby”? There is no such thing.

          1. So all those Rainbow Flags are making themselves?

            1. So all those Rainbow Flags are making themselves?

              The flags don’t represent a unified political ideology. Now the HRC yellow equal sign on a blue field stickers do, but that’s a specific lobbying group with it’s own goals and there are other gay groups with different goals. I’m sure you know this already but just enjoy being smug.

              1. 5 guys calling themselves Log Cabin Republicans vs. the groups excluded from the Pride Parades?

                Yep, I’m going with lobby.

            2. Rainbow Flags are a natural phenomenon, when polyester passes through a fabulicity field the fibers are bent in proportion to their distance from the edge of the fabric, resulting in the spread of hues observed.

              Do. You. Even. Science. Bro? I just cant even…

              1. I thought they were a naturally occurring side-effect of unicorn farts.

          2. There are not organizations lobbying to include sexual orientation in publuc accommodation laws?

            How are they not accurately described as the “gay lobby”?

            1. Because those organizations don’t speak for all gays. This isn’t rocket science, folks. You might as well be positing a “white lobby” or a “female lobby”.

              1. National Organization of Women?
                There is a “women’s lobby”. Though, it certainly isn’t a group consisting of a cross-section of women of all beliefs.

                I believe the “gay lobby” expression is used in a similar fashion. I don’t think it is intended to mean “all gays”.

              2. “Women’s rights groups”, “black civil ri g ts” groups, etc. It is a shorthand. The way you are stating it makes it sound like these groups do not exist, not that you areirrated at their presumption.

            2. Using the definite article implies that there is a lobby which speaks for all gay people.

            3. Well for the most part, they’re local activists with only tenuous connections to other groups. There’s a few national groups that occasionally throw money in one direction or another, but 95% of all effort is local.

          3. Yeah, and The Pink Pistols and Log Cabin Republicans should go back to Narnia!

          4. There is no such thing.

            Have you been inside Trump Tower?

    2. There are plenty of much dumber laws.

      1. Freedom of association and protection against labor coercion are pretty critical.

          1. Like forcing people to buy health insurance?

            Forcing people to do things for people is dumb.

    3. They are going to get a backlash anyway, which is a pity because this business of “I don’t approve of your ceremony, therefore I don’t want to sell you my services” is bullshit. A black butcher doesn’t get to deny pork ribs to somebody buying for a KKK barbecue. So long as the Public Accommodation narrative informs American law, this will be true, and that isn’t going to change any time soon.

      Doesn’t mean that Gay couple buying a cake from a Fundamentalist baker aren’t a pair of jerks.

      1. I think a black butcher should indeed be able to turn down coming to cater to a KKK gathering (setting up, cooking for them)–don’t you?

        1. I think anyone should be able to conduct their private business any way they want.

    4. Dumbass bigots should spend less time threatening that they’ll be unable to control their bigotry if things get too hot and more time working on being decent human beings.

      1. As opposed to those gay couples who specifically target Christian bakers simply to punish them for their beliefs. Because that is truly the definition of decent human beings.

      2. Ok,Tony, but how does a dumbass bigot, such as yourself, justify their bigotry? After all, you’re a far greater bigot than any christian ever could be.

  5. Pie : cake :: Swizzle : Katy Perry.

    1. Finally something we agree on. I wouldn’t kick any of the four of them out of my bed.

      1. Which would you marry, fuck, and kill?

        1. Marry The Swiz, fuck the pie, kill the cake.

          (kill it by eating it)

          1. Um, would that happen to be a Boston Cream Pie?

  6. Is the point where the the closet-bigot faux libertarians remind us that anything that impedes even a single government-issued marriage is a libertarian triumph?

    1. Glibertarians.com

      ZING!

      BURN!

      BOOM!

      KA-POW!

    2. Is this the point where faux libertarians remind us that they don’t actually believe in free markets beyond Uber and food trucks?

  7. The highest court in the land is wasting time discussing whether one person can be forced to bake a cake for another person. How can our quality of life be so good that this made it to the top of the agenda? Thank you free-ish markets and technological innovation for making this absurd present a reality. I can’t wait to see what topics come up for SCOTUS 50 years from now.

