Colorado Baker back in the News (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

Same baker that was sued for not making a gay wedding cake which went all the way to the Supreme Court
===================================================

The owner of a specialty cakes shop in Lakewood, Colo., who first made national headlines for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, was back in court on Monday.

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner Jack Phillips was sued by a gay couple in 2012 after citing religious beliefs as his reason for not making their wedding cake. In 2018 his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the justices granted him a partial victory.

On Monday, the Christian baker went on trial in another lawsuit, this time involving Denver-based attorney Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman who said that the baker didn’t sell her a cake because she was transgender.

Scardina attempted to order a cake on the same day in 2017 when the Supreme Court justices announced they would hear Phillips appeal on the same-sex wedding case. He refused, so she took matters to court.

Scardina initially filed a complaint with the state in 2018. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found probable cause that she had been discriminated against.

Phillips then sued the state for harassment in federal court..............

In her complaint Scardina claimed that Phillips refused to sell her a birthday cake “because she is transgender, despite repeatedly advertising that they would sell birthday cakes to the general public, including LGBT individuals.”

The cake she wanted to order was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition. But when she called the shop, she was told that they didn’t make cakes for “sex changes.”

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s website says that Phillips will “happily create custom cakes for anyone,” but he won’t “create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.”

Philips has maintained that he won’t create cakes to celebrate events that he, as a Christian, doesn’t agree with.

On Monday, during a virtual trial, Phillips’ attorney Sean Gates argued that his refusal to bake the cake was simply about its message, and not about discriminating against Scardina.

“The message would be that he agrees that a gender transition is something to be celebrated,” Gates said, according to The Associated Press............

Colorado cake baker back in court over alleged anti-LGBTQ discrimination (msn.com)

 

[SystemShock]

It does sound like a setup... but if we move from cakes to something more impactful, could we apply Phillips' argument to, say, housing?

 

[DaveXA]

It does sound like a setup... but if we move from cakes to something more impactful, could we apply Phillips' argument to, say, housing?

I don't see how. I would think the Fair Housing Act has it's own specific rules.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It does sound like a setup... but if we move from cakes to something more impactful, could we apply Phillips' argument to, say, housing?

Is housing an expression of creativity? I think that's the difference. I don't know if there's going to be a hard and fast rule with stuff like that. I would think that a person's religious convictions should not come into play with selling or making a commodity, or something where it is the exact same thing for everyone, and there is no "putting yourself" into the work. I guess you could say that an architect is using their creativity, so I would say that they could refuse to create a house that is designed to celebrate some specific action they find immoral, but could not refuse to design a house for a certain class of people.

So, if there are state protections preventing discrimination against LGBTQ, I would say a pizza parlor could not object to selling pizza to a gay wedding on religious grounds because they are selling a commodity. Likewise, I would think the Colorado baker could not refuse service to a transgender woman who wanted a normal birthday cake - because then he's refusing service based on the person and not his creative expression. But forcing someone to use their creativity/art to celebrate something they believe is wrong, is also wrong.

 

[V Chip]

What if the cake were for a religious conversion, say from Christian to Muslim, or Buddhism, or a de-conversion to Atheism? As a Christian baker would he have the right to refuse to make a cake for that? What if it were a wedding cake for a heterosexual Muslim or Atheist or Sikh or interracial couple? Where does one get to draw the line as a public business being able to discriminate on “deeply held” religious beliefs?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

What if the cake were for a religious conversion, say from Christian to Muslim, or Buddhism, or a de-conversion to Atheism? As a Christian baker would he have the right to refuse to make a cake for that? What if it were a wedding cake for a heterosexual Muslim or Atheist or Sikh or interracial couple? Where does one get to draw the line as a public business being able to discriminate on “deeply held” religious beliefs?

If your business is art where you are asked to design something specifically for something that you believe is wrong, then you should be able to decline.
]

 

[V Chip]

If your business is art where you are asked to design something specifically for something that you believe is wrong, then you should be able to decline.
]

Even for protected classes?

