Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

Originally posted by rickymouse
Those little cast figures on top of wedding cakes have a bride and groom.....Two guys or two girls is not easy to come by....How are they going to make that cake. I think that defense would hold up in court

Haven't you seen the pic of the wedding cake this couple eventually got? It was very tastefully done - no little plastic people on top.

All the bakery has to say is they were afraid of not getting paid or that they were booked up. These kind of lawsuits are just raising prices all over the country. Everyone will raise their prices so they can cover any future lawsuits for any personal opinions they hold.

OR..... all the bakery had to do was what it is in the business of doing - make the damn wedding cake. Then there would be no lawsuits and prices could stay the same.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I don't understand. I was in business for thirty years and I didn't have to take work I didn't want to. If I had a bad feeling about people I wouldn't take the job. A retail sales business has to sell a product in stock to everyone equally but does not have to special make a product for anyone. They are not required to order something not in stock either. I also learned the laws governing retail sales when I was going to start a store, if you sell something to one person for a price you have to sell the identical item to anyone who comes in for the same price if they ask. This does not apply to special sales that were going on or damaged items which can be discounted. This sales rule does not apply to wholesale or to special made items. The bakery could have jacked the price up to say no if they wanted to, it was a special made order.

reply to post by rickymouse


This has all been discussed. Read the thread. My posts will show you the law in Colorado, which contradicts what you have just said.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
My way of thinking is simple.

Not going to argue with that.

But you realize that this country has been through all that, right? The separate water fountains and rest rooms for black people... the discrimination against the handicapped, etc.

If they can stay in business that way, WHO CARES?!?!?

Maybe the people who got turned away because they were handicapped care?
The men who couldn't get a meal in their favorite restaurant simply because they were a man?
The black couple who couldn't get a wedding dress in the ONLY wedding dress shop in town?
The woman who couldn't buy parts for her car or diapers for her baby because those stores don't serve women...

Left to our own devices, we are a nation of bigots, fearful and hateful of people who are "different"... That's not ideal, that's the way it IS.

If people don't approve, they can choose to take their business elsewhere.

You live in a city where there are many options, right? You know there are small towns all over this country that only have one hotel, one restaurant, one or two grocery stores, right? Am I supposed to drive to the next town, 30 miles away to get a gallon of milk, when there's a perfectly fine grocery store on the corner, except that they don't serve Mexicans???

I think people with your opinion on this are indeed thinking in a very simple way. You haven't thought it out. There are reasons for the civil rights acts in this country. Good reasons.

edit on 6/28/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

When you can quote ALL I said, instead of making a lame attempt at humor, then maybe I will consider your post worthy of a response. What I stated was, "
My way of thinking is simple. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose. If they can stay in business that way, WHO CARES?!?!? Privately owned businesses , run by the owners, should have the right to affirm their beliefs in their place of business. If people don't approve, they can choose to take their business elsewhere. Let the market decide, not the courts. "

Try again.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

My way of thinking is simple. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose. If they can stay in business that way, WHO CARES?!?!? Privately owned businesses , run by the owners, should have the right to affirm their beliefs in their place of business. If people don't approve, they can choose to take their business elsewhere. Let the market decide, not the courts.

Luckily there were men that decided to support the women that wanted equality for them under the law, or I'd probably be having a talk with your father or husband about your need to keep your opinion to yourself.

This isn't about equality. This is about people having a right to affirm their personal, Constitutionally protected religious beliefs in their place of business. If you think showing support, or not, for homosexual weddings is the same as equal pay for equal work, then you don't understand the issue.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


What about the couples constitutional right to be treated equal?

as i and others have explained countless times, it's not taking away his 'Religious Freedom' it's saying if he is in business he can't discriminate, either offer weddings cakes to everyone, or to no one

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I did respond to your whole post. And I brought up many questions about letting businesses serve who they want. Can you answer them? You say "Who cares"? A whole hell of a lot of people care. Maybe you don't care because you're white, straight, and able-bodied. Maybe you don't care because businesses would find no reason to discriminate against you. But MANY people would care. Those who are discriminated against care.

