Religion
Related: About this forumIs Refusal to Write Anti-Gay Cake Message a Violation of Religious Freedom?
http://religiondispatches.org/is-refusal-to-write-anti-gay-cake-message-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/BY KARA LOEWENTHEIL
JANUARY 23, 2015
Denver, Colorado can feel like an alternate universe for a lot of reasons, but now we can add a new one to the list. Because in the first such case of which Im aware, a bakery in Denver has been sued for refusing to bake a homophobic cake. According to the reports, the plaintiff in the suit requested that the baker bake him a cake that said God hates gays along with a picture of two men holding hands with an X over them. When the bakerwho identifies as Christian herselfrefused, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, accusing her of religious discrimination.
Its a snappy inversion of the now-classic example of bakers who refuse to provide wedding cakes for gay marriage or commitment ceremonies (or florists who refuse to provide flowers, photographers who refuse to photograph the ceremony, etc.). And thats probably not an accident; if I were a betting woman, Id bet heavily that a pro-religious-exemption think tank or law firm, like the Becket Fund, had come up with this plan and recruited a plaintiff to set it in motion.
The involvement of the local politicians mentioned in the story is likely strategic as well: Talking Points Memo quotes an anti-gay state lawmaker who says he supports the bakers right to not print messages she finds offensive on her cakes. Now perhaps hes just a stringent supporter of free speech, but its entirely possible that he supports this principle because he knows its more likely to come up the other way around, with religious conservatives refusing to provide goods or services associated with practices to which they object (like gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc.).
So as a piece of political theater and strategy, its a clever move. As a legal matter, its also an interesting case. The fact that the plaintiff requested actual words on the cake makes it more complicated, because it implicates the bakers free speech rights. Its one thing to request that a baker furnish a cake that might be used to celebrate something to which the baker objectsthats a kind of second-degree complicity argument. But requiring a baker to actually perform a speech actwriting on the cake and selling itmight be more problematic from a free speech point of view.
more at link
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)I think it's a specific case issue, something that is impossible to write into law. There is a difference between refusing to make a cake simply because the customer is gay and specifically making a cake with a message the baker is uncomfortable with. Still, the same argument can be made with making a cake with a gay theme, even though the uncomfortableness lies in bigotry and hate. I bet I can guess how Scalia would rule.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)because of who they are and refusing to transmit a message.
But there are two other scenarios to consider.
The first is one she describes. What if someone wants a plain cake and says they are going to use if in an anti-gay prayer meeting where they will pray for the damnation of all GLBT people and use the cake as a sacrament?
The other is what you describe. What if someone asks for a cake to be decorated in a way the baker finds vile and offensive, even though you and I would not agree that it is?
I'm not sure how Scalia would rule.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)but refusing to simple write two names on a cake, even if they are both men, is not reasonable.
And not selling a blank cake, just because it is for a gay wedding is unacceptable.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)but doesn't change my stance on this.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I know what my ideological position is, but I am concerned about hypocrisy.
This author also brings up the point about the right to refuse something based on religious beliefs as opposed to political beliefs. The first may be protected while the second probably is not.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)in the other thread.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If someone is asked to provide goods for something or someone that they don't like or approve of, or find objectionable, they should be required to provide those goods regardless.
If someone is asked to add something to the goods that reflects what they consider bigotry or hate, the person should be allowed to refuse to do that.
So the baker who is asked to provide cupcakes for a KKK rally would have to do that, but could refuse to put swastikas on them.
Is that right?
I think the issue would hinge on the definition of bigotry or hate, which is not always that clear.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)Now if we get into extreme groups, like the KKK, if what they would be doing is illegal, like a cross burning with cupcakes, I could see them being refused. Though why someone would make an announcement when buying a plain cake, I don't know.
But who the customer is should have no bearing on it. Rights are not up to the individual.
They should tell them their money is going to the NAACP or rev. Sharpton though.
If you are open to business for the public, you must serve the whole public. Though you are allowed to refuse an unreasonable request that is different than what you normally do. Putting to names on a cake would be normal, even if they are both men or woman, saying something vile would not be.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or with the intention of filing a legal case, as happened here.
I'd be careful about telling them you are going to treat them and their money differently if your intent is to discourage their business. You could be dancing on a discrimination fine line there.
