Do we know who were the 2??

you know better

I thought it was settled law that if you offer your business services to the public, you offer to serve all legal requests. And gay marriage is the law of the land.

This was wrongly decided. Big time.

much wider issues of religious and speech freedom was NOT ruled upon, punting the issue back to individual states.

Status quo preserved.

Please note: I have not read the Court's opinion yet. However, I suspect that, unlike a general business like operating a lunch counter, this issue hinged on the idea that a speciality baker is akin to an artist with a unique set of skills, and that the artist has the choice of who he'll do his art for.

For example: Suppose you are a portrait artist, and you offer your artistry to the public in general. But someone wanted to hire you to paint his portrait with a MAGA cap on and with the legend "Trump Winning 2020!" underneath. Or same situation and you're a devout Muslim, and someone wanted his portrait done dressed up as a 12th-century Crusader, or holding a Quran in a way you find objectionable. Should the state compel you to use your artistic talent to represent on a canvas something -- an idea or a concept that is perfectly legal -- that you fundamentally or viscerally disagree with?

And would have no application to the lunch counter situation.

It's narrowly written (and 64 pages long), but the gist of it (and I'm making it more broad than it is for brevity) is one must consider sincere religious beliefs in light of making a truly custom product that would infringe on a person's right to not speak or not participate in something that would violate said sincere religious beliefs.

I think where this will shake out is if someone wants an off-the-shelf product, you have to sell it.

When someone wants a custom product that would be contrary to said religious beliefs (say an Israeli flag for a synagogue celebration of 70 years of Israel at a Muslim bakery, to take it completely out of context), the store can refuse to provide the service.

print out signs for a neo-nazi rally.

It's unfortunate that this baker takes this position, but there is a certain line where people have a right to be left to their own devices.

Reminds me of the line "good fences make good neighbors". We are big country and are not going to agree on a lot of things.

I firmly believe in leaving people alone if at all possible (and taking my money elsewhere, if need be).

Apparently, the Supreme Court felt that animus expressed against the baker's religion tainted the earlier decision. So the SC threw out the tainted decision and didn't even take up the broader questions.

My wife is a chef who handles fancy-pants weddings, and creating a wedding cake is not just something anybody can do. It's not something even any chef can do. Depending on the cake in question, wedding cakes can be tremendously complex and extremely artistic. The good ones are works of art. Apart from the creative aspect, the technical aspect is daunting, as well. The average cost of a wedding cake in Canada a few years ago was around $460. That's a far cry from a sheet cake at your local grocery store bakery.

And cake decorators don't just pipe words on there using icing. They have to work with fondant, which can be extremely finicky. Then if there are any bells and whistles, they may have to create those out of sugar, fondant, chocolate, etc. Doing that is very time-consuming and requires a tremendous amount of skill, especially considering that a single misstep can potentially ruin the entire cake.

A fancy shape or a floral petal decoration has nothing to do with religion. However a message does, such as "John and Richard, United in Love", if your wife's religion condemns gay marriage. Even then, if the client specifies the message the baker/decorator has to do it if they want to stay in business because they are a "public accommodation" like a hotel or a lunch counter.

Just because a decorator is christian does not mean they can refuse putting flowers on a cake because the customer is gay.

The exception would be if someone ordered a cake with a message just to be nasty, knowing the angst it would cause the decorator.

In my opinion without legal qualifications.

I'm arguing that cakes can be art just as much as a painting can be. Drawing a distinction where a painter can refuse to paint if the client's request is against his beliefs, but a baker of complex and artistic cakes cannot, is nonsensical.

If one of them can refuse to carry out the request, the other should have the same right. Your assertion that one is art and the other isn't is merely your opinion.

Art doesn't matter. It's not an excuse to say the baker won't bake for gays.

Expression via art doesn't matter. It's not an excuse.

Decorating with writing of words composed by the client is not expressing the words. It is not an excuse.

But ...