Answer this...

You live in a city where there are many options, right? You know there are small towns all over this country that only have one hotel, one restaurant, one or two grocery stores, right? Am I supposed to drive to the next town, 30 miles away to get a gallon of milk, when there's a perfectly fine grocery store on the corner, except that they don't serve Mexicans???

Your previous answer ignored what I said completely. Maybe I deserve that because of my smart remark, but I'm seriously asking you now.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

My way of thinking is simple. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose. If they can stay in business that way, WHO CARES?!?!? Privately owned businesses , run by the owners, should have the right to affirm their beliefs in their place of business. If people don't approve, they can choose to take their business elsewhere. Let the market decide, not the courts.

Luckily there were men that decided to support the women that wanted equality for them under the law, or I'd probably be having a talk with your father or husband about your need to keep your opinion to yourself.

This isn't about equality. This is about people having a right to affirm their personal, Constitutionally protected religious beliefs in their place of business. If you think showing support, or not, for homosexual weddings is the same as equal pay for equal work, then you don't understand the issue.

Equal pay for equal work?? How about Woman's Suffrage? Women didn't legally -exist- as citizens until only last century. And if you think your opinion would mean anything if some men didn't also think so, then you don't understand the issue. This -is- about equality.

This has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage. This is about whether or not someone has the right to discriminate based on sex. Would this person discriminated against a man and a woman getting a cake? No. Did he discriminate when the only difference was the sex of those asking for the cake? Yes.

Sexual discrimination.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This is about people having a right to affirm their personal, Constitutionally protected religious beliefs in their place of business.

Your mistake is thinking that people HAVE a constitutionally-protected right to affirm their personal religious beliefs in their place of business. They do not. Just the opposite is true. When you create a business in this country, you agree to certain laws in your business conduct. Non-discrimination is one of them. I realize you think people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but they are not. At least not in Colorado.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

This has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage. This is about whether or not someone has the right to discriminate based on sex. Would this person discriminated against a man and a woman getting a cake? No. Did he discriminate when the only difference was the sex of those asking for the cake? Yes.

Sexual discrimination.

Perhaps you're right, I suppose we'll need to wait until a judge figures out what he thinks about the issue.

There are a couple of things which make me wonder why you're as sure as you are, however. My understanding is that the baker did sell to same sex customers, he just didn't want to be involved in same sex weddings. Maybe that would make it event discrimination?

I suspect that if a man and a woman came in asking for a cake for a same sex wedding, he would have said "no" as well.

You point out one of the main reasons why this thread is so contentious. Everybody agrees that it was discrimination, but not everyone agrees it is, or should be, illegal discrimination. But when you say this is sexual discrimination you confuse me. Up to this point the question was whether the discrimination was against the people because they were gay, or against the event because it was a controversial wedding. An argument can be made for either side. But you introduce sexual discrimination, male vs. female, and I don't understand that.

Anyway, my main point was the facts of the situation don't support your conclusion as strongly as you seem to think. But let me know if I'm wrong, and you can help me get straightened out.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
But you introduce sexual discrimination, male vs. female, and I don't understand that.

I don't know how the courts would rule, but I suspect it would be discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation rather than gender, considering Colorado law. Because the baker himself said that his reasoning was because they were gay. But both are illegal. Treating one group differently than others is illegal discrimination.

The act of denying rights, benefits, justice, equitable treatment, or access to facilities available to all others, to an individual or group of people because of their race, age, gender, handicap or other defining characteristic.

Legal - Discrimination Definition

If a straight couple came in asking for a wedding cake for a gay wedding, he would probably still deny them, as you said. But if it were for dogs, he'd be happy to oblige, because his religion apparently allows dogs to marry...

