We have previously discussed (here and here) the growing conflicts over businesses that decline to accommodate same-sex weddings and events in a clash between anti-discrimination and free speech (and free exercise) values. Despite my support for gay rights and same-sex marriage, I have previously written that anti-discrimination laws are threatening the free exercise of religion. Some of these cases involve bakeries that insist that making wedding cakes for same-sex couples violates their religious principles. Now we have a twist on this trending litigation. The Azucar Bakey has been found to have broken discrimination laws by refusing to make an anti-same-sex cake. The bakery was asked to make a Bible-shaped cake with an anti-gay slur and owner Marjorie Silva refused. The customer brought a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and won.
The customer wanted the bakery to draw two males holding hands with “a big ‘X’ on them.”
Silva identifies herself as a practicing Christian and makes Christian cakes, but balked at making an anti-gay cake at her Lakewood bakery in December 2013. Previously in Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips broke discrimination laws when he refused to make a cake for the same-sex wedding of Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig in July of 2012. That decision was upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Now we have the flip side. Silva offered to leave the bible page blank to allow the customer (who she describes as disruptive) to write whatever he wanted but she declined to write it herself. Ironically, she could have simply refused to serve him on the basis for any disruption in the store. She was later sent a notice by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) that a religious discrimination complaint has been filed against Azucar Bakery. She has since received a notice from DORA requesting a final letter describing her account of events.
The question raised by these cases is whether anti-discrimination laws are driving too deeply into free speech rights. Bakers and photographers view themselves as engaged in a form of speech generally. The loss of a bright-line defining free speech has meant that we are finding ourselves increasingly on a slippery slope of speech regulation. On the other hand, we fought hard to guarantee accommodation for all races in places of public accommodation. Stores are not allowed to ban black customers under the same rationale. The question is whether there is a difference between refusing to serve customers on the basis for sexual orientation generally as opposed to taking an active or direct role in a same-sex wedding.
Where do you think we should draw the line?
Source: KDVR
Paul, your real experience appears to be outside of his/her desired worldview and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. The tolerant left will not tolerate dissent or experiences that differ from desired norm.
And outright lies must be told to protect the leftist narrative. Example 1: “unemployment down from Bush 10+%”. Fact: max unemployment under Bush was January 2009 (the month Obama was inaugurated, go figure), 7.8%. Mostly fluctuated 4 to 6% during Bush years. US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Don’t forget, if someone is a liberal they are called “cultists”.
Nick,
You left a few out of your PC Playbook:
If someone denies American Exceptionalism, he is called “un-American.”
If someone criticizes American foreign policy, he is accused of “blaming America first.”
If someone advocates raising taxes on the rich, he is called a “socialist.”
If someone wishes to regulate business, he is vilified as a “big government tyrant.”
If someone works hard and goes to an Ivy League college, he is sneered at as an “elitist.”
Jeff – I only call them elitists if they are legacies at the Ivy League college.
Think the component missing on ACA is a government “competitor” to the private insurance market – creating a real free market. Similar to local trash service where the government keeps prices in check through competition witth the private sector.
So if your rates go up and services go down, consumers can choose an option similar to Medicare. Essentially what members of Congress receive.
Political partisanship and cronyism is the biggest obstacle blocking this free market system from working for consumers.
The problem with these types of laws is that they assume the business is the powerful party and the consumer needs Big Brother to protect him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole premise is wrong in the modern era.
The power dynamics are not the same as they were in the era of monopolistic, predatory Robber Barons. Consumers, collectively, have the power in the relationship. They unconsciously decide which industries, companies, and products succeed and which fail in the marketplace by voluntarily deciding who to do business with. Consumers decide which companies they want to succeed and which they want to fail by voting with their dollars. Kodak was once a major Fortune 500 company. It did not adapt quickly enough to the digital age, and consumers forced it into bankruptcy. Circuit City was forced to completely liquidate. Borders Group, too. There’s a long list of former high flying companies that have been forced into bankruptcy and even forced to liquidate because evil greedy consumers, acting in their own best interest, did not want to buy what they were selling. So they put them out of business.
Obviously, consumers have all of the power.
Now, say a consumer walks into a bakery shopping for a cake. He is completely free to turn around and walk out for any reason. Maybe the consumer doesn’t like that the floor is dirty; maybe the lack of items in the display case is a turn off; maybe the baker was on the phone and the annoyed customer got tired of waiting and walked out; or maybe the baker happened to have a photograph on the counter commemorating his homosexual marriage and that made the customer uncomfortable. The customer does not have to say why he doesn’t want to transact. He is free. He is free to turn around and walk out for whatever reason.
Bakers are in the business of baking and selling what customers want. Only a tiny minority of them will choose to turn away business. And if he turns you away, there are other bakers who will be pleased that you voted with your dollars to support them. They know how ruthless and selfish consumers are. They will put you out of business in a second if you don’t offer them the value they demand.
Ask the investors, creditors, and thousands of former employees of Kodak, Circuit City and Borders.
There was an episode of “Cake Boss” where they were commissioned to make a pornographic cake, which they did. When mom found out she yelled at the Cake Boss and told him he was not to make those any more. Does this fall into this category?
“I see no reason why a person is entitled to keep his conscience a secret in the exercise of his business.”
Of course you don’t Jeff; since you don’t accept the idea of natural law or inalienable rights, the very idea of freedom of conscience would be anathema to your ‘moral’ sensibilities.
We should be approaching this issue and others like it from the perspective of how to protect the natural right of conscience of all parties. Does the customer have a right to ask the baker to accommodate his request? Absolutely. Does the baker have a right to accept or decline that request? Absolutely. Does the customer have the option to find a baker that will accommodate his request? Absolutely. Would both the customer and baker have their rights respected? Absolutely.
