I honestly think people should just leave this guy alone. I don't agree with him, but this feels like targeting. From memory, the law sided with him because he's not refusing to sell cakes to...
I honestly think people should just leave this guy alone. I don't agree with him, but this feels like targeting.
From memory, the law sided with him because he's not refusing to sell cakes to anyone, just refusing to "create" custom cakes as this falls (rightly or not) under art.
He's suing CO for a 2017 incident. I'm guessing he was waiting for the SCOTUS ruling on his anti-gay discrimination before deciding to sue CO for opposing his anti-trans discrimination.
He's suing CO for a 2017 incident. I'm guessing he was waiting for the SCOTUS ruling on his anti-gay discrimination before deciding to sue CO for opposing his anti-trans discrimination.
Maybe I missed something...I thought there was already a ruling on the anti-gay case. And that he is counter to being sued and forced to mediation for the anti-trans case?
Maybe I missed something...I thought there was already a ruling on the anti-gay case. And that he is counter to being sued and forced to mediation for the anti-trans case?
SCOTUS ruled that CO was singling this guy out for his anti-gay discrimination, which they ruled was unfair. They did not rule on whether or not he is allowed to discriminate against LGBT...
SCOTUS ruled that CO was singling this guy out for his anti-gay discrimination, which they ruled was unfair. They did not rule on whether or not he is allowed to discriminate against LGBT customers. There was a separate incident of anti-trans discrimination that resulted in him having to go to mediation. He's suing CO because he believes they singled him out for his anti-trans discrimination too.
The whole thing is an enormous clusterfuck. If my limited understanding is correct, it seems that if the the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had focused less on the religious basis of the...
The whole thing is an enormous clusterfuck. If my limited understanding is correct, it seems that if the the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had focused less on the religious basis of the discrimination then they might have won at the SCOTUS.
Answering just for myself here. Firstly, I don't think he should be allowed to discriminate against the queer community, but I don't know why members of the queer community want to patronize his...
Answering just for myself here.
Firstly, I don't think he should be allowed to discriminate against the queer community, but I don't know why members of the queer community want to patronize his business knowing what he thinks of the queer community. Even if a court eventually compels him make cakes for the queer community, why would the queer community accept a cake from a man who, to his core, sees them as other than equal.
I acknowledge that the queer community still faces a lot of challenges, but a 2010's Denver suburb is not 1957 Durham. I am sure there are bakers who are just as good, if not better. Going through his website, he's not even making exceptional cakes (though the MLK "No body has the right to rain on your dreams" cake is particularly fucked). The queer community can do so much better than this hate baker.
The core of the case was whether making a normal cake for a gay wedding counts as speech or not. You can't force someone to speak a certain message, so a "kill all kikes" case would be clear-cut;...
The core of the case was whether making a normal cake for a gay wedding counts as speech or not. You can't force someone to speak a certain message, so a "kill all kikes" case would be clear-cut; the baker can refuse and be protected by the first amendment. In the Colorado case, the cake did not say "gay pride" or something, it was an ordinary cake for a gay wedding. Does the nature of the customer make it speech? If so, the baker is safe. If not, the customer was a member of a protected class, so discriminating against them would be illegal. This is not an easy question, which is why it got to the Supreme Court.
Note that analogies like a Jewish baker selling a cake to a neo-Nazi are not relevant, because Nazis are not a protected class. Discrimination based on sincerely held religious beliefs is illegal, but not all beliefs that involve religion are considered "sincerely held religious beliefs".
He does want to make cakes. He makes and sells plenty of cakes. He wishes to not make cakes for some customers. In the UK the law is clear: you're not forced to make cakes for anyone, but you...
he doesn't want to make a cake
He does want to make cakes. He makes and sells plenty of cakes. He wishes to not make cakes for some customers. In the UK the law is clear: you're not forced to make cakes for anyone, but you aren't allowed to pick and chose your customers based on a protected characteristic.
If he doesn't want to make gay wedding cakes he shouldn't make any wedding cakes.
I honestly think people should just leave this guy alone. I don't agree with him, but this feels like targeting.
From memory, the law sided with him because he's not refusing to sell cakes to anyone, just refusing to "create" custom cakes as this falls (rightly or not) under art.
He's suing CO for a 2017 incident. I'm guessing he was waiting for the SCOTUS ruling on his anti-gay discrimination before deciding to sue CO for opposing his anti-trans discrimination.
Maybe I missed something...I thought there was already a ruling on the anti-gay case. And that he is counter to being sued and forced to mediation for the anti-trans case?
SCOTUS ruled that CO was singling this guy out for his anti-gay discrimination, which they ruled was unfair. They did not rule on whether or not he is allowed to discriminate against LGBT customers. There was a separate incident of anti-trans discrimination that resulted in him having to go to mediation. He's suing CO because he believes they singled him out for his anti-trans discrimination too.
Ah that's more complicated than I understood it. Thanks for clarifying.
The whole thing is an enormous clusterfuck. If my limited understanding is correct, it seems that if the the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had focused less on the religious basis of the discrimination then they might have won at the SCOTUS.
Answering just for myself here.
Firstly, I don't think he should be allowed to discriminate against the queer community, but I don't know why members of the queer community want to patronize his business knowing what he thinks of the queer community. Even if a court eventually compels him make cakes for the queer community, why would the queer community accept a cake from a man who, to his core, sees them as other than equal.
I acknowledge that the queer community still faces a lot of challenges, but a 2010's Denver suburb is not 1957 Durham. I am sure there are bakers who are just as good, if not better. Going through his website, he's not even making exceptional cakes (though the MLK "No body has the right to rain on your dreams" cake is particularly fucked). The queer community can do so much better than this hate baker.
The core of the case was whether making a normal cake for a gay wedding counts as speech or not. You can't force someone to speak a certain message, so a "kill all kikes" case would be clear-cut; the baker can refuse and be protected by the first amendment. In the Colorado case, the cake did not say "gay pride" or something, it was an ordinary cake for a gay wedding. Does the nature of the customer make it speech? If so, the baker is safe. If not, the customer was a member of a protected class, so discriminating against them would be illegal. This is not an easy question, which is why it got to the Supreme Court.
Note that analogies like a Jewish baker selling a cake to a neo-Nazi are not relevant, because Nazis are not a protected class. Discrimination based on sincerely held religious beliefs is illegal, but not all beliefs that involve religion are considered "sincerely held religious beliefs".
If you're interested, here's a libertarian opinion on why free speech doesn't protect the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/27/theres-no-free-speech-right-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gay-couples/?utm_term=.e130c7669af3
He does want to make cakes. He makes and sells plenty of cakes. He wishes to not make cakes for some customers. In the UK the law is clear: you're not forced to make cakes for anyone, but you aren't allowed to pick and chose your customers based on a protected characteristic.
If he doesn't want to make gay wedding cakes he shouldn't make any wedding cakes.
Seriously. Lakewood, CO borders Denver. I'm sure there are stellar bakers people can patronize who treat all their customers like human beings.