On Topic Discussion So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake? (US Supreme Court)

[opinterph]

That all the citizens of a country are given equal rights with regard to (in the U.S.) the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other amendments etc. and so therefore this will include (pertinent to this case) both the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws.

Yes, everyone has the same rights. The problem is that laws are sometimes written in a way that does not conform to Constitutional requirements, such as your example of Equal Protection. When someone thinks the law has injured them, they may bring the question to the courts.

When the Supreme Court decides a matter, their interpretation arguably becomes part of the body of law, but certainly a guiding principle with respect to the writing of future laws. The decision may also invalidate some laws not involved in the actual lawsuit – for example, if a law from one state is found to be unconstitutional and that law is essentially duplicated in other states, the decision applies to that law in all states. The Justices are the final arbiters of Constitutional questions.

Refusal of general service on the grounds of sexuality should be illegal. Just as any other group.

What about the group of people who don’t like to wear shirts or shoes? Do they count as a valid group?

common sign displayed in some US places of business​

 

[Kulindahr]

The argument Justice Gorsuch seems to be promoting is that forcing the baker to explain the non-discrimination law to his employees also forces the baker to admit to his employees that his sincerely held religious belief is discriminatory.

Well, what's wrong with him telling the truth? If he refuses a cake on the basis that it's for a gay wedding, hasn't he shown he is willing to admit his belief is discriminatory? I call this a non-issue.

 

[Benvolio]

Exactly. So it's not a violation of freedom of speech for the baker to explain.

After all, he can add that he thinks the law is stupid, or any other comment he wishes.

So Gorsuch is really off the wall with that one.

No. Not a violation for him to speak, BUT it is a violation of freedom of speech for him to be ordered to do so and a violation of freedom of religion to require him to disagree with his religion in his explaining.

 

[Kulindahr]

I now see you are correct the Gorsuch is concerned the baker has to instruct that his beliefs are discriminatory. Requiring the speech could be a violation of freedom of speech. Required disagreement with his beliefs violates freedom of religion.

He's not required to agree with anything, just to say it -- and he isn't restricted from commenting on it. I did that when I was student teaching: if a religious topic came up, I was required to explain the policy of not talking about religious things in the schoolroom. I also added that I thought that when a religious matter was relevant to a historical situation, the rule was stupid.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy

Refusal of general service on the grounds of sexuality should be illegal. Just as any other group.

What about the group of people who don’t like to wear shirts or shoes? Do they count as a valid group?

I'm curious how he defines 'general service'.

 

[Rex]

No, he shouldn't have to make them a cake. They could go to one of hundreds of other bakeries and have them make a cake for them.

 

[Kulindahr]

What about the group of people who don’t like to wear shirts or shoes? Do they count as a valid group?

common sign displayed in some US places of business​

Health codes are a whole different ballgame.

Oregon's rules on that don't seem consistent to me; I've seen guys shirtless in bars quite often, even if you can get food there too. And in outdoor seating for restaurants, you can even go barefoot.

A more interesting case would be naturists, at least of the sort who operate from a philosophical or (claimed) spiritual starting point.

Makes me wonder: what if a naturist gay couple wanted nude human male figures on top of their cake?

 

[Kulindahr]

No. Not a violation for him to speak, BUT it is a violation of freedom of speech for him to be ordered to do so and a violation of freedom of religion to require him to disagree with his religion in his explaining.

Nope. In running a business, he has entered into a contract with the state via a business license. He has already agreed to abide by the requirements of that contract, and if those require explaining certain things to his employees, he's got to do so, and it isn't a violation of free speech at all. And if he disagrees with the material he has to explain, that's no violation of religious freedom because he is not required to say he agrees; he's perfectly free to say, "I think the law sucks, but it's still the law".

When I got my driver's license, I was required to explain various aspects of the laws of the road. I wasn't required to agree with them, only to explain them correctly and follow them. And when I taught kids to drive, I had to explain the laws to them; that also was no violation of my freedom of speech -- I could (and did) agree with some students that certain parts of the law were stupid.

 

[Kulindahr]

Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy

I'm curious how he defines 'general service'.

I'm thinking he means "generic" service, i.e. products or services not changed by who they're for -- as opposed to particular services, where the products or services are adapted to the requirements of the customer.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, he shouldn't have to make them a cake. They could go to one of hundreds of other bakeries and have them make a cake for them.

"Hundreds of bakeries"?

That's not always possible. Where I am, within an hour's driving, there are exactly five bakeries (not counting those in grocery stores). And that's something the court has to take into consideration: they can't craft a ruling that only works for people in urban areas.

 

[opinterph]

[The business owner is] perfectly free to say, "I think the law sucks, but it's still the law".

From an employer’s perspective, there are many circumstances in which your suggestion would constitute very bad legal advice.

 

[Kulindahr]

From an employer’s perspective, there are many circumstances in which your suggestion would constitute very bad legal advice.

What, admitting he thinks the law sucks?

 

[opinterph]

What, admitting he thinks the law sucks?