    1. What need would Empress Chelsea, 3rd of that name, have for a supreme court?

      1. Someone has to rubber stamp your edicts.

    2. They can choose only among cases brought to them.

  8. I need to sue a halal or kosher market for refusing to sell me bacon.

    1. They’d have to sell pork in the first place wouldn’t they? Is religious discrimination verboten under CRA? If so, maybe some Jews could ask a Muslim bakery to make them a “Israel forever; kill their enemies” cake and see what happens.

      1. They’d have to sell pork in the first place wouldn’t they?

        Not sure why it would matter. They sell food.

        The bakery didn’t sell gay wedding cakes. Didn’t protect them.

        1. They sell wedding cakes. They’re not in trouble for refusing to sell gay wedding candy beans or champagne.

          I think this baker has a strong argument, but the bacon analogy does not work at all.

          1. The bacon example doesn’t work and it’s playing the same game that the Left has been engaged in. Yes, the Left is only targeting Christians with these lawsuits, but it shouldn’t matter. What is at issue here is whether or not we should be extending protected class status beyond individuals and unto ceremonies (which is a pretty big expansion of protected class status).

            Playing this game of pointing out that Muslims cannot be forced to sell bacon is both weak and mean spirited.

          2. They sell wedding cakes. They’re not in trouble for refusing to sell gay wedding candy beans or champagne.

            They’re in trouble because they declined to do EXTRA work to celebrate gay marriage.

    2. “I need to sue a halal or kosher market for refusing to sell me bacon.”

      I do not see how this is related.

      “What most people don’t remember is that discrimination was mandatory, forced by government, not up to individual choice.”

      True, but if the government imposes something long enough, with a matching rhetoric, it becomes part of the culture at large, and self perpetuating.

      1. In both cases, it would be discrimination for the seller to refuse to sell to you, but not to refuse to sell a product they disapprove of and therefore do not supply.

      2. The reason the government got involved was that left to their own decisions, the public was not discriminating enough and blacks were getting ahead financially.

  9. Cake : pie :: IPA : every other beer style.

    1. this doesn’t reconcile with Pie > Cake above

    2. Zeb:Crusty::Mikey:Obama

    3. You are dead to me.

      1. Your taste buds are dead to you, too.

  10. There is zero chance this court is going to rule in such a way that alters state-level public accommodation laws.

    ‘Course not. That would upend the entire civil rights apparatus of the last half-century.

  11. Pie : cake :: American Gods : Game of Thrones.

    1. QUIT FLIP-FLOPPING.

      American Gods has been a yuge disappointment.

    2. You went to all that trouble to close the italics tag for just the colon. I will give you credit for this and only this.

      1. If we were to list all the things Crusty has done for the colon, we’d be here all day.

        1. “For” or “to”?

  12. The question I want the court to answer is why a couple would want their wedding cake made by someone who doesn’t want to make them a cake. This is supposed to be your special day, but you want someone who hates you to make your centerpiece? WTF?

    1. It’s about breaking the back of any possible religious objection to being gay. They want religion to say it’s ok. All of religion. Except Muslims, I guess, because no one ever seems to talk about that.

      1. Muslims will be next. They know that. They pose no threat at the moment, because they are so small in number- in comparison to Christians. But, it will come

      2. Oh, oh, I know!

        How ’bout the Bigoted Baker identify as a Muslim until after the Ceremony date?

        PROBLEM SOLVED.

    2. I’m pretty sure we all know the reason. This isn’t about wedding cake, it’s about having the power to force somebody to make you a wedding cake. It’s interesting to see the victimology here, though, where the civil rights of gays conflict with the civil rights of the religious – how about we go back to the fundamental principle that rights are things that don’t require any action from anybody else and nobody has a right to interact with somebody else against their wishes?

      Also, saying that a commercial establishment can’t discriminate by the logic that a government-issued license makes commercial activity a privilege rather than a right and therefore discrimination becomes a government-endorsed activity is utter bullshit as well. I’m obviously not a “public accommodation” if I restrict my clientele, am I? I didn’t build that? No, fuck you, you didn’t build that.

    3. I thought they didn’t hate the person…

    4. This is supposed to be your special day, but you want someone who hates you to make your centerpiece? WTF?

      See the “there is no gay lobby” issue raised by Rhywun above. The case isn’t Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. Vs Some Gay Dudes and Ladies it’s vs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Gay wedding Cakes are a Human Right.

    5. Why would a black person want to sit at a lunch counter run by people who are obvious racists? Or sit at the front of a bus when people prefer him at the back?