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

This has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage. This is about whether or not someone has the right to discriminate based on sex. Would this person discriminated against a man and a woman getting a cake? No. Did he discriminate when the only difference was the sex of those asking for the cake? Yes.

Sexual discrimination.

Perhaps you're right, I suppose we'll need to wait until a judge figures out what he thinks about the issue.

There are a couple of things which make me wonder why you're as sure as you are, however. My understanding is that the baker did sell to same sex customers, he just didn't want to be involved in same sex weddings. Maybe that would make it event discrimination?

I suspect that if a man and a woman came in asking for a cake for a same sex wedding, he would have said "no" as well.

You point out one of the main reasons why this thread is so contentious. Everybody agrees that it was discrimination, but not everyone agrees it is, or should be, illegal discrimination. But when you say this is sexual discrimination you confuse me. Up to this point the question was whether the discrimination was against the people because they were gay, or against the event because it was a controversial wedding. An argument can be made for either side. But you introduce sexual discrimination, male vs. female, and I don't understand that.

Anyway, my main point was the facts of the situation don't support your conclusion as strongly as you seem to think. But let me know if I'm wrong, and you can help me get straightened out.

Not only do the facts of the situation support my conclusion, but there is already legal precedence to support it.

Baehr v. Lewin

Sexual orientation need not be a factor at all, as the baker may have, and probably did, sell to homosexuals in the past. He probably even sold to men and women separately, as well as men and women as couples. The legal problem comes when a couple getting married, a man and a woman, is sold a cake when another couple getting married, a man and a man, are not, based solely on the sex of one of the two people in the couple.

Sexual discrimination.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

You're absolutely right that Baehr v. Lewin provides legal precedent, but of what value is that precedent? As you know the case was based on the Hawiian Constitution and dealt with Hawaiian laws. The case was not heard at the federal level, and the Hawaiian Court speciffically recognized that the federal constitution was different. It certainly doesn't have binding effect on the present case in a different state, although it can be considered.

Further, as the Court stated:

Accordingly, we hold that the applicant couples do not have a fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage arising out of the right to privacy or otherwise.

In effect, as the applicant couples frankly admit, we are being asked to recognize a new fundamental right.

Breaking new ground at one state level is not generally considered to be a firm basis for determining law in another state.

Finally, the Hawaiian Court sent the matter back down for a hearing to determine whether the state's interest was sufficient to require couples to be of opposite sex That hearing resulted in even more questions, making the Hawaiian case less attractive as precedent.

When the Nebraska Attorney General was asked for an opinion on how that ruling might affect Nebraska's laws, he added this comment:

Baehr v. Miike, 1996 WL 694235 at 19. This statement provides a road map for any other state facing similar litigation, but may also represent a criticism of the vigor with which the case was defended and/or a pointed reference to the fact that the Hawaii Supreme Court expressly refused to allow attorneys representing religious interests to present legal arguments in support of traditional marriage. Baehr v. Miike, 910 P.2d 112 (Hawaii 1996) (affirming denial of motion for leave to intervene by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and three LDS clergy members who believed the State Attorney General "might not be willing to assert at the upcoming trial all the known compelling state interests which have been determined, in other jurisdictions, to be legally sufficient to justify similar legislation [banning same-sex marriage]."). (Emphasis added)

The refusal of the Hawaiian Court to allow legal arguments from the LDS is odd, and a little suspicious.

So forgive me for repeating myself, but I'm still not convinced that Baehr v. Lewin makes the case in this state a slam dunk.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear BenevolentHeretic,

I think you're right that that is how Colorado will eventually rule. I'm not sure that's the correct ruling, but I think that's where the smart money is. Sometimes there's a difference between "legal" and "right," and I think that's what the discussion (argument?) is about in this thread.

I think arguing against Baehr v. Lewin as a precedent in Colorado is both legal and right.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm not sure that's the correct ruling, but I think that's where the smart money is.

