Cakegate to be decided by supremes

They said they would bake them anything except a wedding cake. They argued the wedding cake was art. Not sure if one is hanging in the Louvre.

 

No, he turned down the project, not the person.

 

Unless it's recorded, we'll never know if he said that. That certainly is not what he has written. I frankly think a vendor has the right to decline to do business with gay people if he wants to and if it's religious based. Whether it's actually on the basis of religion is a factual matter that juries have to sort out. In this case, the plaintiff hasn't disputed that the baker's bona fides.

 

LOL. Okay, if you want to strain it out like that. Many people though would not use your strainer. So when that used car owner, told me he would not sell it to me, for I would kill myself if I owned such a fast car, did he turn me down, or the project of selling it to me? Of course, I was not gay, but was a young man(I used to look younger than I actually was, perhaps genetics) and he figured all young men were daredevils or lacked judgment. So he classified me as a person, due to my perceived age.

 

I don't think it's as simple as they're being a hierarchy of rights. We would have to first posit as true that the baker is correct concerning the scope of his federally protected rights. It's that very question that the Court has to answer, though.

If a statute violates the constitution, it cannot stand as enforceable, right? Yet anti-discrimination statutes have been around for a long time. And while the length of time doesn't itself determine constitutionality, there have been many challenges to these statutes in the intervening years, and yet they have withstood test after test of their constitutionality.

The Court generally only takes those cases where the justices perceive a controversy within the law for them to settle. So, were it as simple as you've framed it, we can reasonably presume the Court would have taken a different course of action than granting cert to hear the case and evaluate the merits of each side's claims.

So he claims. The ACLU (representing the couple), have put out a statement saying otherwise.

 

and Ginsburg is not addresign the issue which is no surpise given her penchant for leftist ideology.

The baker did not refuse service. The baker refused to decorate a cake for the celebration of the chosen gay lifestyle.

I highly doubt that the baker would have decorated a cake which said "Congratulations on your abortion"

He would have sold a plain cake

 

(emphasis added)

A person can believe anything they want and claim it's part of their religious beliefs. So how would a jury evaluate this?

Who else should a business be able to discriminate against on the basis of religion? (See the case Ginsburg raised in today's hearing of oral arguments.)

Is religion an automatic "get out of jail free" card that trumps absolutely everything else?

 

Decorating a cake is a service. So you're plainly mistaken - he did refuse to perform that service.

 

But did he not turn down the project because of who was asking for it? Seems like a distinction without an actual difference.

 

A pointless exchange (from the aforementioned SCOTUSblog analysis):

"Justice Elena Kagan led the charge, asking Waggoner whether a hairstylist or a make-up artist could cite his religious beliefs as the basis to refuse to provide services for a same-sex wedding. When Waggoner responded that they could not, Kagan pushed back. The make-up artist is an artist, she stressed, and could feel the same way about his craft as Phillips does. Waggoner countered that doing someone’s make-up is not speech, prompting Kagan to retort that “some people might say that about cakes.” And Kagan expressed disbelief that a baker’s craft is expression but a chef’s, according to Waggoner, is not."

It seems pretty weird to me that Waggoner, the baker's lawyer, is trying to draw such a tight line around her client, to separate him from all these other instances where people might refuse services because they believe the service or product they provide is expressive and therefore "speech". Seems a very subjective judgment to claim that decorating a cake is expressive art, but that the work of a hair stylist or a chef is not.

I'm also not sure what the justice's point was, other than to illustrate the breadth of the scope that such discrimination can take. It seems to me that it hardly makes a difference to the constitutional questions whether it's one baker versus all these other "artists". But on a personal note, it is this breadth of discrimination that made us opt for finding a judge who wanted to perform our wedding, and why we decided to disappoint inquiring relatives by telling them to stop asking when we'll have a wedding reception. It's a huge hassle when you aren't having to try to find someone who wont' discriminate against you; way too much hassle when you are.

 

He means that the baker did not refuse to do business with them, just a particular transaction.

 

They would evaluate it like any other claim: hear the testimony.

