This seems overbroad to me. If a musician is willing to license their music for some commercials, are they obligated to license it to any group that wants to use it? (This is a serious question, not a leading one.) I know this issue has come up many times (e.g., Huckabee playing Survivor's Eye of the Tiger when Kim Davis was released from jail). I don't think a band should be compelled to license their music in support of a politician they oppose, just because they choose to license that music in order to sell cars.

I don't think "Republican" is a protected class, tho.

Maybe I'm muddling my arguments across these different hypotheticals, but I don't think this is a religious question. I just think it's a pure freedom of speech issue that applies equally well to religious-related expression like same-sex marriage or non-religious expression like Adolf Hitler, the KKK, or the confederate flag.

I agree religion should have nothing to do with this. If someone wants a black baker to make him a custom confederate flag cake the baker should be able to decline.

Just seems like this opens up a huge loophole for people to claim that serving gay people is totes an act expression that they shouldn't be compelled to perform. Like, should a wedding photographer be allowed to not provide service to gay couples?

Being gay isn't a religion, political belief, or even a style. Its a physical orientation.

Denying service to anyone based on their physical makeup (race, sex, sexual orientation) seems like clear discrimination under any context.

Wedding photographers have been making the same claims. One of the most well-known cases was from New Mexico, and the Supreme Court declined to hear it:

I feel pretty strongly on the baker case, less strongly on the photographer case. I wouldn't, for example, see anything wrong with a photographer who sells her services to the public to say, "No thanks, I'm actually not interested in photographing a (legal) pornographic shoot." But I would see something wrong with a photographer who only agreed to shoot weddings of white couples.

writing, in icing, 'happy wedding bill and john' does not mean the person using the icing supports the wedding of bill and john. that baker is perfectly capable of expressing their ill will towards gay marriage. i'm not sure why writing something means someone endorses that thing that's written.

Do you feel the same way when it's writing "God Hates ****" for the Westboro Baptist Church?

Last week's Woth Friends Like These really illustrated this point. One of the guys that got interviewed was pearl clutching about how liberals were causing boycotts of business whose owners supported Trump. Guy thought it proved how mean and nasty the left was, that they would try to "destroy" a business "simply" because of a person's political views. I really wanted a follow up question to get the guy's thoughts on whether it was ok to be able to fire an employee for being gay or getting pregnant.

Yes, writing that in icing neither says you support the message nor that you believe the message is true. I'm sure you can make an argument about protected classes and accommodations and interstate commerce and hate speech and all, but it's icing ffs. It's not like they're forcing you to write an op-ed and sign your name to it.

Well, at least you're consistent. I think forcing someone to write that, whether on a cake or anywhere else, is pretty horrible policy.

Also, I think it's safe to assume that they don't question all their straight customers as to whether their wedding cakes are for a second or third marriage. So it looks like they are just selectively deciding when to apply their religious beliefs based on personal animus toward gay people.

They shouldn't be basing their decisions on the attributes of their customers, only the attributes of the product they're selling. Like, they would be illegally applying religious discrimination if they offered to sell a wedding cake for a first marriage, but declined to sell exactly that same wedding cake to a second or third marriage.

On the other hand, declining to offer a "Happy 2nd marriage" cake would be ok, because you shouldn't be forced to offer a product that you don't want to offer.

In this case going to the Supreme Court, the baker offered to sell the couple a cake. But he refused to create/design a cake that he wouldn't create/design to anyone else.

I think it's a real stretch to say that putting "Congrats Steve and Bill!" instead of "Congrats Steve and Mary!" is some sort of forced artistic expression.

Basically, if you offer a certain service to straight customers, you have to offer the same kind of service to gay customers. If you can't handle that, then get another job.

I agree with this to a certain extent. I draw the line somewhere between writing down their names and writing "God Hates ****" or decorating a cake in the spirit of a lynching.

Well, their argument is that they shouldn't have to design a cake for a wedding they view as immoral under their religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the particular design and everything to do with the context, as I understand it. This, if they view divorce as immoral, they should not be designing cakes for people on second and third marriages, either.

If some super strict interpretation of whatever religion baker guy follows says "races shall not mix", then would you feel the same about this case if it was about him refusing to do cakes for interracial couples?