"Correct" as in what's right or wrong? Or "correct" in what's legal and illegal?
I'm not clear on where money comes into it.

Sometimes there's a difference between "legal" and "right," and I think that's what the discussion (argument?) is about in this thread.

The reason I think it's the correct ruling is that:
1. Colorado law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
2. The baker provides wedding cakes as part of his business.
3. The baker discriminates between selling wedding cakes to one group and selling wedding cakes to another group, the very definition of illegal discrimination.
4. What he IS willing to sell to gay couples doesn't enter into the equation, as this case is about another of his wares, specifically, wedding cakes.

Whether it's "right" or not is a matter of each person's opinion, as we all develop our own morals throughout our lives. And I agree, that's what the argument is about in this thread. We each have an idea of what we think is right, but it's clear what is legal. There's no arguing about what is legal by Colorado law.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Oh dear, I've done it again. When will I ever learn to write what I mean? Sorry.

I'm not sure that's the correct ruling, but I think that's where the smart money is.

"Correct" as in what's right or wrong? Or "correct" in what's legal and illegal?
I'm not clear on where money comes into it.

What I failed to say is:
"I think the Colorado courts will find there was discrimination. I think that there's a chance that the ruling will be wrong based on the facts and the law, but there's an argument to be made for both sides. But if there were bets placed on the outcome, the best bet would be that the Court will find discrimination. Philosophically as well as legally I would disagree, but that's what happens when different people look at the same issue."

3. The baker discriminates between selling wedding cakes to one group and selling wedding cakes to another group, the very definition of illegal discrimination.

This, of course, is where I see it a little differently. As we've discussed, I think he refuses to sell gay wedding cakes to anybody, so, no discrimination. It's just a difference of how we describe what he's selling. I thinks it's gay wedding cakes, you see it as wedding cakes.

There is one other area that may end up applying here, and I just thought of it. I haven't researched the cases, so I don't know their names, or what federal level they were decided at, but they concern the Obamacare mandates.

I believe those cases held that the mandates didn't apply when the owner of a business had religious scruples against providing the birth control - abortifacient coverage to his employees. If I'm correct in that, we may have to reconsider this case completely. On the surface it seems that a similar argument could apply to someone who has religious scruples against gay marriage.

Suddenly, this whole situation looks a lot more interesting.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
"I think the Colorado courts will find there was discrimination. I think that there's a chance that the ruling will be wrong based on the facts and the law, but there's an argument to be made for both sides.

The only argument to be made would be to prove that there is an inherent difference between a "straight wedding cake" and a "gay wedding cake". And there is none. Same mix, same icing, same decorations. It's exactly the same product.

As we've discussed, I think he refuses to sell gay wedding cakes to anybody, so, no discrimination. It's just a difference of how we describe what he's selling. I thinks it's gay wedding cakes, you see it as wedding cakes.

As regards the goods the baker provides, what is the difference between a wedding cake and a gay wedding cake? Only the purpose for which the cake will be used. And the business owner has no say over that. There is no difference in the goods he provides. If the cake were to be used as a prop for a commercial, it would still be just a wedding cake, not a "commercial wedding cake".

As regards the Obamacare mandate, it is not comparable for many reasons.

1. The mandate is regarding employees, not customers, which has a completely different set of laws.
2. The business owner would be treating all his employees equally. In other words, he wouldn't provide some with birth control, while denying it to others (which would be discrimination).
3. That's on a federal level and this cake case is on the state level using state laws.

I'm sure there are more...

reply to post by charles1952


Charles.. What purpose would a "sexual orientation" clause serve in Colorado law if business owners were permitted to designate their groceries as "Gay groceries" simply because they were going to be used by gay people, and therefore deny them to purchase the goods? If any business owners can designate their goods and deny purchase to groups, simply by adding the group's name as an adjective, we'd have "Black automobiles", "Disabled auto parts" and "Female restaurant food"...

