Yeah, pretty much. Bigotry is popular, and I'm pretty confident that a restaurant could do well for itself by offering bigotry as a service so as to attract a bunch of white customers who totally aren't racist but just don't want to be bothered by seeing black people or women in hijabs while eating. Did you happen to see who just became president and what he campaigned on?

Yes.

Revert to bigotry? That implies that it ever went away. I think that Vox article about how google search terms reveal just how bigoted we still are is pretty illuminating on this front.

It is pretty clear that people want to discriminate against gay people. How many state legislatures have tried to pass laws/amendments banning gay marriage?

I know what you're saying: Spidercrab, can you please spam this thread some more?

And the answer is, yes I can!

I mentioned the New Mexico photographer earlier - the case is Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock. I think this case (for the photographer) is stronger than the baker's case, even though the Supreme Court declined to hear it (leaving the photographer on the losing side).

The reason I'm posting is that I came across an amicus brief written by Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor whose opinion I very much respect. Volokh and the other authors are all supporters of same-sex marriage rights, which is relevant because this was a pre-Obergefell case. That brief is here:

https://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbrief...iled-brief.pdf

(For the record, the ACLU supported the other side of this case.)

Here are the key points of the brief (sloppily quoted):

- Wooley v. Maynard (1977) is a key precedent. (The Wooley case is whether New Hampshire could require government-issued license plates to display the state motto. The state lost.)

- Wooley provides an important limiting principle, so that, for example, a Burger King employee couldn't say, "Oh, we do make it your way, but we don't make gay hamburgers. No offense to you, of course."

- The claim (by photographers/bakers/other creative artists) need not be based in religion or even a great deal of ideological content. Photography is fully protected by the First Amendment, even when it doesn't have a political or scientific message.

For example, United States. v. Stevens (2010) struck down a ban on commercial creation of photographic depictions of animal cruelty; and Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) concluded that even works that express no "clear social position" are constitutionally protected.

- If the law is interpreted as New Mexico did (against the photographer,

- Photographers should be viewed as creative speakers.

So basically:

- This photography case would have been a stronger one (for those who believe in the baker's side), and even that one was turned down by SCOTUS.

- I'm just going to cite this brief in the future whenever anyone asks for my position (which will be never).

So, if I'm following this (and I may well not be as I'm not a lawyer) the legal position seems to be that, whilst it's acknowledged that bakers and photographers may be bummed out by making or photographing things that go against their beliefs, they're not actually engaging in expression themselves in these cases?

If so then I suppose if the baker didn't want to put it in his shop window (maybe he usually does that with his cakes), or the photographer put the photos on her website, that might be fine, as it does seem more like expression on their part.

I think we have progressed as a people. But we have a long way to go, clearly.

I wish it were possible to just let private businesses provide (or not provide) services to whomever they choose. And I guess I feel that's the way it should be. But many of the consequences of that would be ugly, and would further marginalize minorities of all types. People shouldn't have to move because they can't go out to eat in their hometown, and I feel like that would happen for some groups in some places.

But obviously these laws don't change the way anybody thinks. If anything I think they might solidify/entrench the resentment and fear that many people seem to feel toward the "other". That bothers me. I don't like accepting that some people will always be bigoted but I probably should.

(Maybe time to update the title to this thread.)

Updating this because the Supreme Court oral argument for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was yesterday. This is the case where a Colorado baker asserted that he had the right to decline to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, violating a Colorado anti-discrimination law.

Lots of media coverage:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/we...-round-up-401/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/ar...olorado-baker/
http://lyldenlawnews.com/2017/12/05/...ional-dilemma/

Seems like the court may be leaning in the baker's favor, with Kennedy being the swing vote. In my view, the outcome depends on what you believe the facts of the case are, and has virtually nothing to do with religious freedom. If the baker declined to bake them any cake at all, simply because that cake would be part of a same sex wedding, then I think the baker loses. On the other hand, if the baker says, "I'm willing to sell you a generic wedding cake, but I will not provide any decoration/customization that I feel would celebrate a same sex wedding", then I think the baker wins. Based on the findings in the original Colorado process, I think the baker should lose, because it seems like they never even talked about what the cake might look like.

But the whole ****ing cake celebrates their gay wedding.