If the client asks the decorator / baker to COMPOSE some wording, then they can be excused on the basis of religion just like you can be excused from writing an essay on the "wonderfulness of Trump" if you are a professional essay writer or playing a Ted "Pants Nugget" Nugent song if you are a guitarist. In all three cases you can't be compelled to create anything that is an expression against your beliefs or ethos.

A beautiful cake is neutral with respect to beliefs and religion and ethos.

If you are a professional cake baker freelancing or running your own business (offering your services to the public, i.e. a "public accommodation") and you are asked to bake a beautiful $2,000 cake with no lettering and no figurines, just lovely floral designs of your own creation, you CANNOT refuse to bake it for a gay couple. Even if they ask you to write "John and Richard, United in Love" you can't refuse -- they have not asked you to compose that wording.

In my unqualified legal opinion.

Where's my relief? Huh?

to bake him a cake celebrating his presidency. As long as....

- Your refused based on religious grounds, and

- The commission (and likely, by extension, another government organization such as a court or agency) tainted the decision process

- Because they had animus against your religion.

I believe that would apply the issues decided in "Cakeshop v. Colorado" (not the full official case title). While there are exceptions, the court tends not to decide issues outside the scope of the case under consideration.

Just like Bush vs. Gore, eh?

fundamental Constitutional rights rather than a decision addressing only process. This is a very limited decision affirming essentially that the government process should be free of religious bias.

What's your judgment about the the scope and applicability?

with anyone for any reason?

Basically, they felt something said or done at the state level during the case was hostile to the Baker's religion overall rather than his actions, tainting the case. So it basically kicks the can down the road, not setting precedent either way on that issue.

see #7 below.

The opinion says that based on the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, an accused is entitled to a process free from government animus against the accused's religion.

The concurring opinion from Justices Kagan & Bryer states, ..."I join the Court’s opinion in full because I believe the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission did not satisfy that obligation." [that "...state actors cannot show hostility to religious views; rather, they must
give those views “neutral and respectful consideration.”]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple, but the court punted on spelling out how far the government can go to prevent sexual-orientation discrimination in the marketplace.

Writing for the court's majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's rights by showing "hostility" to his religious beliefs in a proceeding in which he was found to have violated the law and was ordered to anti-discrimination training.

The high court's 7-2 ruling in the closely watched case left open the question of how a state enforcing anti-discrimination laws in a more neutral fashion would have to accommodate individuals' rights to religious freedom and free expression.

The court's two most liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. They said they would have upheld the state's action against the baker.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-case-620661

7-2 perhaps because they avoided ruling on the meat of this case. Broad speech and religious rights issues would require more rigorous and politically sensitive arm-bending. Always count on cowardly avoidance whenever possible on the current Court of ill repute.

"Broad speech and religious rights issues would require more rigorous and politically sensitive arm-bending. Always count on cowardly avoidance whenever possible on the current Court of ill repute."

It's good jurisprudence to rule as narrowly as possible. Courts are not the legislature.

It doesnt mean it cant be re-filed.

The ruling means that the baker does have religious free-expression rights in such a case, but said nothing about how to resolve a conflict between those rights and others' conflicting rights.

Can I do that legally now?

The same sentiment when walking into a Wendy’s (pick your business) and the apparently, biased for Fox controller of screen play never considered that not all customers are as fox-addled. It shows utter contempt for customers to play to only one half of your public.

When bakers, print shops, florists, etc. refuse service for discrimination hidden within religious foolishness it’s their prerogative to risk the accompanying loss of revenue with their stance. The free market screamers never look beyond their tired, failed ideology.

please if a wide interpretation is taken ... if a sincerely held religious belief is that all christians are evil and harmful to the image of the building, for example.

the end-timers variety of (christians with a small c) are indeed evil and harmful. Now who again are as threatening as the radical Islamist? No, look no further than the extremists who pull their destructive instructions from interpretations that tell them burning our house down instead of working with humanity to save it - they do not get a pass for their contempt of the rest of us.

