But hey, what would he know?

[Big RR]

Look, if you open a restaurant you have to serve everyone who comes in, black, white, gay, straight, etc. And you have to treat them all the same--you can't say only white people can buy alcohol or only blacks can order dessert--everyone must be treated the same regardless of your religious or any other beliefs you may have. Likewise if you are a baker, you have to serve all customers who come to your door and treat them equally; you can't say I won't make wedding cakes for interracial or gay or any other couples because it offends you--that's too damn bad. If you don't like it, then find another line of work where you don't have to do the thing that offends you; become a minister and run your own church the way you see fit, or maybe just bake cookies, muffins, and bread.

Is that head on enough for you?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Never said I wouldn't serve any particular customer - in fact, I wrote the opposite. But "serving" a person is not the same as refusing to "write" their particular message on my product. There is a difference between "person" and "message"

The question (so carefully avoided) is, as a provider of decorated cakes (or party signs or t-shirts or a sky-writing business, etc.) do I have the right to refuse to provide (say) a slogan with the F-word in it on the grounds that I find reading and writing that word to be obnoxious to me? This is regardless of the sexual orientation/race/creed/color of the person who asked if I would provide that service.

Yes or no?

[Big RR]

No, the real question is whether a baker has the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because (s)he does not believe in gay marriage; or whether a baker can treat a gay couple differently and, for example, refuse to provide them with a cake that would be the same as (s)he provides to straight couples. This has nothing to do with whether someone can refuse to write the "F" word on a cake--so long as you refuse to do so for everyone, you clearly can, just as a baker could clearly refuse to provide wedding cakes to everyone, straight or gay.

But the ultimate question is whether a business owner can use his or her religious (or moral or whatever) beliefs as a reason/pretext to refuse to treat all customers equally, and IMHO permitting that just opens the door to a lot of mischief. Someone who says their religious beliefs prohibit blacks and whites to sit together in the same restaurant could refuse to allow black persons to enter, someone who says their moral beliefs say they must not serve handicapped people could do the same and bar the handicapped, etc. Face it, people have a right to their beliefs, but they cannot use those to discriminate against groups they don't like; again, if you are so offended by what your job calls upon you to do, then perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah, the gun-to-head argument of the democratic republic? If you don't like x, then leave.

OK so I think you answered the question - I am permitted in my business that involves signage of some kind to determine which messages I will furnish people. I can provide a Happy Birthday message but may refuse to write "Kill All Spics" - that's clear then. I can discriminate between types of messages

As to the rest of your message, the purpose of courts, among other things, is to determine what is and is not an appropriate claim of religious protection. I would trust and hope that any claim by a so-called 'christian' that their faith required refusal to let black people or homosexuals or the handicapped sit at a table would be rejected by a secular court just as it would be rejected by true Christian faithful.

[Big RR]

Careful Meade--do you really want the government (courts or otherwise) deciding what is an appropriate religious belief? Should a secular court be the arbiter of that? I wouldn't want it, nor would I want someone, regardless of how sincerely the belief is held, to be permitted to discriminate against others in a commercial context based on that belief.

[Lord Jim]

Never said I wouldn't serve any particular customer - in fact, I wrote the opposite. But "serving" a person is not the same as refusing to "write" their particular message on my product. There is a difference between "person" and "message"

That would seem to be the crux of the issue here...

It's one thing to say you're required to sell a cake to whoever enters your store to buy one...

Quite another to say you're required to write a message on that cake that you find morally offensive...

I doubt very seriously that anyone would be attacking the baker who refused to write "kill the niggers" or "gas the Jews" on a cake he was selling to the local KKK or Nazi party...

As I've pointed out before, advertising agencies turn down clients all the time that they don't want anything to do with, and there's nothing illegal about that...

(BTW, in case anyone is unclear on this, I'm not trying to draw some sort of moral equivalence between the messages "Kill The Niggers" or "Gas The Jews" and wishing a gay couple a happy marriage...I use those examples merely for the point of illustration regarding someone being compelled to add a message to their product that they find offensive... )

[MajGenl.Meade]

ETA: Big RR

If there exists a trend within states toward "religious liberty" laws (as Scooter stated), then the adjudication of such laws is, whether I like it or not, to be made in the courts. I think that ship has sailed. Is not the Hobby Lobby case an example, of a kind?