I think there are exceptions to your position that you must serve the whole public. Should an OB-GYN with strong personal beliefs about when life begins be forced to perform abortions? But in general, I agree with your distinctions here.
But if an OB_GYN performs abortions, he can't discriminate against who hr or she serves (within legal reasons like minors)
No, my example is not discrimination, just as I can't have a say in what they do with the cake, they don't have a say if I use their money for something they don't like.
And that is not the case here, they asked for a special cake unlike anything the baker had done, it wasn't about where the cake was used.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that is another issue.
but that is not discrimination, just how business is done here.
I should say he/she cannot discriminate based on the person, in line with the baker story.
And a doctor is in a whole different category than a public business owner.
They can limit their clients and the work they can do for many reasons.
Lawyers, accountants and other professionals can do the same.
Have to go now, good talking.
Please notice that the individual is not prevented from baking his own cake any way he wants it. This is simply a question of the baker's participation which one is not granted by the freedom of religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to bake a cake for a gay couple that was getting married? He didn't want to participate either.
rock
(13,218 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Can you make them do something?
rock
(13,218 posts)For a simple reason.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)"Your freedoms don't make me do anything." is not really valid.
People's freedoms do make you do things.
rock
(13,218 posts)Your freedom of swinging your fist ends where my nose begins. Notice that if I do not desire to serve a sector of the population, I do not have to open the bakery at all. It's not their freedoms that are forcing me to comply, it's my discrimination.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)some things that you don't ideologically agree with or be faced with complaints of discrimination.
Your freedom to discriminate ends when you open your doors to the public.
rock
(13,218 posts)It's part of the 'social agreement' that's implied (and sometimes even explicit)!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Now if there is a law about LGBT discrimination, that could well be a different matter.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)the baker can refuse anyone they want?
rock
(13,218 posts)It's not a violation of the customer's religious freedom.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Inscribe the cake "God loves gays," and make wide, innocent eyes when the guy comes to pick it up. "Oh, dear, Reverend, I misread the message. I couldn't believe a man of God would want a hateful message on the cake."
Then donate the cake to a local LGBT group.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)from that of refusing to sell a cake with a bigoted message.
A business owner should not be able to deny service to a category of persons - gay, straight, black, white, religious, secular. This is discrimination.
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)The baker is obligated to provide a cake, and nothing else. The decoration and messaging is not a protected right.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Until both parties agree on a contracted arrangement, neither one is obligated to the other to fulfill any portion thereof.
Let's put this into my field for a moment. If the parents of a young gay man come to my office for a first family session and ask me to do some sort of conversion therapy on their son, am I obligated to do so?
Hell no. If they have paid, I refund their money and send them on their way. If we have not yet exchanged money, then I simply say no and ask them to leave my office. They can't sue me for either.
This guy can not sue a baker for not making a cake the way he wants. Did he pay for it and then only later ask for the bigoted message? Tough shit! That wasn't in the original terms. Did he simply walk in off the street and say I wanted a bigot cake with hate speech penned on it raspberry icing? Touch shit! The owner/baker can say, nope, I won't do it. Feel free to take your business elsewhere.
This is not a complicated situation. This man is an ass and has no legal, ethical, or moral standing whatsoever in this situation. I am only thankful that the baker is getting free advertising. Even bad publicity is publicity. They'll be just fine!
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)" 7) Public accommodation
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce
...snip...
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; "
A public accommodation cannot deny service. Arguably a therapist or medical professional cannot deny service either (although not covered by statute). However, the extent of the service is a matter of contractual agreement. The baker is obliged to provide a cake, but the decorations are a matter of agreement. Likewise, the therapist must provide counseling, but the form of the counseling is subject to agreement.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Under reasonable situations and circumstance, any public accommodation from a therapist to a baker can deny service as long as it is not a form of discrimination that is legally covered. I can turn away a family that wants conversion therapy because the parents are not a 'protected class'. They are not disabled. I am not discriminating on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, etc.
The same would certainly hold true in this situation. This man is not a special class. Sure he can attempt to argue that he is being 'discriminated' against based on his religion but violations of human rights, hate speech, etc. are not protected in private business transactions and his homophobia is not a part of his religion. He will have an uphill battle attempting to prove that to a judge.