The wider issue (not addressed) is the free speech issue. Apartment building accommodation is not an issue of speech by the speaker (building owner or manager).

A photographer is an author of speech (expression) and has greater rights whenever producing photographs. Just how many, remains to be seen, but I would think it would be pretty broad.

A cake decorator, not so much, I think. The decorator is not the author of the words but only a conduit for someone else to express them. If the customer said, "I'm John and I'm marrying Richard. Compose a suitable message and put it on the cake", then the decorator could refuse to compose it. If the customer said "Put 'John & Richard, united in love' on the cake", I don't think the decorator has a right to refuse to do that if they are running an ordinary bakery or cake business.

So I would rule in favor of photographers, playwrights, music composers, and not many others. I would rule against bakers, cake decorators, and sign painters.

Wedding cakes typically don’t have messages. Just the tiered cake with the figurines. It takes skill and creativity to make any part of it. The baker isn’t a conduit, but an artist. I’m not saying about this particular baker’s skill. But if just anyone could do it, we wouldn’t go to a baker for a beautiful wedding cake.

There is creativity involved there. The customer tells the baker what they want, the baker draws it up, gets approval from the customer, then creates it. Plus the participation. It's not just bake the cake and then the customer handles everything else. There's delivery, set up, serving, tear down, leftover boxes. And that requires participation on the day of the event. And if you're someone that has a serious religious objection to the whole thing... I mean, I would never want to try to force a Muslim to make a cake featuring one of the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Or, really, any person to have to choose between their paycheck and their religion. I"m not religious myself, but I understand that there are people that take it very seriously.
I do some web design for fun. I make tools for my coworkers to make their jobs easier. It's something I'd like to get into as a career, as soon as I learn more about it. But I would never take a client like republicans, or neo-nazis, or anything like that. I wouldn't want my effort or creativity to go towards something to which I object. I'm sure nearly everyone feels the same way.

A wedding cake is a statement that "A & B are getting married". While marriage contains a civil component (an argument for a different day), it is also (many would say primarily or even exclusively) a religious event (certainly to this baker).

There is no question that a baker cannot deny "a flowery cake" to a client based on the client's orientation... but a cake that makes the statement "A & B are married" certainly presents a clash between the baker's religious expression rights and the rights of his clientele. So far... we have no binding ruling on how that conflict should be resolved. We do have enough of a ruling to say that the conflict exists. That there is such a thing as a right to free expression based on religious beliefs. We just don't know that right interacts legally with rights that conflict with that right or whether a state law trying to resolve that conflict can do so constitutionally.

you don't have to create unique artwork for them is doing so would require you to violate your beliefs. OTOH if you run a deli or an apartment building you would have to service them.

As a musician, I do NOT want to have to play a Ted Nugent or Gospel song. If I were a baker I wouldn't want to make a cake celebrating somebody's invisible sky fairy friend.

Point being that if you serve people a product or service that is the same for everyone, then I believe (could be wrong) that you are obligated to provide your product or service to anyone who wants it, be they gay, Nazi, cult member...... OTOH if you CREATE unique art as a producte (cake) or service (music) then is one required to use one's creativity in the service of something one finds objectionable. At least that's how I think the question should be viewed. In other words, a baker selling cupcakes or loaves of bread that are already made cannot say "I won't sell one of these to Jews/Gays/Nazis/JWs/Muslims/Fasicists. On the other hand, should a Jew be required to bake a cake with 'Heil Hitler' and a Swastika? If you have a band that plays Death Metal should you be required by law to play a Christian wedding and do gospel and praise songs?

Other than that, I'm trying to get your point so as to respond to it... If you are going to argue that a baker is not an artist then anything else you say is not worth responding to, as far as I am concerned a baker is an artisan and NO artisan should have to create ANYTHING for anyone for any reason against their will, period.