A business should be able to deny business to religious people or for a religious event? A photographer who does weddings should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Even for protected classes?

A business should be able to deny business to religious people or for a religious event? A photographer who does weddings should be able to refuse service to an interracial couple?

I think when you get to federal protected classes then it legally gets difficult, and a lawyer would be able to break it down, so I'll talk more about what I think "should" happen.

I think you should not force people to actively participate in events that they think is wrong, but I do think it's ok to force people to do business with people they would otherwise discriminate against.

Ie, I think it's ok for a someone doing some type of creative work where it's reasonable to believe they are now participating in the event, to refuse to participate in something they find immoral. So, doing some type of creative work for a gay wedding. However, they would not be allowed to refuse to do something creative for a gay person -- like say celebrate their job promotion.

This gets a little complicated though b/c you could also argue that denying to do business for a gay wedding or an interracial wedding is rejecting them based on who they are - after all they are not against weddings, they are just against these people getting married.

 

[V Chip]

This gets a little complicated though b/c you could also argue that denying to do business for a gay wedding or an interracial wedding is rejecting them based on who they are - after all they are not against weddings, they are just against these people getting married.

This is my take. Replace gay with black, interracial, different religion, female, etc and to me they’re all just straight up discriminatory, and that’s what the first amendment and subsequent amendments/laws are intended to prevent.

I have a big issue with “deeply held” religious beliefs being used to deny services or rights or business to protected classes (and even those not yet protected that IMO should be). This is placing religion on some pedestal that cannot be touched, whereas if it’s just a deeply held belief or position it doesn’t get this elevation. That is so inherently wrong but people don’t see that, and gives “religious“ people immunity from being held to account for being backwards bigots.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I've mentioned this before, I have an aunt (married to my uncle) who used to tell me, when I was a teenager, that in the bible it said black people were a curse and that's why they shouldn't be treated as equals. she even showed me the verses. I wish I remembered which ones, because I seriously doubt they said anything close to that. but that's what she believed. if she owned a bakery should she be able to deny making black couples a wedding cake because serving black people was against her religious beliefs?

 

[xpuma20x]

I've mentioned this before, I have an aunt (married to my uncle) who used to tell me, when I was a teenager, that in the bible it said black people were a curse and that's why they shouldn't be treated as equals. she even showed me the verses. I wish I remembered which ones, because I seriously doubt they said anything close to that. but that's what she believed. if she owned a bakery should she be able to deny making black couples a wedding cake because serving black people was against her religious beliefs?

Curse of Ham in Genesis?

 

[SystemShock]

Is housing an expression of creativity? I think that's the difference. I don't know if there's going to be a hard and fast rule with stuff like that. I would think that a person's religious convictions should not come into play with selling or making a commodity, or something where it is the exact same thing for everyone, and there is no "putting yourself" into the work. I guess you could say that an architect is using their creativity, so I would say that they could refuse to create a house that is designed to celebrate some specific action they find immoral, but could not refuse to design a house for a certain class of people.

If architecture is an art form - and arguably it is - that requires inspiration, creativity, and is an activity in which the architect puts themselves into the work - certainly to a much higher degree than baking a cake - would it not be the prerogative of the architect to not sell their creation to LGBTQ people on the basis that the architect cannot condone people living a lifestyle inside the architect's creation that goes against the architect's religious beliefs?

I would say a pizza parlor could not object to selling pizza to a gay wedding on religious grounds because they are selling a commodity.

What if the pizza is artesanal/specialty pizza?

BTW, these are moot points, well, half moot, given the push for "religious freedom" (aka discrimination wearing a Roman collar) during the past presidency.

