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
David,
You realize if enough people become convinced ALL rights come from government, then the only challenge remaining is to win elections. That would mean elections do have consequen……oops.
DBQ:
If a wedding cake customer says to the baker, “I want 2 men on your standard wedding cake instead of a man and a woman,” you think he will be able to argue that simply putting a man in lieu of a woman is “demanding a work of art be created?”
Jeff Silberman – at what point does the wedding cake become a “work of art”?
Darren, I respectfully suggest to you that drawing an X over a homosexual couple on top of a wedding cake is not an expression of hatred. It is a statement about the natural order of life. The person expressing that thought on the cake does not agree with the lying propaganda that gay people have a right to be sexual in any way they want, including ways contrary to nature. He is also making a statement that gay people should not be afforded special protection from the law for their sexual immorality and perverse sexual proclivities.
This is yet another clear example for why these anti-discrimination laws are immoral and contrary to natural law. When are people going to wake up and realize that the business owner has the right to conduct business or decline business with whoever he wants. It is called freedom of association. If any of you read the article by Thomas Sowell shared recently on this blog, he pointed out how the Jim Crow laws concerning blacks sitting in the back of the bus originated from politics, not a free market. The owners of the companies fought these Jim Crow laws at every chance. It was bad business for them for the private companies and they never wanted these laws. If government would just get out of the way and let people be free, then humble cake shop owners would not face legal problems like this one. So many times in my life I have seen small businesses face tens of thousands of dollars in fines over foolish discrimination claims that had no basis in reality. We need to jettison all anti-discrimination laws immediately.
The issue is not whether the conscience allows someone to serve a gay or black person; it’s whether the baker has to accommodate every request by customers. Why would you ever want to live in a country where you are only as free as the majority of the population wants you to be?
What if the baker refers the customer to another baker known to meet these special requests; is that not acceptable?
Nick,
Another one for your PC handbook: if someone advocates for gay rights, they are derided as a member of the “Gay Mafia.”
Karen,
You are not allowed to discriminate against renting to blacks if you own an apartment building, but you are not required by law to take a black person as a boarder into your private home. If you hold yourself out as a business, you should be held to a different standard than your home. That is the price of doing business. If your conscience will not permit you to serve gay people or black people, then stay out of business that serves people. You CAN discriminate against people whose political beliefs you do not share. You CANNOT discriminate against characteristics of people over which they had no control, i.e., they were born or inculcated that way.”
the analogy of could they turn away a black customer, or a black baker a whoite customer based on race, (or Asian, India, etc) does seem apt.”
It is not apt at all. False comparisons.
There is a world of difference between refusing to serve someone because of their race or religion or any other reason and being forced to create a work of art, like a cake or painting or photograph, specifically for a person.
One example is a guy walks into a bakery and buys a dozen donuts out of a case. You can’t refuse to sell donuts. You have made generic donuts and you offer them to everyone who has money to pay.
The other example is the person who walks into the bakery and demands that you create a 4 tier cake celebrating Hitler (as an example that might be abhorrent to the cake artist) with flowers and swastikas. Make this cake OR ELSE!!!!
One transaction is basic business. The other is demanding a work of art be created. Forcing against the moral code or religious beliefs of the artist that they make something for you.
“In our practice, this has resulted in each physician spending three to four more hours per week on clerical work compared to when the ACA was passed in 2010.
That time adds up — and the aggregate effect nationwide is profound. In 2012, physicians spent fully 22 percent of their time performing nonclinical paperwork — displacing the equivalent of 165,000 full-time doctors in a single year, according to one recent report.
Put another way: The administrative burdens imposed by the ACA and government bureaucracies replaced 165,000 stethoscopes with pencils and pens.
Starting in 2015, the ACA will effectively force many physicians to adopt so-called Electronic Medical Records (EMR), diverting still more of our time to administrative tasks rather than clinical care.
Of the 85 percent of physicians who have already implemented EMRs, nearly half say it has detracted from their efficiency in delivering health care. Less than one quarter believe it has helped. For many physicians, such as my wife and I, this can double the amount of time per patient they spend inputting data rather than spending needed time with the patient.“
“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?”
No, just misinformed, and quite incorrect.
Karen, I never got into Will and Grace. But, I think Modern Family handles gay issues w/ great humor and wit.
This does seem to be a Leftist issue, because it is the Left who is trying to criminalize being conservative, or not following Leftist ideas.
Now, if the Right tried to close down businesses who didn’t support the Right, then that would be the same.
Lee:
“If it is against his conscience it is against his conscience and as much as I abhor that the baker refused a gay couple it is their right to do so but the analogy of could they turn away a black customer, or a black baker a whoite customer based on race, (or Asian, India, etc) does seem apt.”
Just to clarify, do you support a business owner’s right to refuse service based on conscience, as long as it is not because of a customer’s race? Or are you saying that they cannot refuse, even though you wish they could, because then they would also be allowed to discriminate against race?
.Lee:
“If it is against his conscience it is against his conscience and as much as I abhor that the baker refused a gay couple it is their right to do so but the analogy of could they turn away a black customer, or a black baker a whoite customer based on race, (or Asian, India, etc) does seem apt.”
