Quote:
Originally Posted by Money2Burn
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.
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.