Such a statement by a business owner to his/her employees has the potential to create enormous legal liability and/or public scrutiny. There is no redemption in that statement.

 

[Kulindahr]

Such a statement by a business owner to his/her employees has the potential to create enormous legal liability and/or public scrutiny. There is no redemption in that statement.

Only if he fails to follow the law, which in this case he would have because otherwise he wouldn't be able to add, "I think the law sucks".

 

[opinterph]

Only if he fails to follow the law

 

[ChickenGuy]

I'm curious how he defines 'general service'.

I'm thinking he means "generic" service, i.e. products or services not changed by who they're for -- as opposed to particular services, where the products or services are adapted to the requirements of the customer.

What I mean is the gay couple can go to this baker and he will make them a birthday cake, or any other type of cake, if they request it.

He cannot refuse them any service simply on the grounds of their sexuality alone.

He should only have the specific limitation of refusal if it is a gay wedding - and nothing else.

P.S.

I can think of a few 'test cases' that this Christian baker should be put to:

Does he say yes or no?

1. Making a child's birthday cake.... for a gay couple's adopted son.

2. Making a gay couple's mother/mother-in-law a birthday cake.... which has rainbow colours on it.

3. Making a wedding cake for an atheist who is having a civil marriage.

4. Making a wedding cake for two divorcees.

5. Making a birthday cake for one of the married gay couple.... which will be coloured pink.

Does he have religious objections to any of this?

I think his right to refusal should be very narrowly applied to the wedding ceremony alone.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Just poked my head in here to see if people are still arguing in favor of discrimination. Yup? Cool. Gonna go bash my head against the wall some more.

 

[Benvolio]

What I mean is the gay couple can go to this baker and he will make them a birthday cake, or any other type of cake, if they request it.

He cannot refuse them any service simply on the grounds of their sexuality alone.

He should only have the specific limitation of refusal if it is a gay wedding - and nothing else.

P.S.

I can think of a few 'test cases' that this Christian baker should be put to:

Does he say yes or no?

1. Making a child's birthday cake.... for a gay couple's adopted son.

2. Making a gay couple's mother/mother-in-law a birthday cake.... which has rainbow colours on it.

3. Making a wedding cake for an atheist who is having a civil marriage.

4. Making a wedding cake for two divorcees.

5. Making a birthday cake for one of the married gay couple.... which will be coloured pink.

Does he have religious objections to any of this?

I think his right to refusal should be very narrowly applied to the wedding ceremony alone.

I doubt if any of those people would ask for a cake decorated to celebrate the mother of a gay; or two divorcees, or the adopted child of a gay couple as such. In other words, the decoration would not reflect the factor that the baker objects to. Who would want a kid"s cake to say he was adopted?

 

[Kulindahr]

What I mean is the gay couple can go to this baker and he will make them a birthday cake, or any other type of cake, if they request it.

He cannot refuse them any service simply on the grounds of their sexuality alone.

He should only have the specific limitation of refusal if it is a gay wedding - and nothing else.

P.S.

I can think of a few 'test cases' that this Christian baker should be put to:

Does he say yes or no?

1. Making a child's birthday cake.... for a gay couple's adopted son.

2. Making a gay couple's mother/mother-in-law a birthday cake.... which has rainbow colours on it.

3. Making a wedding cake for an atheist who is having a civil marriage.

4. Making a wedding cake for two divorcees.

5. Making a birthday cake for one of the married gay couple.... which will be coloured pink.

Does he have religious objections to any of this?

I think his right to refusal should be very narrowly applied to the wedding ceremony alone.

I think #3 is the most potent -- it would be a good test.

Your limit to his right of refusal I find too broad: at the very least he should have to bake and assemble the cake.

Though if he had a brain he'd just have a book of example cakes and people could pick designs and request alterations, so he woudn't even have to think about where the cake is ending up. That brings it back again to putting on names and human figures, though even those aren't controversial so long as it doesn't say "wedding" or "marriage" or such.

If the courts of today were like those of the 60s, there'd be a good chance more than one SCOTUS justice would quote the New Testament statement about "going the second mile" and tell the baker that if he wants to object on religious grounds he should get his religion straight first.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just poked my head in here to see if people are still arguing in favor of discrimination. Yup? Cool. Gonna go bash my head against the wall some more.

A good case can be made that most people here are arguing against discrimination, and that includes arguing against your position, which can be seen as discriminatory because you're treating human beings as objects that should be required to satisfy your personal views -- that's the only way I can interpret your desire to use government coercion to make people act contrary to their religious beliefs.

The only way to approach this is to distinguish between the individual and the business, and come down with a ruling that a business has to make a provision for serving all comers while not requiring individuals to act against their religious beliefs -- because the Constitution guarantees free exercise (which, interestingly, has in a few places meant that laws against public nudity cannot be enforced against certain pagan/druid types, for whom certain festivals have to be performed "skyclad" -- while requiring provisions so they aren't just parading around naked where the general population can see them).