I don’t agree that the baker should just bake the cake; that it’s just business. Either rights are worth defending or they are not. It’s the “light or transient” causes that eventually leave us in the same place as every other culture throughout history. Not standing firm is allowing government to nudge us towards the tyranny previously mentioned.
Paul it was anecdotal and no problem but when you snarked at the end about the president you made it a political statement about the ACA, or the pres. That to me required more explanation.
leejcaroll – Obama and the Democrats own Obamacare. With it come new reporting requirements for everyone. This is on him.
Good grief, why should the doctor waste time entering the data? The staff that work with the doctors have access to everyone’s medical records, especially the sections in which medical data needs to be added during an office visit. That hasn’t changed since Obamcare, what nonsense. This extreme Obama derangement syndrome is just plain silly.
Inga – this started as new paperwork to be filled out before I saw the doctor. It is all personal info, not medical info.
DBQ talk about calling names without back up I did not call him a liar but go ahead keep saying what others haven’t said. I did say no back up just a sweeping statement. I have to fill out new paperwork when I go to some of my docs and have had to for years has nothing to do with the ACA. gonna call me a liar now? Funny how asking for proof of something is now a bad thing.
I dpont like my GP because he comes in with the computer and typoes in everything and never looks me in the eye. Has nothing to do with the ACA has to do with electronic record keeping. If you don’t like it tell him, Unless she is a nurse she has no reason to be in the room with you and the doc.
(Btw your respoinse is exactly the kind of behavior that has caused me to stop being so active at Turley blog.
“For-Profit Corporations” could legally change their business license to a “Sole-Proprietorship” – this would erase the legal protections of the “corporate veil”. This provides greater censorship rights for a company as long as it doesn’t violate the Civil Rights Act.
In the eyes of the law: a “Sole-Proprietorship” is a single person which could have religious beliefs. When the business is a “For-Profit Corporation” there are two separate people (human person + corporate person) – if a customer sues the business, the owner’s assets are largely protected from a lawsuit because the plaintiff only sued the corporate person (not the human person). The human person (owner) really can’t claim religious rights of the 2nd person (corporate person).
For those thinking frivolous lawsuits and legalese, so-called conservatives and corporate lobbyists are the most responsible for this legal mess – not liberal college law professors.
So…..leejcaroll calls Paul C a liar? Then makes unfounded and undocumented statements about how rosy everything is for everyone.
Nice.
My doctor is quitting his practice, of more than 20 years, in a few months because of the restrictions to his practice and the costs that the Obamacare mandates have put on his practice. He states that he had to hire 2 more people just to handle the computer input and paperwork. When he sees patients he has a girl with her computer on a rolling stand during patient/doctor meetings so she can enter in all the information required instead of him doing it. At least we get to look the doctor in the eyes while someone else is typing away.. Patient privacy is a thing of the past, evidently.
Care to call me a liar also?
Paul did they tell you why because of the “government” You make these sweeping posts without backing anything up. I too thank G-d he was elected pres so we do have more access to insurance, the economy recovered, despite no jobs bills from the gop unemployment down from Bush 10+% to under 6% etc etc. See this is how you do it. You actually give examples of why you state what you state.
leejcaroll – the only why I got was that if I did not fill out the forms and the doctor treated me, he would be out of practice. They did tell me that other patients were unhappy with the new forms, so it is not just me.
I am not sure how the economy has recovered with 43 million people on welfare. The unemployment rate is a joke since they stopped counting people who have dropped out of the the job market. The real unemployment rate is around 14%.
BTW, I told an anecdotal story, it was true. What the hell do you want from me?
The sooner the world dumps religion, the better.
I don’t think there is any right to compel others to perform acts they don’t wish to perform.
Nice and simple, w/ no need to define “prejudice”.
Would a cake shop have to make a cake along the lines of “I hate N*GG&RS!!” or something equally offensive?
As a layman a civil right is something you have a right to expect others to respect. I don’t think there is any right to expect others to respect your prejudices. I don’t think this holding has merit. Someone who can properly parse legal wording can probably make a better argument .
Disagreement is a sin in their religion, Ed.
That’s why they cannot debate it.
The opposite belief is by definition immoral according to their faith, and therefore indefensible.
I’m just trying to get over the idea that an “x” through two guys holding hands qualifies as a “slur”. Then pretty much any voicing or indication of disagreement must be a “slur”.
This fits in with the left’s demonization game. Disagree with a liberal black person, you’re obviously racist. Disagree with abortion, you hate all women. Disagree with environmentalist dogma regarding the cause of climate change, you’re a denier. Disagree with tax increases, you are a selfish rich fat cat. Disagree with more government spending, you hate poor people. I could go on and on….
When gay marriage becomes the law of the entire land (which it will IMO sometime the week of June 28th) these types of cases will expand exponentially.
Exceptions to discrimination laws will have to be carved out for things such as this specific type of case. If exceptions are not granted and instead an attempt is made to effectively interpret the free exercise clause to the point of vanishing then the landmark case this summer will become another Roe v Wade.
Another unending source of turmoil for this country.
Nick, you’ve just made vividly the moral argument for a free society. When social justice fully displaces “mere” justice, there will be no scope for personal morality, and it will be much easier for the state to direct people’s lives.
As a PI operating my own business there were many type cases I would not take. I was asked to investigate the background of a politician to see if he fathered a black child. I respectfully declined it. I have been asked to help defend child pornographers and child rapists. I declined. I actually decline ALL criminal defense cases. I decline domestic dispute infidelity cases. I decline ALL types of cases for a myriad of reasons. IT’S MY BUSINESS!!