Is it ok to say nay to make a wedding cake for a couple of gays because God said that it isn't the...right way?
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/ ... hristian-/
freeman3 wrote:The market is not the mechanism for deciding issues of equality (or any other rights)What if some people liked the fact the Christian baker discriminated and they got more business out of being discriminatory towards gays? The market is value neutral; it thus cannot be allowed to decide the issue because (1) it could favor inequality, at least in some instances, and (2) even if it favored businesses that did not discriminate that would not cure the harm to those who were sent the message that they were not equal members of the community.
And it's not whether a person would feel more comfortable buying a cake from those who want to make a cake as opposed to those who don't want to. Of course, the former. But once they choose...it is humialiating for a business to refuse to bake a wedding cake because they are gay. The damage is done and they are seeking a legal remedy for it. And a business that advertised it won't make wedding cakes for gays is also doing harm.
The agenda is equality. Emergency or not everyone should be able to purchase a product without someone saying "we don't sell to your kind."
freeman3 wrote:Messages are different. I think a business owner can decline to be forced to convey messages that are contrary to their beliefs. You are not discriminating against a cognizable group when you refuse to put to be involved in an message that they want on a cake. If a Christian baker was willing to make a wedding cake but was unwilling to put a pro-gay message on it...I am ok with that. The key here is not discriminating with regard to a product put out to the public. I don't think particularized messages are a necessary part of the product. Or perhaps when you add a message you change the nature of the product so that wedding cakes with a different message are each different products so that you can decide for each individual product whether you want to sell it or not. In other words, I could have a bakery and sell danishes, donuts, bagels,etc. each is a different product. But I could refuse to sell cakes to everyone. I think when you add a message you change the nature of the product and a baker could refuse to sell it because then it is a different product than what they agreed to sell to the public. I also think that religious views of the baker would have a greater chance of being favorably compared to alleged discrimination when it pertains to a message in the product and not the product itself. Here, the product is a wedding cake. If you sell wedding cakes to the public then you can't discriminate.
I think it is clear that the Christian baker discriminated. The only question is balancing the rights of religious freedom vs equality. I think equality is more important, because religious beliefs are particular and people cannot demand that others be treated unequally in the public square due to religious belief. You can believe what you want...but when you enter the public space you need to treat others equally.
“These are custom-designed artistic projects that express a vision,” said Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “Artistic expression has always enjoyed broad protection under the Constitution.”
But Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the same-sex couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who initiated the complaint against the baker, says the First Amendment doesn’t provide a license to discriminate.
“It’s a question of whether David and Charlie … and others throughout the country are going to be protected from discrimination,” said Ms. Melling. “They were turned away because of who they are — a same-sex couple.”
“I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got,” he wrote. “But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.”
A lawyer for Phillips on Monday compared his case to one involving another Denver-area business, Azucar Bakery, that in 2014 refused to bake cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery, actions that the Colorado Civil Rights Division later ruled as not discriminatory.
“The government in Colorado is picking and choosing which messages they’ll support and which artistic messages they’ll protect,” said Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which took the baker’s case.
Phillips claims that requiring him to provide the wedding cake violates his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
Craig and Mullins claim Phillips discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation by refusing to make the cake they requested in 2012, in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
But Phillips said he would bake and sell Craig and Mullins any other baked good, according to court documents. Phillips claimed that decorating cakes is a form of art, that he can honor God through his artistic talents and that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages.
Phillips claimed he did not violate CADA because his refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not because of their sexual orientation.
In their opening brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawyers wrote that “it is undisputed” that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission does not apply state law to ban an African-American cake artist from “refusing to create a cake promoting white-supremacism for the Aryan Nation,” “an Islamic cake artist from refusing to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church,” and “three secular cake artists from refusing to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage for a Christian patron.” Therefore, they argued, the state law should not prohibit their client’s “polite declining to create a cake celebrating same-sex marriage on religious grounds when he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.”
The cake maker and shop owner is an artist, the lawyers wrote, and his faith “compels him to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs.” And he even loses money by doing so, they wrote. But the state has ordered him to create cakes “celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies,” with which he disagrees.
So the U.S. Supreme Court, they wrote, needs to rule in this case “to alleviate the stark choice Colorado offers those who, like Phillips, earn a living through artistic means: either use your talents to create expression that conflicts with your religious beliefs about marriage, or suffer punishment under Colorado’s public accommodation law.”
“A victory for Jack’s freedom to create the art he chooses and his freedom from coercive mandates that force citizens to speak as the state commands or face severe punishment is a victory for everyone, whether you agree with Jack’s views or not,” says Greg Scott, a spokesman for Phillips’ attorneys.
freeman3 wrote:Messages are different. I think a business owner can decline to be forced to convey messages that are contrary to their beliefs. You are not discriminating against a cognizable group when you refuse to put to be involved in an message that they want on a cake
freeman3 wrote:NIce try, bakery lawyers. A lawyer always has to come up with something. The baker says he won't sell a cake that "promotes" something he does not like. That's fine. And if something about the wedding cake signals "gay wedding" then he has a point. If it doesn't, he doesn't.
freeman3 wrote:By the way, the baker could turn away couples he disapproved of that were not members of cognizable groups. So he could (and should) turn away the guy who is married to a building, a 40 year old with 14 year old. and the other examples you gave because he would not be discriminating based on membership in a protected group
And I did forget to note that if a Christian Baker was forced by the State to put a gay message on a cake, then that would violate his First Amendment right to Freedom of Expression (because he is being forced to send a message that he does not believe in to adhere to a law against discrimination) But I don't believe that a wedding cake without a gay message on it contain any message What is it about the cake that connotes a message promoting gay marriage?
freeman3 wrote:I think the Baker could draw the line at putting two grooms on the cake. The Christian Baker bakes the wedding cake, come pick it up at the shop, no gay decorations. But you gotta bake the cake.