      1. Those things were segregated by law, so it’s not very comparable. Fighting government mandated injustice is a bit different from fighting some asshole who doesn’t like homos getting married. There was a systematic effort to exclude blacks from white society. The same isn’t happening now with gay people.

        1. So there is some tipping point where discrimination becomes “systematic,” at which point it becomes okay for the federal government to intervene on behalf of the minority? What is that point? What number of people have to be discriminated against by the majority?

          1. The point is when the government requires discrimination. And I see no problem with the federal government telling states they can’t require segregation or other forms of discrimination.

            1. Two things: one, when local governments enact Jim Crow?esque laws, they’re just doing the will of the oppressing majority. Governments are not alien entities, and they were hardly imposing on white Southerners a regime they didn’t want. Which is to say the distinction between culture and government is blurrier in my opinion than you’re treating it.

              Which leads to the logical point that if government does not forbid discrimination in public accommodation business, it must permit it. What happens when, in the absence of antidiscrimination law, a sandwich shop owner decides to expel all black people? Who’s gonna show up and do the expelling? Government goons, right?

              The government doesn’t have the option of not taking sides on this. Either it’s protecting the rights of customers to sit at the lunch counter or it’s protecting the right of the owners to eject them. There is no third choice.

              1. Things change and society evolves without government directing it.

                How about at least first try to remove the laws requiring discrimination and see how things go before using force to make private business owners tow the lion? There are lots of economic and social incentives for a business to serve all potential customers.

                1. So when society reaches a point where there’s no discrimination, the laws will simply be ink on paper, doing no one good but harming no one.

              2. Which leads to the logical point that if government does not forbid discrimination in public accommodation business, it must permit it.

                Please describe what you mean by “public accommodation business.”

                What happens when, in the absence of antidiscrimination law, a sandwich shop owner decides to expel all black people? Who’s gonna show up and do the expelling? Government goons, right?

                They might or they might not. It’s really up to them if they want to enforce property rights or not, unfortunately. But if they threw out the “trespassers” then they would be enforcing the sandwich shop owner’s property rights.

                If the races were reversed, it would be the same story. The cops would show up to throw out white “trespassers” too, if called to do so.

                The government doesn’t have the option of not taking sides on this. Either it’s protecting the rights of customers to sit at the lunch counter or it’s protecting the right of the owners to eject them. There is no third choice.

                That’s so not true. The cops pick and choose cases to take and which property rights to enforce. But if it’s 100% true that cops would always throw out the unwanted at the property owners request, then they would throw out whites (or whatever) too, if called to do so.

                Something tells me they would not intervene if cops refused to leave an establishment that refused to serve them.

                1. The point is you don’t get an escape hatch if you want to endorse the pro-discrimination side. You positively endorse cops showing up to forcibly remove black folks from the lunch counters. We tried it that way. That’s what was referred to above as the government enforcing discrimination. But it must enforce discrimination if shop owners demand it, in the absence of enforcing nondiscrimination. Since it’s a binary choice, society, in my opinion rightly, has chosen the less barbaric option. Small or big government doesn’t actually enter the picture. Government goons are forcing someone to do something against their will either way.

                  1. The point is you don’t get an escape hatch if you want to endorse the pro-discrimination side.

                    I’m not trying to escape anything. You’ve moved the original goalposts into some sort of circular logic zone.

                    You positively endorse cops showing up to forcibly remove black folks from the lunch counters. We tried it that way. That’s what was referred to above as the government enforcing discrimination.

                    I never tried it that way. Maybe you have.

                    But, no, I didn’t endorse anything, especially socialized security guards. I was working under your premises merely to show you the flaws in your logic.

                    The socialized security guards would come to throw out whoever wasn’t wanted no matter the race, and only if these cops actually thought their job was to protect property rights, which may or may not be the case.

                    But it must enforce discrimination if shop owners demand it, in the absence of enforcing nondiscrimination.

                    The government doesn’t have to do what it doesn’t want to do. That’s the way it is. FYTW

                    The government can choose to (1) enforce anti-discrimination laws (2) enforce property rights (3) neither/something else.

                    Since it’s a binary choice

                    It’s obviously not.

              3. Re: Tony,

                Two things: one, when local governments enact Jim Crow?esque laws, they’re just doing the will of the oppressing majority.

