FTFY
The courts consistently say otherwise.
And remember. . the courts are ALWAYS right.
Colorado state public accommodation law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Which is completely fine. However, no law can abridge the rights protected in the bill of rights. If you consider the guy an artist, then you could argue his first amendment rights are being violated as you are forcing him to create art which he does not want to create, no different than forcing artists to paint things and slogans they don't want to paint.
Public accomodation laws don't apply to private clubs and religious institutions. Perhaps they also should not apply to artists as well?
The laws apply to operating businesses in the state. He operates a licensed business thus must comply with applicable laws. No amount of mental gymnastics can avoid these indisputable facts. Nobody forced him to operate a business or to do so in a state with such laws.
To make it a little more specific, let's say they have a wedding cake on display for sale (they wouldn't, but let's say they do for the sake of argument). Would it be okay to refuse to sell it to someone because the person said it'd be for a gay marriage?
The judge's ruling said they would have been within their rights to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage. What they did was also refuse to make a cake for civil union or commitment ceremony, which is why the judge said it went beyond the act of marriage and discriminated based on sexual orientation.
Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake.
Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.
count me down as a gay man who disagrees with the cake issue.
let the market decide. private businesses should be free to refuse service from anyone whose money they'd rather not have... on the other hand, I'd also highly encourage the gay couple to use the free market to raise awareness, boycott the store, and run them out of business for being bigots.
Why would you be baking a wedding cake for a "commitment ceremony"?
Maybe because it wasn't a commitment ceremony, but a wedding reception
Maybe you should read the decision to see why it matters?
http://aclu-co.org/sites/default/files/Signed Initial Decision Cake Case No CR 2013-0008.pdf
Unfortunately the pdf is not quotable.
I fail to see how the Baker treating "I can't believe its not a weddings" weddings the same is in anyway relevant. Just because you call your "wedding" a "not-wedding" does mean that it is not in every practical sense a wedding.
The judge claims that only same-sex couples would engage in same-sex marriages. This is completely counter to the argument for same-sex marriage that marriage is just a contract between 2 people. If marriage is really just a contract between 2 people why wouldn't 2 straight men get married?
At oral argument, Respondents candidly acknowledged that they would also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by Colorado law. Because Respondents objection goes beyond just the act of marriage, and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents real objection is to the couples sexual orientation and not simply their marriage.
The judge claims that only same-sex couples would engage in same-sex marriages. This is completely counter to the argument for same-sex marriage that marriage is just a contract between 2 people. If marriage is really just a contract between 2 people why wouldn't 2 straight men get married?
That's exactly how the judge called it though:
It certainly sounds like if they would have been willing to provide them a cake for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, then the judge would have dismissed it. It may be because current Colorado law specifically states marriage is only between a man and a woman and calling a civil union a marriage is counter to that law.
Again, I think this may be because of Colorado law and the definition of marriage. The Colorado Civil Union Act is just a contract between 2 people that are not related from what I can tell, there's no need to prove your sexuality for it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...iendly_as_they.html?google_editors_picks=trueBut part of it was inherent in the battle for marriage, which, after all, takes its very meaning from the quest for public recognition of a couples union. The whole point of a wedding, from a cultural perspective, is for a couple to invite their community to recognize and help enforceindeed to approve oftheir union as a positive thing worth supporting. There has always been something a bit disingenuous about gay rights activists insisting that they deserve marital recognition from their society because their relationships are nobodys business but their own. Marriage is all about making your relationship other peoples business.
Why would you be baking a wedding cake for a "commitment ceremony"?
Maybe because it wasn't a commitment ceremony, but a wedding reception
Then it would appear you agree with me that the judge was fundamentally wrong in his analysis. There is no reason 2 straight dudes couldn't get married/civil uniond/"committed".
People eat cakes for all sorts of reasons. Why would you bake a cake for X? Seriously? You do realize that sometimes people make cakes for pretty much ANY reason, right? There is no application process for approval of what is appropriate for cakes.
Two straight men could get a civil union in Colorado AFAIK, but they can't get married. Did the judge ever say that two straight men couldn't have a civil union in the decision?
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. There, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is no "because of" their sexual orientation.
It would seem fundamental to him claiming that the Baker's refusal to bake a "civil union cake" for 2 gay dudes getting married.
he wouldn't bake a cake for 2 straight dudes getting civil unioned, and wouldn't bake a cake for 2 gay dudes getting civil unioned then clearly he is not discriminating based on sexual orientation.
I'm torn on the cake issue.
on one hand it think refusing to not make a cake on grounds they are gay is fucking idiotic.
Though i think the couple that sued them are assholes. they had many other bakery's they could go to but chose this one and sued over it. just move on to another baker and get the damn cake made. but not they chose this for a "point'
Just like employment, there is no fucking reason you should be forced to do business with someone. There is no reason you should be able to forcefully employ someone. There is no reason you can forcefully tell the company they have to employ you.
I'm all for gay's getting their reach around in life, but I respect anyone who doesn't want to do business with someone - for whatever that reason may be. Maybe it comes from the fact that some people are dickheads, and there is no reason it should be forcefully tolerated if the business owner does not wish to.
You make a strange distinction. Nobody tells you to employ a specific person. The law says you cannot discriminate. So you have a whole population of workforce available to you, ready and prepared. You can pick and choose anyone who can best handle the given job. You just cannot discriminate someone because of who s/he happens to be. It is not a terribly unreasonable proposition in a pluralistic society with some terribly unfortunate history.Just like employment, there is no fucking reason you should be forced to do business with someone. There is no reason you should be able to forcefully employ someone. There is no reason you can forcefully tell the company they have to employ you.
You make a strange distinction. Nobody tells you to employ a specific person. The law says you cannot discriminate. So you have a whole population of workforce available to you, ready and prepared. You can pick and choose anyone who can best handle the given job. You just cannot discriminate someone because of who s/he happens to be. It is not a terribly unreasonable proposition in a pluralistic society with some terribly unfortunate history.
And you know what, you can even circumvent that as long as you don't declare your bigotry in public. Lots of people in this country do just that.
I see this more as a violation of first amendment rights because the cake artist is being told what he has to make which is kinda unjust.
"I am a follower of Jesus Christ," Phillips said in July. "So you could say its a religious belief. I believe the Bible teaches [same-sex marriage is] not an OK thing."
Phillips announced preemptively that "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple "regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like,"