Is the distinction here about race vs. sexual orientation, or is it about shooting photos vs. baking cakes?

Then it seems like we may not be disagreeing, because I'm operating under the assumption that it has *everything* to do with the cake's design. There are a few possible ways to interpret the facts presented in the SC petition, and my view might change if more comes to light about the details of the case. Broadly speaking, I'd say there are 3 possible fact patterns:

1) The baker doesn't want to design a cake that, itself and without any context of who is buying it, expresses a message that they don't agree with. The couple says, "We want our cake to be an obvious political statement in favor of same-sex marriage." They say, "Make it like this, but more flamboyant":



2) The couple says, "We'd like to buy the cake on page 8 of your catalog, upon which you typically write the couple's names. Our names are Adam and Steve." The baker refuses to provide that service, but offers to sell them the cake without any writing.

3) One member of the couple comes into the store and says, "I'd like to buy that particular wedding cake." The baker agrees, then cancels the order when he sees the buy get into a car and kiss his partner.

I think #3 should and would be considered a clear violation of the law. I think #2 should be considered a violation of the law, because the baker typically offers the service of writing names on a cake. I think #1 should not be a violation of the law, for the same reason that I think a gay baker shouldn't be compelled to create a cake that obviously celebrates the Westboro Baptist Church.***

I don't know how to draw the line between #1 and #2, and at some point I'm left just resorting to Potter Stewart's definition of pornography.


*** Assuming the facts in the petition are true, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did *not* apply this anti-discrimination law to ban " (1) an African-American cake artist from refusing to create a cake promoting white-supremacism for the Aryan nation, (2) an Islamic cake artist from refusing to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church, and (3) three secular cake artists from refusing to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage for a Christian patron."

So the state of Colorado already appears to be taking the side that I'm advocating, that you can't compel cake bakers to create a cake celebrating something that you oppose. If that's their view, they have to take the same view for this baker.

You can choose to not sell offensive messages, but you can't say that white people can buy a lynching cake but blacks can't.

I guess the argument is that they don't sell gay wedding cakes to either straight or gay couples, which seems really obtuse to me. I don't see how they really have to go out of their way to make a "gay" wedding cake other than put two plastic dudes on top instead of a dude and a bride.

Admittedly, I don't know much about designing wedding cakes.

What if it's a more toned-down policy you disagree with? Like, a cake celebrating the repeal of the Affordable Care Act? Is it okay to say, Hey, I like this policy, so get your damn cake made elsewhere?

It depends on what you mean by "refusing to do cakes for interracial couples". If it means deciding whether or not to sell a cake to someone based on whether or not they're in an interracial relationship, then I think that should be prohibited.

If it means designing and creating a cake that is an expressive celebration of Loving v. Virginia, then I don't think the baker should be compelled to do it.

So my distinction is not race vs. sexual orientation, it's are you discriminating in terms of what product you offer (ok) vs. are you discriminating in terms of who you offer that product to (not ok). That's what I was trying to get at in my last post.

What makes photography trickier for me to think about is that being present at an event to photograph it kind of forces you to take part in that event in a way that's not true for someone baking a cake. So it feels ok to me to say, "I'm a photographer, and I will generally shoot events. But I will not shoot any event that celebrates the KKK."

I think I have a defensible position, but there is a ton of gray area. I just find this a fascinating case that is much more important than what it would seem like from the wedding cake context.

I completely agree with your first point - the baker should be able to choose what he sells, but not who to sell it to. The question is, how much latitude do you give in allowing the baker to determine what product contains an offensive message?

[I also agree that refusing to put two plastic dudes on top, when you normally put two plastic people on top, should be a violation.]

I think that would be fine. I think it would be fine in the context of something totally trivial. Like, if I were a baker, I think I would refuse to design a cake that denigrated pineapple.

To anyone slogging through this, sorry for flooding this with replies. I hope I'm not being ikes-like.

Mrs. Spidercrab: How was your day? What did you get done?

Me: Oh, I spent a lot of time arguing with people on the internet that a bigoted baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Of course not. You're arguing in good faith and are open to changing your mind and considering different points of view. You're being the anti-ikes afaict

I find this conversation interesting and not at all ikes-like fwiw.