                This argument runs contra your previous argument for imposing laws on an unwilling people which revolves around the idea that a) legislators know better and b) people are just too greedy. Otherwise, why codify into law anything if people already agree to behave in a certain fashion?

                If you are arguing that Jim Crow laws are the reflection of a segregationist society, then you would have to concede that all laws are redundant. If you do not want to accept this, then it would mean you’re not serious when arguing that Jim Crow laws are the reflection of society and that, in fact, you’re ipso facto conceding that Jim Crow laws were indeed an imposition.

                1. why codify into law anything if people already agree to behave in a certain fashion?

                  Because it legitimizes the force you want to apply and gets the KKKops to do your bidding for you at taxpayer expense?

                  A big part of Jim Crow, of course, was denying the franchise to black people through various clever ways. So they’re a reflection of culture, but one that has already excluded black people from it. At the very least the feds have to step in to ensure that basic right. And if everyone gets a free vote and we still end up with Jim Crow, then government has an incentive to make law that beats it back, since it’s, you know, evil. Racist southerners have always made the loudest case for their own autonomy while also demonstrating why it’s also the worst case.

        2. And it remains the case to this day that an entire political party uses gays as national scapegoats in order to frighten Christians into voting for them. And before that gays were treated as invisible, left to the edges of society and to die of an epidemic with every bit of intentionality as the Tuskegee experiment. So you’ll understand if I don’t want straight libertarians deciding when society has advanced enough that gays don’t need any attention as a suspect class.

          1. So if my wife and I go to Nevada (outside Reno or Vegas) and decide to visit one of the legally established prostitution houses, I know that any of the girls we want to be with won’t be able to say no to playing with my wife? Even if she is not a lesbian or bisexual? Or how about a straight male prostitute? If a gay man really likes a straight male pro in Nevada, I guess the pro has no right to refuse service based on sexual orientation.

            1. The interesting thing about this sort of law, in contrast to the stale, simplistic libertarian attempts to make everything fit onto a bumper sticker or two, is that it involves ranking levels of harm and benefit. So obviously forcing even a prostitute to have sex with someone against her will is not permitted as it amounts to sex slavery. A single worker anywhere would be able to deny serving a particular customer. But it is an interesting and I believe outstanding question whether brothels are considered public accommodations (in which case the brothel wouldn’t be able to discriminate, though individual sex workers could).

              1. In other words, it is not a law. It is something that can be creatively interpreted to mean whatever the hell its advocates need it to mean

              2. it amounts to sex slavery

                Whoa whoa whoa. Slavery? He or she is getting paid and is working in a brothel, which I assume you consider to be a “public accommodation.”

                So the above scenario would be bad form of slavery, but being forced to bake someone a cake is an acceptable form of slavery?

              3. If a bakery, or a flower shop, or any other business is a public accommodation, then by definition, a brothel is as well.

                And I don’t believe and public accommodation laws have an out for harm vs. benefit.

                And calling it “sex slavery” is merely playing with words. It doesn’t change the fundamental question at all. I might ask how you define slavery? I see no way in which a person who voluntarily chooses to be a legal prostitute in Nevada is enslaved any more or less because than a person who voluntarily chooses to be a provider of (fill in name of good or service).

                1. I’m saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, that an individual employee at a bakery may refuse to deliver a service based on personal beliefs, but the bakery itself must accommodate the customer.

                  1. Well, isn’t that interesting. Tony just argued that the bakery is a distinct entity from the owner, like a corporation or something.

                    1. Yes, an entity incapable of having religious beliefs what with its not being human.

                  2. but the bakery itself must accommodate the customer.

                    So if no employee wants to, the building and equipment must bake the cake autonomously?

          2. Oh wow, tinfoil hat time.

            That analogy suggests that AUDS was deliberaty introduced, and ignores resistance by gays to measures that were sppropriate for combatting a deadly epidemic.

            1. Let me make sure I have a settled stomach before I ask about these “measures” you refer to.

              If AIDS happened to straight people in suburbia it would be a footnote in history.

              1. We should really all point and laugh at Tony, who doesn’t understand the first damn thing about AIDS or why it targets people with risky as fuck lifestyle choices when it comes to god damn needles.

                Honestly, Tony, I really think you can only play darts by facing away from the board.

              2. If AIDS happened to straight people in suburbia it would be a footnote in history.

                Yep, just like diabetes and cancer are now just a footnote in history.

