supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[Auriga]

Which, again, is why the baker was found in violation of Colorado's Civil Rights Accommodation Law, he refused to sell this couple an item (wedding cake) that he routinely sold to others in the operation of his business, based on the couple's sexual orientation.

I don't think he cared what their sexual orientation was. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been willing to sell them anything else in the store. But he did--and they became verbally abusive and walked out.

 

[Auriga]

The law disagrees.

If the SCOTUS rules in the way it appears they might, the law will no longer disagree.

 

[Auriga]

No one is forcing anyone to open a business to the public.

That wasn't the question he asked.

 

[HARK!]

But that's not the deal here. He refused to sell it for the purpose of a gay wedding. This guy might have refused to sell it to a straight person who came in to buy it for the same purpose. It's not usually the bride and groom that walk into a bake shop to buy the cake anyway, is it? Doesn't a caterer usually do that service?

...and that point strikes at the very heart of this case. As Hanna pointed out in post #353, there are some products that this vendor simply doesn't produce. It's not unlike a guy walking into a McDonalds and demanding that they sell him a raspberry quiche with a lemon twist. When they say we don't have that; he demands that they make him one; or he'll sue them because of his sexual preferences.

 

[Maren]

You don't sell wedding cakes, you make wedding cakes custom per the event. He has the right to decline providing his specialized services for any reason, be it lack of time, lack of desire to participate in said event or any other reason.

Except it's not. It's about the customization of the cake. He offered them off the self goods.

Go back and read the facts of the case, this isn't about a customized cake. The couple wanted a cake to celebrate their wedding and were looking at his catalog of wedding cakes, that he offers, and, when he found out it was for them, he refused. He would not sell them any cake, including those that were currently on his shelves at the time, for their wedding.

This is the reason the bakery was found in violation in the first place -- he did not even talk to them about the design or if they wanted a standard, off the shelf, cake; instead he immediately told them he wouldn't sell them any cake and asked them to leave. If they had wanted a custom design, then the judge actually said he would have ruled in the bakery's favor.

 

[Maren]

...and that point strikes at the very heart of this case. As Hanna pointed out in post #353, there are some products that this vendor simply doesn't produce. It's not unlike a guy walking into a McDonalds and demanding that they sell him a raspberry quiche with a lemon twist. When they say we don't have that; he demands that they make him one; or he'll sue them because of his sexual preferences.

Tell me, exactly what is the difference between a "gay wedding cake" and any other wedding cake? Is it like kosher laws?

The fact here is that there is no difference. As I keep pointing out (such as in the above post) they merely informed the bakery they wanted a cake for their wedding -- the person behind the counter realized it was for them and refused to sell them any cake, without even asking if they wanted a custom design or something the baker doesn't sell.

 

[Auriga]

This is the reason the bakery was found in violation in the first place -- he did not even talk to them about the design or if they wanted a standard, off the shelf, cake; instead he immediately told them he wouldn't sell them any cake and asked them to leave. If they had wanted a custom design, then the judge actually said he would have ruled in the bakery's favor.

That's not what I read in the article about what happened:

"Craig says Phillips “started to explain he had gay friends. And he would sell us cookies or cupcakes. But we left.”

Phillips recalls their anger. “They swore at me, flipped me off and stormed out,” he said."

 

[Maren]

That's not what I read in the article about what happened:

"Craig says Phillips “started to explain he had gay friends. And he would sell us cookies or cupcakes. But we left.”

Phillips recalls their anger. “They swore at me, flipped me off and stormed out,” he said."

Cookies and cupcakes are not a cake; and not selling all goods that are offered to the public because of a person's protected class is discrimination and against Civil Rights accommodation laws. He refused to sell them any cake for their wedding, including ones he had on his shelves -- go back and read they original judge's decision, it spells it out clearly.

 

[Auriga]

Cookies and cupcakes are not a cake; and not selling all goods that are offered to the public because of a person's protected class is discrimination and against Civil Rights accommodation laws. He refused to sell them any cake for their wedding, including ones he had on his shelves -- go back and read they original judge's decision, it spells it out clearly.

I wasn't talking about the judge's decision. I was referring to what actually happened in the bakery and what was said there.

 

[Belk]

Except it's not. It's about the customization of the cake. He offered them off the self goods.

He offered to sell them anything other then a wedding cake. The courts gave ruled consistently that a customized cake would be free speech and protected. A standard cake that is listed in his book of offerings (which is what they wished to buy) is not a custom cake.

 

[Auriga]

He offered to sell them anything other then a wedding cake. The courts gave ruled consistently that a customized cake would be free speech and protected. A standard cake that is listed in his book of offerings (which is what they wished to buy) is not a custom cake.

Was it already made?

 

[Belk]

...and that point strikes at the very heart of this case. As Hanna pointed out in post #353, there are some products that this vendor simply doesn't produce. It's not unlike a guy walking into a McDonalds and demanding that they sell him a raspberry quiche with a lemon twist. When they say we don't have that; he demands that they make him one; or he'll sue them because of his sexual preferences.

This vendor produces wedding cakes. There is no difference between this cake and the other cakes sold by the shop. The only difference was the sexuality of the customer.

 

[Maren]

I wasn't talking about the judge's decision. I was referring to what actually happened in the bakery and what was said there.

I was referring to both. The baker refused to sell them a cake, period; cupcakes and cookies are not a cake. Second, the law requires that the bakery sell any item they offer to the general public -- the bakery did not (including the snippet you mention) and so the bakery was in violation of the law.

 

[Belk]

Was it already made?

Why would that matter?

 

[Auriga]

This vendor produces wedding cakes. There is no difference between this cake and the other cakes sold by the shop. The only difference was the sexuality of the customer.

I don't remember that as being his reason to not sell the cake to them. I believe he said it was because of the type of wedding it was supposed to be for, not the sexuality of the customer.

 

[Maren]

Was it already made?

We'll never know, since the baker said they could not buy any cake for their wedding. Again, this is the reason the baker lost. Had the couple wanted a design the baker did not make, he would have been within his rights to refuse. The fact that he did not find out if they wanted a cake currently on display, one in his catalog he makes for the public on demand, or a custom cake is the reason the judge ruled that the bakery violated the law.

 

[Auriga]

Why would that matter?

Because when a baker puts his time and effort into creating something like that, he wouldn't have done it knowing it was to celebrate something that his concience was against. If it was already made, then it might not have mattered to him as much.

 

[Belk]

I don't remember that as being his reason to not sell the cake to them. I believe he said it was because of the type of wedding it was supposed to be for, not the sexuality of the customer.

Last I checked the only people who engage in SSM are couples of the same sex. The courts have already struck down the reasoning that targeting an activity only engaged in by one group is different then targeting the individual.

See:

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993)

As to the first: Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.

 

[Maren]

I don't remember that as being his reason to not sell the cake to them. I believe he said it was because of the type of wedding it was supposed to be for, not the sexuality of the customer.

And the difference between a "wedding" (per the baker) and a "gay wedding" is the sexuality of the couple. He refused to sell the cake based on the sexuality (the protected class) of the people who would use his cake.

 

[Maren]

If the SCOTUS rules in the way it appears they might, the law will no longer disagree.

That might be true in the future, though doubtful. The point remains, the Colorado law is currently on the books.