I get that its a narrow ruling about the commission that punished the baker being careless in their reasoning rather than the -I think more interesting issue - of where obligation to not discriminate against the public meets the right of an artist or artisan to tell anyone to fuck off for any reason whatsoever. Personally, I think economic leverage is equally if not more important in the long term; I sure as hell wouldn't want to give my business to someone who would discriminate against good people like my various gay friends, just because they are gay...

We’re going to see a plethora of businesses refusing gay customers, I'll bet.
The issue will probably be up in court again soon.
,

...since there's nothing in this ruling to indicate the court won't rule in their favor next time as well.

"A seven-justice majority said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission finding was tainted by animus toward religion. The Supreme Court ruling was a narrow one that didn't reach the broad free-speech and religious-rights issues that had prompted the justices to take up the case."

Soon?

End of the month is soon!

So, generally, all cases they heard during the term will have opinions by that date. The last scheduled date to give opinions is Monday, June 25. Although nothing stops them from giving an opinion later or not at all. That would be unusual however.

in that place. Tell all your friends. Put it on the close your wallet site. Let them see how bigotry doesn't pay. That is all.

Do you even live there?

that’s the real power. I don’t spend money anywhere that had a Trump sign, and I CERTAINLY don’t give the bike shop that’s had pro-life signs in its windows for a bazillion years one penny of my money.

Why do people feel they can discriminate?
Why did this get to the supreme court?
Why do people think their beliefs based upon writing are highly valid?
Why did the court rule the way they did.

I feel sick.

The Court essentially ruled that a Civil Rights commission must "respect" discrimination.

How is sending the baker to anti-discrimination training "showing animus toward religion"?

WTF?

I am not comforted by the pronouncement that this is a "narrow" ruling like some are in this thread.

Let's assume that there is an artist who paints murals on building walls. He does this on a for-profit basis, and uses roads paid for by the public and can paint without fear of robbery because he is protected by a tax payer funded police force.

Which of the following things do you think an artist should be able to do:

1. Refuse to create a gay pride mural
2. Refuse to create a Trump 2000 MAGA mural
3. Refuse to create an Adolph Hitler memorial mural
4. Refuse to create a "We need another Crusade!" mural

Are you arguing that some things he can refuse, and others he can't? How do you define which ones he can refuse?

Sending the baker to anti-discrimination training is wrong and shows animus towards his religions beliefs for the same reason that a Muslim mural painter should not be sent to anti-discrimination training for refusing to paint a "Mohammed was a child molester" mural.

Want to answer mine now?

The baker doesn't sign the cake. The couple are the ones who decide what is put on the cake, not the baker, and that speech is not attributed to the baker. It is a good, not speech by the seller.

The sale of goods must be conducted without descrimination based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. If you want to go into business selling goods to the public, you must abide by these rules. If your religion prevents you from complying with the law in the sale of goods, then you need to go into another line of work. We are a country of laws.

The SCOTUS ruling hinged on finding that the Commission showed "animus" toward religion and thus the baker did not get a "fair heating." The Court declared this the most egregious of the Commission's statements:

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. My wife is a chef who works a lot of fancy-pants weddings, and some of the wedding cakes she's shown me pictures of are works of art, just as much as any mural, photograph, or whatever.

Most of the couples she works with don't give her a detailed image of the cake they want. They tell her what ideas they have, and she and her baker sit down to create the actual cake, starting with a conceptual drawing or rendered image. The final design selected by the client is not the client's creation, it is the chef's and the baker's. They even retain the rights to the images for use in promotion of their business, and can recreate the cake exactly if another client requests it. It does not belong to the client, except when it comes to eating it.

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2018, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

You can't refuse to sell either just because of the sexual orientation of the buyer.

It is the buyer who decides what words go on a cake. In that respect, a cake maker is no different than a sign maker. And neither can refuse to sell just because of the sexual orientation of the buyer.

And absolutely the cake belongs to the couple buying it. Maybe the "fancy-pants" floral design of the cake, if patented, like a fancy purse, cannot be reproduced and sold without the designer's permission, but the cake or purse can be eaten or worn (or both in the case of the cake, LOL) by the buyer.