                Please. Try. Harder.

                1. AIDS is almost cured. How much sooner would that have happened if gays weren’t the face of the disease? Are you seriously arguing otherwise?

          3. Would that be the party whose nominee waved a rainbow flag and featured gay speakers at it’s national convention?

            1. I was one of the few gays* who weren’t fooled by Trump’s simple-minded, cynical appeal to gays in the election.

              *Just kidding, nobody was fooled.

              Jesus talk about getting extra credit for making it over the finish line dead last. They’re retards, so they get a participation trophy, I guess?

              1. What, specifically, makes you think Trump is anti-gay?

                1. He loves the gays like he loves his blacks and some Mexicans, I’d wager.

    6. Because for many of them, a big part of their wedding is the implicit “fuck you” to any who oppose it. If you can celebrate by making that statement to a specific party rather than just in general, all the better.

  13. But text, writing, and imagery placed on the cake can be considered speech, and a bakery cannot be forced to communicate text or images they deem offensive.

    How ’bout writing “FUCK OFF SLAVER!” on any opprobriously ordered gaycake?

    1. Do it on a layer so they don’t see it until it’s too late.

  14. Libertarians hoping for a broader ruling related to whether public accommodation laws violate the free association rights of business owners will probably be disappointed.

    Libertarians being dealt a rare blow by the courts.

    1. “A Rare Blow” was my nickname in college.

        1. Depending which side of that he was on.

          1. Depending on the definition of “rare”:

            rare
            adjective

            3. unusually good or remarkable.
            “he plays with rare strength and sensitivity”

            1. i’ll take my steak unusually good, please.

          2. I was making the assumption he was not on the “on your knees” side.

  15. Should have baked the cake, and decorated it with Bible scriptures relating to homosexuality.
    Much easier to defend product defects than ‘civil rights’. Also underlines the speech aspects of the issue.

    Like not obeying an order is a better choice than actively refusing the order.

    1. Fuck it up badly enough, and people don’t usually ask you to do a thing a second time. The trick is not fucking it up badly enough to be fired, sued, or killed.

  16. So, with the post last friday about Mississippi’s proposed law to protect a baker who objects to serving a gay wedding is obviously unconstitutional on a establishment clause basis as it recognizes a particular religious belief. How is a law that punishes thst baker for not serving a gay wedding not enforcing a particular religious belief? Is it only because t he framers of that law do not explicitly state thst their belief is religious?

    Other protected classes are based on aspects if identity thst do not necessarily have any t hing to do with a person’s actions. Sexusl orientiin is a class that is defined by the person’s actions.

  17. All weddings are gay, so therefore all wedding cakes are gay. Make me ruin my whole fucking Saturday and have to bring a fucking gift? Gay.

  18. what cook or baker does not love being compelled to prepare food for someone who they despise and who despises them? bon appetit asshole.

  19. All business owners have the right to refuse their services to anyone, no matter what. The problem arises when said business owner is a complete douche-bag and has to air his worthless opinions about the customers they would rather not serve.
    If the business owners would simple have said, “No, I’m sorry, I don’t think I’ll be able to fulfill your order on time. Hopefully you’ll have better luck elsewhere,” there wouldn’t have been a problem. It only becomes an issue when you come out and say you’re not serving them for discriminatory reasons.

    1. Yes but interest groups seek out cases to try to establish precedent that accords with their interest, in this case, protecting Christianity from gay cooties or whatever.

      1. Yes just like the gay couple here and in Oregon who were seeking out Christians specifically to set a precedent.

    2. It only becomes an issue when you come out and say you’re not serving them for discriminatory reasons.

      Bullshit. It’s been demonstrably shown, for several decades now, that it doesn’t matter if your pizzeria doesn’t cater any events at all or just gay weddings; that religion exists is sufficient means for the cause’s ends. Just like the whole transgender issue in NC, if it can be remotely portrayed as religious or right-wing and demonized, that’s sufficient.

      Look back at “all the” homosexuals denied access to their partner in the ER. It wasn’t uncommon to discover that the partner(s) believed they were getting appropriate and/or adequate care until a social worker informed them (wrongly) that they weren’t. It’s much like the rape cases where an awkward or even amicable copulation is ‘discovered’ to have been a rape >6 mos. after the fact and after discussion with a counselor. Except in the ER/gay cases, the equivalent of the rapist is doctors and nurses committed to doing no harm in a for-profit hospital (in which healthcare is now a right).

