Baker Judged Not Rectus in Curia Therefore Not Legalis Homo

[Joe Guy]

Colorado baker discriminated by denying gay couple wedding cake: judge

By Keith Coffman

DENVER Fri Dec 6, 2013 11:16pm EST

(Reuters) - A Colorado bakery owner illegally discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake for the pair last year because of his Christian religious beliefs, a judge ruled on Friday.

Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to accommodate sex-couples or face fines and other possible penalties.

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling.

"This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

The case involves Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who said Phillips refused to bake a wedding for their wedding celebration when they went to his shop in 2012. The couple was wed in Massachusetts, one of 16 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, but wanted to have a celebration of their nuptials in Colorado.

Colorado allows civil unions for same-sex couples, but defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Phillips refused to bake the cake, saying his Christian beliefs prevented him from doing so.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which ruled that Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination at public accommodations based on race, gender or sexual orientation. On Friday, Spencer upheld the commission's findings.

Mullins said in a statement it was "offensive and dehumanizing" when he and Craig were denied service at the bakery. "No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are," he said.

Phillips has not decided whether to appeal to a higher court, said his attorney, Nicolle Martin.

"If the government can take away your First Amendment rights, there's nothing they can't take away from you," she said.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Mohamad Zargham)

source

[Gob]

His christian beliefs mean he couldn't bake a cake?

Weird as.

[rubato]

What's the point of being Christian if you can't bust on people for not conforming with your beliefs?


Sects - Si! Sex - No!


Christians, they have lots of Sects but they hate themselves for it.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I wonder, is there any point in walking into a kosher Jewish deli and insisting on an order of bacon? Well on second thoughts, it's not quite the same - the deli doesn't offer to sell bacon in the first place.

He could have just made the cake - a cake is a cake indeed. If they wanted a couple of guy dolls dressed in tuxes on top, he could have refused that little adornment (I'd guess) since I doubt it's in his catalogue of cake toppings.

The man was not "busting on people" for not conforming with his beliefs. He was, mistakenly or otherwise, not compromising his own beliefs. They could do what they wish - including baking their own cake or going elsewhere - but he didn't want to be an unwilling participant in the outworking of their own beliefs.

Utter crap about being "offensive and dehumanizing" and especially "no one should fear" being turned away - fear? fear? Terrified of the baker? Be a man - suck it up!

Meade

That's what it is really - two sets of beliefs in conflict.

[Gob]

Be a man - suck it up!

.

They probably do.

[oldr_n_wsr]

What's the point of being Christian if you can't bust on people for not conforming with your beliefs?

Oh yeah, he was "busting" on this couple for not believing as he does by not wanting to bake a cake. I don't see the "busting", care to point it out?

Sects - Si! Sex - No!

And no sex is a Christian belief? Wonder where all those little Christians come from?

Christians, they have lots of Sects but they hate themselves for it.

I have not experienced this self hating among the Christians I know. In fact, I see quite the opposite.

[Big RR]

They could do what they wish - including baking their own cake or going elsewhere - but he didn't want to be an unwilling participant in the outworking of their own beliefs.

Somehow, I imagine the people who refused to serve blacks at the lunch counters would have said pretty much the same thing.

[Sue U]

Phillips has not decided whether to appeal to a higher court, said his attorney, Nicolle Martin.

"If the government can take away your First Amendment rights, there's nothing they can't take away from you," she said.

Ms. Martin needs a more thorough education concerning exactly what constitutes 1) First Amendment rights and 2) taking away same.

[Joe Guy]

I heard this case discussed on the radio yesterday and apparently this same baker once baked a wedding cake for two dogs.

I guess the dogs were heterosexual.

One of the things that makes it difficult for me support either side on this type of case is that, based on what I've read, it looks as though both parties are assholes.

That's why we have courts. They are legally bound to rule on a case like this objectively without being influenced by the degree of assholeness of the litigants.

[Sue U]

That's why we have courts. They are legally bound to rule on a case like this objectively without being influenced by the degree of assholeness of the litigants.

The degree of assholery exhibited can affect the outcome of any litigation.

[Big RR]

True, and on top of that IMHO it depends why one is acting as an asshole. I would think it could be said that those who occupied the lunch counters during the 60s were assholes--they probably really didn't want to eat there, they might not have even liked the food being served there, they just sat at the counters to make their point, which might well be the same thing the gay couple was doing in this case. Perhaps they even targeted the guy to make their point. Assholes? Perhaps, but maybe with good reason.