 

[SystemShock]

I've mentioned this before, I have an aunt (married to my uncle) who used to tell me, when I was a teenager, that in the bible it said black people were a curse and that's why they shouldn't be treated as equals. she even showed me the verses. I wish I remembered which ones, because I seriously doubt they said anything close to that. but that's what she believed. if she owned a bakery should she be able to deny making black couples a wedding cake because serving black people was against her religious beliefs?

Probably what's known as the curse of Ham (although it was Ham's son who was cursed) in Genesis. Noah curses Canaan because Ham saw his father naked (yeah... ) to be "the lowest of slaves among his brothers", and the Bible alludes to Africans (or some Africans) being descendants of Canaan, so that's interpreted by some as Canaan being the lowest of slaves among other slaves, i.e, his African descendants.

 

[samiam5211]

If your business is art where you are asked to design something specifically for something that you believe is wrong, then you should be able to decline.
]

Could an architect refuse to work for a homosexual or trans person? I could see an argument that an architect is an artist.

If a baker can claim that cake is art, why couldn't a contractor claim that the homes they build are art?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If architecture is an art form - and arguably it is - that requires inspiration, creativity, and is an activity in which the architect puts themselves into the work - certainly to a much higher degree than baking a cake - would it not be the prerogative of the architect to not sell their creation to LGBTQ people on the basis that the architect cannot condone people living a lifestyle inside the architect's creation that goes against the architect's religious beliefs?


What if the pizza is artesanal/specialty pizza?

BTW, these are moot points, well, half moot, given the push for "religious freedom" (aka discrimination wearing a Roman collar) during the past presidency.

Could an architect refuse to work for a homosexual or trans person? I could see an argument that an architect is an artist.

If a baker can claim that cake is art, why couldn't a contractor claim that the homes they build are art?

These are both related, so I'll address here. They could make the argument, but I think the standard should be, is it reasonable to believe that the architect/baker/artist/etc is being asked to actively participate in an activity they consider to be immoral. I think it's not that difficult to create a Schelling fence around the idea that this can only be applied to direct participation. So, designing a house is not directly participating in a gay couple's sexual relationship. But maybe creating a sculpture of a sexual act is.

If the baker sold standard cakes without specific designs, I would say he did not have the right to refuse service based on Colorado's laws, but a cake where he had to create something celebrating a thing he believes is wrong, he does have the right.

 

[DaveXA]

Could an architect refuse to work for a homosexual or trans person? I could see an argument that an architect is an artist.

If a baker can claim that cake is art, why couldn't a contractor claim that the homes they build are art?

I don't know, but, there are regulations specifically involving the sale of homes that don't necessarily exist for baking cakes, or art. So, at least in that sense they're treated differently.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'll take another example. In certain Ethiopian Christian cultures there are religious ceremonies involved around the ritual slaughtering of animals. Let's say there's an Ethiopian Christian community somewhere in the US that wants to have something like this catered. Can they ask a halal butcher to slaughter an animal in a way that is different than halal practices?

That's mostly an academic question b/c the analogy is not really perfect.

I was going to go with a Jainist caterer... but likely the caterer advertises vegetarian catering, so they can refuse on grounds that they are being asked to supply something they do not normally supply.

 

[FullMonte]

What if the cake were for a religious conversion, say from Christian to Muslim, or Buddhism, or a de-conversion to Atheism? As a Christian baker would he have the right to refuse to make a cake for that? What if it were a wedding cake for a heterosexual Muslim or Atheist or Sikh or interracial couple? Where does one get to draw the line as a public business being able to discriminate on “deeply held” religious beliefs?

I would say that he could refuse on the grounds that he doesn't make "conversion cakes." Now, if the individual could prove that he had, in fact, made a cake for someone who converted from Buddhist to Christianity, that would change things.

 

[samiam5211]

I don't know, but, there are regulations specifically involving the sale of homes that don't necessarily exist for baking cakes, or art. So, at least in that sense they're treated differently.

I was referring to the construction of a home. If baking a cake is art, I could see an argument to be made that building a home is art. Where is the line between providing a service and art?