  20. I’m not so sure the court isn’t ready to continue its recent quest of protecting Christianity from the norms of civilized society. If a crafts store can practice a religion, why can’t a cake speak?

    1. So dumb, so god-damn dumb

    2. If a crafts store can practice a religion

      A crafts store doesn’t sell you things. The owners do.

      1. No they don’t, a clerk does. A clerk who doesn’t get birth control because her boss is an asshole with stupid superstitions.

        1. The clerk sells you as much as the cash register does. Nothing.

        2. The stop requiring the owner be the one to buy the heath insurance you ignoramus.

  21. Something I’ve never understood about the path to this point:

    When was sexual identity established as a protected class, and when was it decided that (as protected classes go) it looked more like a “race” than a “religion”?

    When it comes to “race,” the law says “separate cannot be equal.” But when it comes to “religion”… well, separation is ontological. Baptists and Muslims don’t meet in the same places, chant the same chants, sing the same songs, oppress the same heretics, etc. – and that’s more than just “ok,” it’s part of how we tell Baptists from Muslims.

    Does current law allow a Baptist man to compel a Muslim baker to produce a wedding cake with Jesus-walking-on-the-water prominently featured? I wouldn’t think so. (Or is it just that no Baptist has been ornery enough to test it in court? Hard to believe…)

    And from the outside looking in (which is pretty much the only way the law can look), do “sexual identity” and “gender identity” look more like “race” (external, based on skin/genetics/genealogy, set at birth) or “religion” (internal, based on behavior/testimony, generally set early but people do seem to change their minds about it occasionally)?

    As others have commented, a full restoration of Freedom of Association is not in the cards… but is it too much to hope for a ruling that splits the knot, protecting both the “marriage rights” of gays and the “right-to-not participate” for others?

    1. Religion is a choice unlike that other stuff. Nevertheless, it is a federally protected class, unlike sexual orientation, and you can no more discriminate based on religion than you can on race.

      1. Is religion a choice? I would argue that in most cases it is not.

        1. If you manage to get an education of any worth, it is.

        2. I would argue that in most cases it is not.

          In the US, it’s always a choice.

          1. Somebody hasn’t seen Jesus Camp.

            1. Ok, children are a whole other ball of wax. Their parents don’t give them all sorts of choices.

      2. Belief is involuntary. Any opinion that’s chosen can’t be a belief.

    2. When was sexual identity established as a protected class

      May 29, 2008 for purposes of this case — http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources-publication/ colorado-broadens-ban-sexual- orientation-discrimination (take out the spaces to make the link work) The case concerns a violation of Colorado’s public accommodations law, not whether sexual orientation is a protected class under the 14th Amendment.

    3. That’s definitely food for thought, Gunthor. Interesting post.

  22. How about this: If you own a shop open to the public, you must be willing to provide your basic service to ANY paying customer. Now, if any portion of your services require artistic licence, you are free to turn down THAT portion of your services for any reason whatsoever.

    This means a bakery must provide a wedding cake comparable to others made in the past. However, accessorizing said cake is not mandatory should the content disagree with the artists beliefs.

    This prevents a jewish baker from having to bake and decorate a Nazi cake, or a black baker from having to provide a KKK themed cake, and obviously a religious baker from having to provide a gay themed cake. In these cases, each would be obligated to provide a basic frosted cake from their stock or catalog, but any accessorizing is not compulsory.

    There is still the slippery slope of what constitutes “artistic license”, but the courts can hash this out I’m sure.

    1. That is the distinction liberals would like to see. Simply treat sexual orientation as any other protected class like race. Religious belief has not traditionally been permitted to trump the individual rights of others. And then any actual expression is protected by the first amendment.

      So let’s not misunderstand that if the Supreme Court carves out an exception for Christians and gays, they are making serious changes to laws and norms (i.e., being activist).

      1. Your concept of “individual rights” is a convoluted, idiotic mess.

      2. The problem with the left’s arguments of late are that every “protected” class somehow morph into privileged classes. It’s a pity, because at one point not so long ago libertarians and much of the left could find common ground on these issues. Not so much anymore.

        1. Really? Am I missing a gays-only government check or something?

    2. While I oppose this on ideological grounds (ala free association), it would at least protect to some degree free expression and freedom of religion.