But you do agree that as the provider of signs or slogans, I have an absolute freedom to accept or refuse requests for designs which I find offensive?

[Scooter]

It's one thing to say you're required to sell a cake to whoever enters your store to buy one...

Quite another to say you're required to write a message on that cake that you find morally offensive...

But that's just it. Those who are behind these so-called "religious liberty" laws want to be able to permit someone to sell a cake that says "Happy anniversary, Hector and Sadie" but refuse to sell a cake that says "Happy anniversary, Alastair and Bjorn" and claim that it is about the message, not the customer. And that's bullshit, it is the same message, only they refuse to write it on the cake because the customer is someone they don't want to write it for.

[Big RR]

If there exists a trend within states toward "religious liberty" laws (as Scooter stated), then the adjudication of such laws is, whether I like it or not, to be made in the courts. I think that ship has sailed. Is not the Hobby Lobby case an example, of a kind?

Not exactly, what Hobby Lobby stated is that a corporation can claim a religious belief and use that as a basis for denying certain medical coverage to all its employees. The actual belief itself or the religious substantiation for it was never up for consideration; the only determination was whether the corporation could claim it had that belief and whether it acted consistently with the belief.

But if a person claims a moral or religious belief against racial integration, or having people of different races dining together, you are suggesting that the court should examine whether that is a bona fide religious belief, which is something I think the government has no business in doing. By all means query whether that belief is actually held, but if it is, I do not think the courts should be deciding whether it is somehow properly based in a religious or moral tradition. To do less is to invite a dangerous precedent in permitting the government to decide what is, and is not, a "proper" religious belief.

But you do agree that as the provider of signs or slogans, I have an absolute freedom to accept or refuse requests for designs which I find offensive?

absolute? there are rarely any absolutes in law. It would depend on the facts of the situation.

Scooter--I agree 100%.

[TPFKA@W]

I tell you, if I were to force a baker to bake something against his will I sure as heck would not eat anything he baked for me. Probably would pee in the batter so something equally yuck.

I have a live and let live attitude about a lot of things and I would seriously just find a different business to patronize.

[Big RR]

@W--I understand, but then those who sat in at the lunch counters in the 60s would likely disagree.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hmm, I might not have a problem with 'Happy Anniversary, Alastair and Bjorn'. Might be the day they started their pet-grooming business or any number of kinds of anniversaries.

You make a false comparison with 60s lunch counters of course. At that time and in those places blacks were banned from all of 'em. Besides which being black is not a moral issue but I suppose one had best not get into that argument again. Nowadays, there are no "lunch counter" equivalents for cakes or t-shirts and freedom to choose exists - even if some establishments sheltered behind a religious liberty argument, they are bound to be few and far between.

But dick-taters want to dick-tate and so they will.

[Big RR]

even if some establishments sheltered behind a religious liberty argument, they are bound to be few and far between.

OK, and what do you do with those "few and far between establishments--let them discriminate because of religious liberty? Or let the government say those beliefs are not worthy of being considered under the law?

Either way, I think the result is far worse than just requiring everyone to treat people equally in a commercial establishment.

And FWIW; there were plenty of white religious leaders arguing against racial integration at the time of the lunch counter sit ins; hell, some what "christian" churches wouldn't even allow blacks to attend services or be members. There were plenty of religious freedom claims at the time, just as there are now.

[Lord Jim]

Okay, let me go back to my analogy...

I'm the owner of Lord Jim's Tasty Confectioneries..

And one day, the Sturmbannführer of the local Nazi party walks in and demands not only that I sell him a cake, but that I should put a swastika on it, and write the words, "Happy Birthday Adolph, We Love Gassing Jews"...

To follow the logic of some here, that would make perfect sense; of course I should be compelled to do that, under penalty of losing my business...

After all, I'm in the cake baking business....

If you're going to defend the argument that people should be compelled to express views they disagree with in the creation of their products, then you should also be prepared to defend people being compelled to do so even if they are highly unpopular views...

The principle remains the same...

Is there anyone here who would like to say, "yes, you should be legally required to make a Swastika cake celebrating the life of Adolph Hitler"?

And if your answer to that is "no" (that would be my answer) where do you draw the line?