The idea of a "gay wedding cake" is equally as preposterous.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Nice work in your most recent posts. You should apply for a "Model ATSer" badge. What? They don't have that? Well, they should. Tell them I said so.

None of your objections are easy to answer, and I don't expect to do well, but allow me to try.

In reverse order, let me look at your claim of similarity between "Gay wedding cakes" and "Black automobiles." We use the term "Gay wedding cakes" as a shortcut, but as is often the case with shortcuts, there is the risk of getting lost.

Assume that a gay man enters the baker's and asks for a wedding cake, saying "I want a three layer cake with "Good Luck" written around the middle layer. I'll take care of the rest of the decorations later." I'm fairly certain the baker would sell the cake. In the identical circumstances, assume the customer adds "Instead of a bride and groom, put a groom and a groom on top." Now we have something resembling this case. (However they did it, somehow the baker was told it was for a gay wedding.)

It seems, and forgive me if I'm getting repetitious, the objection to the cake was that it would be used as part of a ceremony the baker had religious scruples against. The objections weren't to the orientation (or color, or sex, or disability) of the customer. It appears that it really isn't similar to the "Black automobile" case. It also appears from the record that he sold to gays, so they weren't discriminated against based on their orientation.

Next, still in reverse order, the Obamacare issue.

1. The mandate is regarding employees, not customers, which has a completely different set of laws.

Absolutely true. But does the law say you can discriminate against employees but not customers? (or vice versa?) Surely, the principles, if not the wording, are the same.

2. The business owner would be treating all his employees equally. In other words, he wouldn't provide some with birth control, while denying it to others (which would be discrimination).

And, again (I'm really sorry) the baker would be treating all his customers the same. "No matter who you are, I'm not helping with a gay marriage ceremony."

3. That's on a federal level and this cake case is on the state level using state laws.

You're absolutely right again. But if (and I haven't looked it up) there were constitutional issues involved, state law gets superceded.

The only argument to be made would be to prove that there is an inherent difference between a "straight wedding cake" and a "gay wedding cake". And there is none. Same mix, same icing, same decorations. It's exactly the same product.

I'm not sure I quite agree that that is the only argument to be made, or even that it is required to be made. An extreme example might be the three people walk into the bakery and two say "I want two dozen pies to throw at (whoever is the current Harvey Milk equivalent is in Colorado.) One is gay and the other is straight. He then refuses to sell to the straight man saying "I think that kind of hatred is terrible, and I'll have nothing to do with it." The third peron is a sweet old lady who says "I want two dozen pies for our church bake sale." How can he get out of selling to the gay man who then claims orientation discrimination, even though the baker has told the straight man that he wants nothing to do with that kind of hatred?

I agree the whole thing can become a mess, and I agree the Colorado Court will eventually find there was discrimination. But I can not agree that there is no reasonable case for the other side.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
In the identical circumstances, assume the customer adds "Instead of a bride and groom, put a groom and a groom on top." Now we have something resembling this case.

Not really. Because that's not what happened. What happened was that the two men entered the shop and said, "We're getting married and would like a cake." (Something to that effect). The baker immediately refused, before knowing ANYTHING about the actual cake they wanted. There was no time for specifics about the cake. So, any talk of decorations or two grooms is irrelevant.

It seems, and forgive me if I'm getting repetitious, the objection to the cake was that it would be used as part of a ceremony the baker had religious scruples against.

That's true. But the baker does not have that legal right. (The couple was already married in Mass. They wanted the cake for a celebration in their home state. No legal marriage was taking place. Just a party to celebrate with their friends and family.

It also appears from the record that he sold to gays, so they weren't discriminated against based on their orientation.

So, if an automobile dealership owner sold Volkswagens and Cadillacs to white people, but refused to sell a Caddy to a black couple, because he didn't approve of black people driving Caddy's, it wouldn't be discrimination?

I won't entertain the Obamacare issue. It's irrelevant and a waste of time and energy.