      1. Philosophically, so do I. But as we don’t live in libertopia…

    3. How about this: If you own a shop open to the public, you must be willing to provide your basic service to ANY paying customer.

      How about if I refuse to serve someone, my competition is free to scoop them up?

      Let’s say I just liked making cakes for straight weddings because straight weddings were more traditional, had a predictably dynamic, and I was able to meet their standards at a lower cost. What percentage of business should I be compelled to do with gay weddings where I also run the risk of violating equal protections if the cake and price aren’t up to snuff? Does any of it change significantly if we’re talking about the whole cake or just the frosting?

      1. In these cases, each would be obligated to provide a basic frosted cake from their stock or catalog, but any accessorizing is not compulsory.

        There are plenty of businesses who’ve already switched up their ‘stock’ game or narrowed their services/market because of this (if not closed their doors).

        Wholly custom services, memberships, and ‘by invitation only’ effectively guarantee that you get to provide the services you want to the people you want.

    4. If you own a shop open to the public, you must be willing to provide your basic service to ANY paying customer.

      But what if your shop is NOT open to “the public”, but only appears to be so?

      1. It’s really one or the other, isn’t it? Or maybe I’m not up to date on the growing Wedding Cake Social Clubs trend.

        1. No club, just a private business. It looks like a “public accommodation” to some simply because it’s a shop with an unlocked front door, but really it’s a private business.

          1. Skirting the public accommodation laws of most states will probably get you sued. And you’ll probably lose. Unless the whole purpose of your business was to prove a point and not turn a profit.

            1. Skirting the public accommodation laws of most states will probably get you sued. And you’ll probably lose. Unless the whole purpose of your business was to prove a point and not turn a profit.

              Pretty lame dodge. You’re not really answering the question.

              What, in your mind, is the difference between a private business and a public accommodation? Why can’t a business owner choose to run his business as a private business and not a public accommodation?

  23. Obviously these people target bakers and florists on the hope that they will get a legal challenge out of it.

    If I was a cake baker, I would put on my bakery Facebook page that marriage is between a man and a woman as God intended. Then all the people whose marriages seem to be based on activism would come flocking to force their business on me and I would make a killing providing them with wedding cakes.

    1. Be sure to be upfront about how ridiculously expensive yet low quality your cakes will be.

  24. Who’s arguing that business owners should be able to refuse to service someone on the basis that their customer is gay? That’s a complete strawman.

    1. Who’s arguing that business owners should be able to refuse to service someone on the basis that their customer is gay?

      I am and it’s not a strawman.

      If you refuse to work for someone for any reason, you should not be forced to do so.

    2. Like just about every libertarian here and elsewhere.

    3. … So you completely missed all those “religious liberty” laws that were proposed throughout the states earlier this year?

  25. RE: Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gay Wedding Cakes
    Can states force religious bakers to provide services to same-sex couples?

    Of course the Soviet Supreme Court will allow coercion as a method to force people to go against their principles.
    Isn’t that what a socialist slave state does?

  26. I never accepted every asshole client that came through my door. Apparently I have discriminating tastes in people. If I don’t like you– for any reason– I’m not working for you. It helps that I have no kids to take care of, but if the government tries to force my labor in the future, I think I’ll say, “make me.”

  27. Business’s right to refuse service to anybody for any reason should not be usurped.

    Discriminatory practices in such an instance hurt the seller by loss of revenue. Business choice.

    Find another baker.

  28. Well, I suppose a finding on pure free speech grounds is better than nothing. But really ,trying to shoehorn this kind of thing as a “religious freedom” case is bound to lose, sooner or later.

    Why? Because as soon as the SC rules that “religious freedom” overrides a law of general application (like state-level public accommodation laws), you can bet that some private school will assert a religious belief that entitles them to discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, or some such “hot button” issue. And that is *really* not going to fly.

    Until/unless we decide that people simply have a right to associate with whoever they choose, to do business with whoever they choose (and to _not_ associate or do business with whoever they choose), this problem is going to keep recurring.

  29. 062617 westrnjrnlzm, Supreme Court To Hear Case Over Baker Who Refused To Bake Cake For Gay Wedding

    This wedding cake baking deal has nothing to do with wedding cakes being baked for homosexuals… the entire issue is part and parcel of consolidating the State’s illegal : utterly void claim that the state can require and/or issue Marraige LICENSES; which they have no legal authority to so do.