I think it's absurd that anyone cares enough to decline to serve a client because of that client's sexual orientation, perceived or otherwise. So I'm not arguing that the baker is right to decline to sell the cake to a same-sex couple. It's ass-backwards that a businessperson, who is ostensibly in the business of making money, would turn away money like that.

I can't imagine that God would say, "Okay, you're in, welcome to Hea-... hang on, you baked a cake for a gay couple's wedding? Never mind, off to Hell with you." So the faith-based reason to turn away the client is just kinda silly, and I say that as someone who was brought up in a very, very religious family. If the Almighty would have any opinion at all on the matter, it comes to me that the preference would be to do one's very best to make the couple feel special. Do unto others, and all that.

Anyway, what I'm arguing is that the design and creation of a wedding cake is art, just as much as a song, a painting, or a book. A wedding cake is more a work of art than a "good." A sheet cake from your local grocery store is a good. The only resemblances it bears to a wedding cake is that they use some of the same ingredients and that it's meant to be eaten. The same kind of skill and talent required to paint a picture is required to design and create a wedding cake, or at least a wedding cake that people are willing to drop hundreds of dollars on.

I feel like you didn't really read what I actually wrote on this part. The client owns the cake, in the sense that they can eat it, freeze it, or spill it on the floor, as they like. I'm not arguing that they don't. The design of the cake is, in the case of my wife's establishment, owned by the establishment. The client owns the cake; they do not own the art that is the cake. The establishment can use images of the cake to advertise their business, and the client cannot decline to allow such use. It's in the contract that the client(s) must sign for their event to go on.

Edited to add: And if the buyer of a purse wants to eat it, then they should damned well be able to do so. I'd consider them crazypants for doing so, but oh well.

It doesn't matter that your wife's "fancy pants" cakery gets it's clients to agree to let them use pics of their cake in pics (if it was the cakery's cake after payment, they wouldn't need such permission). Your wife can think her cake is more art than cake, but it's still cake. It is still a good that she sells to the public. She is in the same position as the grocery store. Just like an artistic floral arrangement sold to the wedding couple is still flowers, a fancy cake is still a cake.

It doesn't matter that your wife's "fancy pants" cakery gets its clients to agree to let them use pics of the cake in ads (if it was the cakery's cake after payment, they wouldn't need such permission). Your wife can think her cake is more art than cake, but it's still cake. It is still a good that she sells to the public. She is in the same position as the grocery store. Just like an artistic floral arrangement sold to the wedding couple is still flowers, a fancy cake is still a cake.

I was going to write a detailed response here but since you seem determined to argue against an assertion I never made, I think it'd be a waste of perfectly good time. I don't know why you're interpreting "cakes can be art just as much as paintings can be" as "if you're artistic you don't have to obey the law" because the latter is not what I'm saying here.

Baby steps....

Avoid major outrage against bold, egregious rulings. Just keep it small and nibble away and before you know it the right will be able to discriminate (legally) against anyone for any reason.

Also, the ruling said absolutely nothing about the legality of the baker declining to make the cake for this couple for the reason he specified. The ruling spoke to the Court's belief that the baker didn't get a fair shake with the state commission, as the Court perceived that there was animus or bias against the baker's religious belief.

So your characterization of this ruling, and the thought behind it, is way off base.

If his religion is against divorce, does he refuse or even ask if his potential customers are divorced ? Is he allowed to pick and choose among the beliefs he professes to have ? I would hope he was asked these questions ?

Link to tweet

A baker needs ingredients like eggs, sugar, etc., and that stuff has to be delivered by trucks which use roads paid for by the public. That is why they cannot discriminate unless it's on a basis other than gender, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc.

That title is absolutely misleading. In no way did the baker didn't discriminate. They found that the commission who heard the complaint discriminated.

As far as I can tell, they could take the case right back to the commission again and try to get what the SCOTUS would think is a neutral hearing.