[Big RR]

Well Jim, there is a difference; if I make cakes and limit my writing on them to "Happy Birthday Bobby" and the like and do not solicit business from political organizations nor provide any political (or novelty) messages/designs on my cakes, then I would think I could decline (just as I could if I did not provide any wedding cakes to anyone, straight or gay). I don't think there is any requirement that I must do whatever a customer wants, only that I treat them all equally.

[Scooter]

I frankly am completely unable to see how you are getting that from what has been said. No one is saying that a baker must decorate a cake with the message "Dear Frank, I want to fuck you up the ass tonight, love Darryl," if such a message offends their sensibilities. But if the same baker is willing to make a cake that says, "Hey Julie, I want to fuck you up the ass tonight, love Michael," then the refusal to make the same cake for Frank and Darryl is about refusing to serve the person, not because the baker is offended by the message, and the baker should not be given cover to engage in such discrimination by so-called religious liberty laws.

[Sue U]

Okay, let me go back to my analogy...

I'm the owner of Lord Jim's Tasty Confectioneries..

And one day, the Sturmbannführer of the local Nazi party walks in and demands not only that I sell him a cake, but that I should put a swastika on it, and write the words, "Happy Birthday Adolph, We Love Gassing Jews"...

To follow the logic of some here, that would make perfect sense; of course I should be compelled to do that, under penalty of losing my business...

After all, I'm in the cake baking business....

If you're going to defend the argument that people should be compelled to express views they disagree with in the creation of their products, then you should also be prepared to defend people being compelled to do so even if they are highly unpopular views...

The principle remains the same...

The question is not the content of the message is (this is not a First Amendment issue), but whether as a commercial establishment you provide a particular service to some customers but not others based on the status of the customer.

If you would decorate a cake for some customers with the message "Happy Birthday Adolph, We Love Gassing Jews," then you should logically decorate a similar cake with the message, "Congratulations Hutus, We Love Slaughtering Tutsis." If you produce cakes celebrating genocides, you shouldn't be permitted to discriminate on the basis of whether the genocide was European or African.

Perhaps a better analogy is that if your business would decorate a wedding cake with "Biff & Sally," it can't refuse to similarly decorate a cake with "Biff & Shaniqua" because your religion condemns "interracial" marriage.

[Bicycle Bill]

If you don't want to make a cake (or provide some other service) for someone, for whatever reason, why can't you just say something like "I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't fit that into my schedule" or "I''m booked up that day and can't help you"?  No morals, religious scruples, or personal sensibilities need to be cited.

Or to put it another way:
● "You're being let go because you are over the age of 50 (or black, or a woman, or you are handicapped, etc....)".
    Totally illegal and a violation of anti-discrimination laws, and quite likely to prompt a lawsuit for discrimination.
● "Your services here are no longer required and you are being terminated."
    This is legal.  Are you being discharged because you are female, or black, or elderly, or just because they can hire someone to replace you at a lesser wage?  Perhaps, but there is nothing anyone can do about it.  Oh sure, you could sue and claim discrimination, but in the absence of any supporting evidence you don't stand too much of a chance of prevailing.

Same thing with the 'Cake Boss'.  If he or she tells you, "Sorry, can't help you" and leaves it at that, whaddaya gonna do about it?

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Well BB, nothing would be actionable unless a pattern of conduct could be shown that was discriminatory. But if every time a gay couple came in for a wedding cake the baker said, "sorry I'm too busy", but then took the next hetero couple who came in, a pattern just might be shown.

[Lord Jim]

If you would decorate a cake for some customers with the message "Happy Birthday Adolph, We Love Gassing Jews," then you should logically decorate a similar cake with the message, "Congratulations Hutus, We Love Slaughtering Tutsis." If you produce cakes celebrating genocides, you shouldn't be permitted to discriminate on the basis of whether the genocide was European or African.

Okay, laying the advocating killing people part aside...

If I am a baker, should I be required to put a Swastika on the cake I have made for you?

And should the fact that I have been willing to put other images on the cakes I have made, (like the symbol of The University Of Virgina, for example) require me to put a Swastika on your cake or lose my business?

So if I said, "I'm happy to sell you a cake, but I absolutely refuse to put a Swastika on it, even though I'm happy to put other symbols on the cake"...

You'd be up my ass with a law suit wouldn't you?

ETA:

Okay, lets lose the Swastika....

Try this one...

"I'm a baker in DC, and somebody is insisting that I bake a cake with a "Cowboys" logo on it..."