Supreme Court rules in case of Colorado bakery

[Mister Emu]

Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated] - SCOTUSblog

Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs.
​

So, tomorrow many obviously gay couples are going to go to bakeries, not in Colorado, and ask for a cake that says "Jon loves Ed" or "homosexuals rule" and another case will eventually come up before SCOTUS where the Justices will have to actually address the issue.

There are already several cases awaiting cert where the obvious anti-religious sentiment in Colorado's administration of its public accommodation laws will be absent. We'll see if tSCOTUS takes any of them up.

 

[suncowiam]

So, if I were to start a religion that objected to (say) black people or Catholics can I now get away of refusing to bake a cake for them?

Sounds right...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Help me out here. What's the substantive difference between:

• a restaurant refuses to serve an mixed-race couple,
• a baker refuses to help celebrate a same-sex marriage, and
• a Jewish printer refuses to produce posters for the Klan ...

The first two deal with the way that a person is born. The third deals with the one that one believes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Jesus wants abortionists to cook in the lake of fire".

I would, just so on their way out the door I can say "Planned Parenthood thanks you for the donation."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Help me out here. What's the substantive difference between:

• a restaurant refuses to serve an mixed-race couple,
• a baker refuses to help celebrate a same-sex marriage, and
• a Jewish printer refuses to produce posters for the Klan ...

The first two deal with the way that a person is born. The third deals with the one that one believes.

You seem to be suggesting that the Jewish printer would be legally justified because the Klan is only promoting a set of values. Should this "substantive difference" similarly govern the case of a baker refusing to serve a Planned Parenthood event?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That isn’t what the ruling actually said though;

Don't put inconvenient facts in the story

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If I get a bakery, I'm going to refuse to make cakes for Catholic weddings because it imposes a serious infringement upon my beliefs to do such a thing where the highest ranking officials are accomplices is child abuse. Nor will I make cakes for Evangelicals, as they not only infringe upon my religious views, they want to impose their own religious views of morality upon me, and everybody else.

I see your point, I just feel that someone should probably have a few words with you about your business model before you make a major investment in a business that refuses to serve anyone...

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be suggesting that the Jewish printer would be legally justified because the Klan is only promoting a set of values. Should this "substantive difference" similarly govern the case of a baker refusing to serve a Planned Parenthood event?

Very possibly. I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between discriminating between what a person chooses and what a person is. This gets difficult because religious beliefs are protected too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see your point, I just feel that someone should probably have a few words with you about your business model before you make a major investment in a business that refuses to serve anyone...

At this point, it would be worth it just to see the look on their faces, the stir of controversy, and the idea that a Christian is going to be left thinking "oh my god, I was just turned away for who I am." Let it sink in for a good moment when they are the ones who aren't allowed services.

 

[Thief]

no one seems to think.....
it's MY business what I do....and who I do it for

seems my handiwork is a work of will
and should I decide ....no.....
for whatever reason.....
no one should press their will upon my hand

I don't care who they are

when I say....no.....
well then ......no

 

[Revoltingest]

no one seems to think.....
it's MY business what I do....and who I do it for

seems my handiwork is a work of will
and should I decide ....no.....
for whatever reason.....
no one should press their will upon my hand

I don't care who they are

when I say....no.....
well then ......no

Alas, that's not our legal environment.
So the question is to what extent government compels service to whom.
Compelled speech...should I be forced to bake a cake which says...
"Atheists will rot in hell"?
I don't know where the line will eventually be drawn.

 

[Thief]

Alas, that's not our legal environment.
So the question is to what extent government compels service to whom.
Compelled speech...should I be forced to bake a cake which says...
"Atheists will rot in hell"?

no one compels my tongue ...
nor my hand

that would not be liberty

 

[Revoltingest]

no one compels my tongue ...
nor my hand

that would not be liberty

Then remain a toolmaker.
You wouldn't want to be a licensed broker.
(Speech is highly regulated.)

 

[Thief]

Then remain a toolmaker.
You wouldn't want to be a licensed broker.
(Speech is highly regulated.)

If it were my job to speak on someone else's behalf
I would chose my clientele

 

[Revoltingest]

If it were my job to speak on someone else's behalf
I would chose my clientele

The law doesn't always give us that choice.

 

[Thief]

The law doesn't always give us that choice.

Freedom and liberty are mine
to dictate what my hand WILL do.....is not liberty

 

[Revoltingest]

Freedom and liberty are mine
to dictate what my hand WILL do.....is not liberty

Liberty isn't without its legal limits here.
This is especially so when you do business with the public.

 

[Thief]

Liberty isn't without its legal limits here.
This is especially so when you do business with the public.

private citizens in the door

 

[Thief]

what transpires between me and my customers......is private

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would suggest the second and third are concerned with the activity/message and the first is concerned with the people being served.

It would also be "concerned with the activity/message" if a party rental company refused to provide tables and chairs for a same-sex wedding, but AFAICT, the court hasn't suggested that this sort of discrimination is legal.

This ruling centered on the fact that cake design is artistic expression, which can't be compelled against a person's conscience. I disagree with their rationale (if an artist would be willing to make a particular design of cake for an opposite-sex couple but not a same-sex couple, then the design isn't the issue; the customer is), but I recognize that their ruling hinges on much more than a business person having a religious objection to how their service or product will be used. The court hasn't done anything to suggest that a religious objection in and of itself is a valid reason to deny service in a discriminatory way.