No idea what this means. The appropriate dividing line, I think, is:
- Are you being compelled to create something that you don't want to create? That's bad.

- Are you being compelled to sell something that you're generally happy to sell, except that you don't want to sell it to a particular person/group?
That's fine.

Suppose a baker has an album of cakes that he has historically sold, and the couple flips through and says, "We want that one." I think it would be perfectly fine to compel the baker to sell to the couple, even if the baker doesn't support same-sex marriage.

However, it would be inappropriate to say to the baker, "You have to make a cake that features two men kissing, standing on top of the bludgeoned body of Roy Moore".

So the ultimate question is, Do you think the baker discriminated on the basis of the customer (improper) or on the basis of the product he was willing to create (fine)?



Side note: Based on the summary of the arguments, Sotomayor's questions seemed kind of dumb.

I’m saying that the cake itself celebrates the wedding, the decoration is is just value add. If there is a baker who would sell a “plain wedding cake” to people he wouldn’t sell one “celebrating their marriage” then that’s one ****ed up baker. How would that even work? He sells them a blank cake and they have some other baker decorate it? Seems nonsensical.

If you do business in the US you should not be allowed to serve one group of people and not another.

They mentioned on npr that that is exactly what some bakeries have done to get around. Bake the cake and then give the ppl some frosting to put whatever message they please.

This week’s First Mondays podcast had some decent discussion on several of the amicus briefs that had been filed and how they thought the case would be decided.

Sure, as long as you have the right definition of "serve". If you mean, "anyone that offers a product to the public should serve that product to all groups", then I totally agree with you. But if you mean, "Anyone who sells a product should be compelled to provide whatever variation that customers demand", then I totally disagree with you.

- A baker should not be compelled to bake a cake with the message "Heil Hitler", even though that baker sometimes customizes cakes.
- A Jewish deli should not be compelled to sell BLTs just because they sell other sandwiches.
- An advertising agency should be able to turn down a request to creates ads for Roy Moore's Senate campaign, even though that same agency creates ads for Doug Jones's campaign.

It's going to be interesting to see the mental gymnastics the righties on the court employ to rule in the baker's favor while not just completely destroying the concept of civil rights in this country.

This phrase was quoted during oral arguments yesterday:

Bonus points if you can guess who said that

None of your examples involve discrimination against a protected class.

I don’t like this, what if the message is “Go Lutes!” Or “Happy Confirmation” or “Go with God.” Not serving someone you don’t like is always problematic because we can’t see into their heart of hearts.
If they serve no bacon they should not be compelled to, this isn’t discrimination against a specific protected group. Should a restaurant be compelled to serve vegetarian versions of their meals? How far would that go?
Why? He’s not been convicted of anything? Certainly not because he’s Republican. If you are in the business of promoting things I don’t think there should be very many reasons to turn down clients, certainly not on religious grounds. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can put your religion over any other religion or group of people. Or it used to anyway...

Fine, to make it more directly relevant, a baker should not be compelled to bake a cake that says "God Hates ****" for the Westboro Baptist Church.

What about “god hates homosexuals”?

This is the crux of the matter here. You should be able to decide what products you want to offer. Once you decide that, you should not be able to discriminate who you sell to. So no, a restaurant should not be compelled to create dishes that they don't want to. Yes, they should be compelled the dishes they do choose to create even to those groups they might want to discriminate against.

This has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with freedom of speech. I am not a political consultant, but I sure as hell expect that I can legally create ads for politicians that I support, and would refuse business from politicians that I don't, even though they're both asking for "ads". That's because I am not willing to create ads that advocate for bans on homosexuality, etc.

Update to last post:
And of course I shouldn't be compelled to create something that says "God hates homosexuals" even if I do create things that advocate for same sex marriage.

Albert Einstein?

Why is your freedom of speech more protected than your customer? You have way more power than your customer does.

I don't even understand this question. My freedom to decide what I want to do with myself is more protected than what someone else wants me to do.

If I want to bake and sell a cake, someone's desire that I also bake and sell a pie does not take precedence over my own desire not to do it.

If you go into business you already have your free speech limited; you can’t decide who to do business with based an broad categories, you can’t produce whatever you want based on industry specific regulations. Why should this limited free speech suddenly be broadened to allow you to limit your customer’s free speech?