 

There can be "facial" challenges and "as applied" challenges.

 

A very important point.

In the course of my development of various properties over the years, I can't tell you how many trades etc have 'turned down projects'. They can have any reason they like, and rarely tell you the real reason, but it happens ALL THE TIME. I asked a couple of my captive carpenters what the most common reasons are, and they both said that dislike of the client is right up there with 'job is too small'. And it's not just a matter of not liking the client's personality .. it can be anything. Their bad breath, their lifestyle, their dog, their partner, their communication style, their hairy nostrils .. absolutely anything.

 

Reasonable people can see the difference between "I won't serve you under any circumstances" and "I won't take on that particular project."

 

If the groom/s elderly hetero parents had come in and asked for the same cake, would it have been refused? My guess is that it would have. In which case, it's about a specific service, not the customer.

 

The baker case is equating the production/decoration of the cake as an endorsement of gay marriage, which he claims is against his religious beliefs and therefore amounts to restricting his freedom to practice the religion of his choice.

The simplest counter to this is that his bakery is not a place of worship and, as a business, is, by definition, open to the entire public. Since wedding cakes are generally available to the public, his refusal is not just discrimination, but discrimination against a protected class.

 

He said what he said, and I responded to what he actually said. As for your interpretation, the statement from the couple's lawyer claims he said they wouldn't sell to same-sex couples. That would be refusing to do business. Now, I've said that I'm skeptical about that statement. What more needs to be said on this particular issue? Nothing, in my view.

 

His testimony that he holds a religious belief? And (per your earlier post) you think that gives him a special right to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws and to refuse service to gay people?

 

And? Statements of the obvious don't do much to illuminate the matter.

 

Phillips has stated - and the facts back him up - that he serves all people including gays and non-Christians, he just does not serve certain events. Phillips refused to provide a gay wedding themed cake, just as for years he refused to provide Halloween themed items.

So you are correct, it is not about the customer, its about the particular item.

 

Religion is not a building, its a lifestyle. A persons religious (or political) beliefs are intrinsic to that person and manifest in a persons thoughts and actions. Its no different than demanding a gay person keep his sexual identity in the closet and hidden from all public view.

 

You asked how the jury would decide the sincerity of his beliefs. It's the same problem as in any case where facts are disputed. Juries have to make the call based on testimony and physical evidence, if any. But it doesn't matter here, since even the ACLU in this case doesn't doubt him on this particular point.

Second, it's not a "special right" he is claiming. It's a fundamental, constitutional right.

Third, it's been established, and explained here several times, that he has gay customers. I doubt that he would decorate a cake celebrating a polygamist's 4th marriage to a heterosexual woman if he were asked.

 

Whatever happens, we are unlikely to see some monumental decision. The court likes to decide cases as narrowly as possible:

"[Chief Justice] Roberts elsewhere feared that anti-discrimination laws like Colorado’s could be weaponized against religious groups. He asked Yarger if the state could force a religious pro-bono law group like Catholic Legal Services to represent a gay couple in a lawsuit relating to their wedding plans. After a lengthy exchange, Yarger said they could. [Uh oh]

At the argument’s conclusion, it appeared possible that the Court will side with Phillips given the Commission’s alleged failure to enforce anti-discrimination law fairly, while avoiding a sweeping decision about the rights of religious dissenters."

 

Religion may not be a building, but you don't buy a wedding cake in a church. A bakery is open to everyone, not just heterosexual christians.

Religion and political beliefs are treated differently by the Constitution. There is no right to a political belief. The closest protection is the prohibition against abridging free speech , the right to assemble and the right to petition the government. Religion is treated similarly in that no law may be created that prohibits the free exercise of religion, but with the additional condition that the government not create any laws that endorse a particular religion.

Affirming the baker's refusal to perform a service that he opened his business to perform for the general public based on his claim that it infringes on his "free exercise" of religion sounds like a self-inflicted wound. What law is prohibiting his "free exercise" ? Furthermore, if he prevails in his claim, that is an endorsement (and therefore , establishment) of his religion by the government.