[Joe Guy]

The degree of assholery exhibited can affect the outcome of any litigation.

Yes it can affect the outcome but it shouldn't unless someone is being sued for being an asshole.

[Joe Guy]

Assholes? Perhaps, but maybe with good reason.

In my opinion, there is quite a difference between being an asshole and making a statement by performing an act (demonstrating) to bring something that is unacceptable to light.

[Big RR]

Demonstrating? They were occupying all the seats at the counters and blocking access; sitting at the counters and not letting anyone else in until they got what they wanted. A bit more than demonstrating IMHO, but justifiable given what they were fighting for.

Here, I don't know what the couple did that causes you to label them as "assholes"; but IMHO even if they targeted this guy to fight an unacceptable situation (refusing to serve gay couples), I would see it as pretty much the same as the lunch counter occupiers. Likewise for filing suit. If they did something more, perhaps you can point it out.

[Joe Guy]

If it were me I would go to another bakery. I'd be afraid to eat a cake that I forced someone to make. In my opinion there are better ways than going to court to deal with a baker that won't make a cake for a gay couple.

Blacks were not discriminated against in only one white owned restaurant. Otherwise they could have walked away also.

[Sue U]

The degree of assholery exhibited can affect the outcome of any litigation.

Yes it can affect the outcome but it shouldn't unless someone is being sued for being an asshole.

In this case, the complaint was that the baker was being an asshole in violation of Colorado law, which prohibits discrimination based on (among other things) sexual orientation.

There is nothing about the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment that allows a business to discriminate in providing commercial retail services to the public, in violation of state anti-discrimination law. Nothing about the state's anti-discrimination law compels the baker to believe anything contrary to his religious ideas, and nothing requires him to engage any in practice contrary to his religious beliefs, or to do anything he wouldn't do for any other customer. There is simply no religious commandment that says "Thou shalt not sell baked goods to homosexuals," and even if there were, a state's law of general application (i.e., prohibiting discrimination) is enforceable regardless of any affected individual's religious beliefs, as long as the law is not simply a pretext for targeting a particular religious belief or practice.

This is not even a close case.

[Sue U]

If it were me I would go to another bakery. I'd be afraid to eat a cake that I forced someone to make.

Said every white person about every black person ever refused service in a restaurant.

In my opinion there are better ways than going to court to deal with a baker that won't make a cake for a gay couple.

This was not a lawsuit, and it was not in court; this was an administrative proceeding in the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

Blacks were not discriminated against in only one white owned restaurant. Otherwise they could have walked away also.

So it's okay to discriminate in violation of the law, as long as there is some other retailer who isn't engaging in such conduct? "Whites only" is okay if there are other non-discriminating businesses around? How about some separate-but-equal facilities?

[Lord Jim]

There is simply no religious commandment that says "Thou shalt not sell baked goods to homosexuals,"

I think his position was silly, but in fairness to the guy, I doubt that was the issue...

I suspect he doesn't have a problem with selling "baked goods to homosexuals"...

I would guess that he probably looks at creating a wedding cake as his somehow participating in the celebration of the event...

And I'm with Joe on this point; I would not want someone baking me a cake who did not want to bake it for me...(too many nasty things they could do... )

[Big RR]

Well Jim and joe, while I agree that I probably would prefer not to do business with this guy (and might not want to eat anything he made), there was a broader issue, i.e. should the baker be forced to follow the law? And I'm glad there are some who care enough to stand up for that principle.

And joe, I disagree with you that the issues of the blacks at the lunch counter and this couple here are different; in both cases they could have walked away and gone to somewhere that serves "their" kind of people (and there were restaurants that served blacks at that time, just not ones owned by racist white people); that they chose not to makes them worthy of my respect

[Sue U]

I would guess that he probably looks at creating a wedding cake as his somehow participating in the celebration of the event...

The he should learn the difference between "guest" and "vendor."

And I'm with Joe on this point; I would not want someone baking me a cake who did not want to bake it for me...(too many nasty things they could do... )

The point is not making this guy bake a cake, but enforcing the law, and making it clear to everyone else that such discrimination is illegal and will not be tolerated by the state, which will enforce its laws.