    Not only does the state not now, or in the past, have the authority to convert the Natural Religious Right to Marry into a mandatory Taxable Event; it can never acquire such authority.

    The Christian marriage definition is what we are dealing with in this and all related marriage instances.

    Christian marriage long predates the State; and, the definition is wholly from/by the American Christians.

    If the state wants to use the term or institutions the state is bound by the Christian definition and can charge no related fee : tax.

    The state, OR anyone else, Attempting to change the Christian definition : practice seems to be felony redefinition : fraud – usurpation – abridgement of Natural right to achieve what cannot be achieved by Law : conversion of a Historic Natural Right to a regulated : taxable event.

    In this marriage matter the root issue is the state has no authority and cannot get the authority to turn the Natural Right to Marry into a state taxable event : state sanctioned privilege.

    define and be legalistic fraud by its existence.

  30. In this marriage matter the root issue is the state has no authority and cannot get the authority to turn the Natural Right to Marry into a state taxable event : state sanctioned privilege.

    All sexual deviants have the right and the ability to merry, as long as they follow the rules of natural marriage.
    The so-called wedding cake is a traditional element of the Christian ceremony; therefore, comes within the scope : meaning : preview of the Christian Marriage.

    The wedding cake suit appears fallacious on its face. A civil action without cause to exist ? which pretty seems to define and be legalistic fraud by its existence.

    If I were the defendant I would get my attorney on the stick and cross file on the plaintiff’s in the case as it lies in the Supreme Court, today.

    I would move for immediate dismissal of the sections of the bogus : fraudulent complaints against myself, my cake, and my business; then, present and ask for, virtually Exparte, the relief : findings that I desire in all legal and civil issues preserved before this court by my cross filing.

    My attorney would probably tell me I should have affidavits in support of the prime elements that involve the list of the requested determinations, judgments, and orders.
    I always know what I am affirming and why? if not, I have it explained to me.
    I believe each affirmation is a single : individual matter.

  31. If I were the defendant I would get my attorney on the stick and cross file on the plaintiff’s in the case as it lies in the Supreme Court, today.

    I would move for immediate dismissal of the sections of the bogus : fraudulent complaints against myself, my cake, and my business; then, present and ask for, virtually Exparte, the relief : findings that I desire in all legal and civil issues preserved before this court by my cross filing.

    My attorney would probably tell me I should have affidavits in support of the prime elements that involve the list of the requested determinations, judgments, and orders.
    I always know what I am affirming and why? if not, I have it explained to me.
    I believe each affirmation is a single : individual matter.

    If I, as the plaintiff, and wanted to extract myself from this wrongful suit, I exercise my actual Natural Rights, would seem to me to be to fire my attorney in open court and orally withdraw the fallacious cake suit on the grounds that we were induced to file the ‘wrongful cake suit’ on the basis of common information and supporting legal advice ? all of which now appears to us, now, to be wrong.

    I would then, immediately, contract a partnership between ourselves ? containing every valid Legal point we choose.

  32. Again, due to the present civil action problem we were wrongly influenced to file, I would use affidavits that buttress our contract as an exercise of my Natural Right to contract; noting that this contract is a natural Right reaffirmed by Constitutional and statutory stipulation.
    I would file my contract in the country general public records.

    Which, when I was exercised My Natural Right, as affirmed by the Constitution, is what I did with me and mine.

  33. I think the right will lose this one. If religious people only pick one thing out of the bible to not sell their cakes then it will not pass muster.

  34. To be clear, I’m not philosophically opposed to getting rid of the CRA’s (1964) public accommodation provisions. What I’m opposed to is singling out gay people as being unworthy of such protections while otherwise maintaining them.

    You want me to get on-board with dismantling public accommodation protections? Then you need to either go whole-hog at once, or start with religion. You’re not going to convince anyone you’re serious about actually dismantling public accommodation law by starting with gay people.

    And as a side note, this is my same issue with so-called “religious liberty” law. Libertarians sometimes cheer on those laws because they undermine non-discrimination laws, but not a single proposed “religious liberty” law has done anything about folks discriminating against religion. It’s all been one-sided and directional. And so long as I’m obligated, by state and federal law, to serve folks whose holy book literally calls for my death, your whining about “religious liberty” isn’t going be persuasive.

  35. You can’t tell a private business what to provide and who to provide for.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.