Just to clarify, do you support a business owner’s right to refuse service based on conscience, as long as it is not because of a customer’s race? Or are you saying that they cannot refuse, even though you wish they could, because then they would also be allowed to discriminate against race?
My analogy wasn;t stated properly. I did not mean race vis a vis anti discrimination laws but using that as their reason to refuse service. It is not as easy as some here would make it seem, oh those liberals they abhor free speech, oh those conservatives everyone should be able to discriminate.
Making cakes can be an art (watch the TV shows amazing wedding cakes for instance) but they are offering a bakery service – just offering to personalize it.
Honestly I have trouble with this from both sides. On the one hand if your conscience is against what the person wants you should be able to refuse. On the other as long as it is not pornographic or obscene the customer has the right to ask for it. Despoite Nick and others grouping us all in one lump as a liberal I do think the baker should have the right of refusal. He will quickly find out if he loses customers from the word of mouth if his decision was a good one or not..
I don’t recall who wrote it upthread but the best answer is suggest another bakery. That way the baker can refuse while still trying to help the customer.
I find the example of a Hitler cake much easier to deal with. I think there is almost no one who would find that an acceptable assignment. It is much harder when it is an issue that actively divides people
Nick – did you see that episode on Will and Grace where Will angered the Gay Mafia? It was awesome.
So now we will be required to post our personal beliefs, ALL of them, on the door like the Star of David?
What if we post what we think will matter in business, and then someone requests a cake glorifying the fur industry. We won’t be able to decline making a bloody, flayed fox cake because we neglected to post that we oppose fur.
“way” should have been “may.”
Jeff, ChipS worked hard and went to an Ivy League College, the 2nd best actually. He’s not an elitist. Regarding your other lame examples. Firstly, they’re not PC. Secondly, the PC that protects “special” groups hasn’t included white, hetero, males. It never will. So, we can both fire @ will. It’s always open season on you and I. As it should be w/ EVERYONE. Regarding “raising taxes on the rich,” your cult leader is giving his D-Day speech tonight in the full assault in class warfare. I expect some chubbies from the cultist, socialists, big govt., un American, elitists, as they watch The Master[ a reference to the underappreciated Paul Thomas Anderson flick]. If you’re a fan of Anderson, Inherent Vice is a classic of his unique genre. Joaquin is superb.
This has gone from discussing whether people are free to marry whomever they love, a good thing, to no one way engage in any business or hold a job unless they support gay marriage. Which is a threat.
I have seen his myself. When a manager at Chick-fil-A fed a homeless man and gave him his own gloves on a cold winter morning, the act was accompanied by harsh criticism that anyone posting the video, taken by a customer, was promoting a hateful company. The owner opposes gay marriage on religious grounds. This was a manager, not the owner. So, now, anyone who works at the company may no longer ever do a good deed without the praise being criticized as glorifying hatred for gays.
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
Let me try to give a small lesson in economics here to people who have never been IN business for themselves. (wasting my pixels probably). Previous to the Obamacare mandates that medical practices MUST digitize/computerize their records and comply with a zillion medical codes…..the doctor was able to make notes during and after the meeting with his patient and give to staff to compile at a later time. Take notes, talk to the patient and make some more hand written notes between appointments.
Due to the complexity of the new process, the time it takes to enter the computerized information and the punitive actions for non compliance, the doctor was no longer able to make hand written notes and could spend his time WITH the patient. Instead he (according to my doctor) needed to have a designated person to take these computerized notes during the meeting. This required an additional body. He actually had to hire two new people to cover this added work load. SO ….additional payroll, payroll taxes, insurance etc etc.
While increasing the overhead of his office, Obamacare and the Medicaid cuts in reimbursement decreased the income. As well as the decrease the time between submitting insurance and Medicare (Medi-Cal in my state) and getting paid became longer and longer, requiring that the doctor’s practice have a larger working capital reserve in order to meet the expenses of running the practice.
So….More money to run the practice, less money coming in. There are only so many patients that a doctor can see in a limited amount of time. The options are see more people, spend less time with them…..or……charge more. Since the last one isn’t possible. The first one is the option that most doctors have to take.
Then as a patient not only do you have the doctor examining you, poking and prodding…..while you are sitting there in your paper shroud in your underwear (or wearing less) you have an additional person typing into a computer who gets to listen in to all the embarrassing, confidential and maybe even gross information that you need to give to the Doctor. Some things that are strictly between the doctor and you are too delicate to be discussed in front of other people. As a result often the patient is unwilling to disclose things that need to be disclosed or unwilling to bare body parts in front of a third party.
Running a medical practice is a business. Many doctors are just quitting rather than go bankrupt.
It is a political issue whether some people want to admit it or not. The Obamacare mess is political since it was created and passed by ONE political party. This is what happens when the Government gets involved in the minutia of your life and fine tunes everything. Businesses fail or everything becomes so expensive that you can’t afford the product.
.You wrote:”… Instead he (according to my doctor) needed to have a designated person to take these computerized notes during the meeting. This required an additional body. He actually had to hire two new people to cover this added work load. SO ….additional payroll, payroll taxes, insurance etc etc.”
I am not sure where your doctor gets this, that he is required to have a designated person. None of the doctors with whom I deal have ever had a person in the room there solely for the purpose to take notes. The doc has always been the one, in my personal experience, who enters the info on his computer.
This is the slippery slope we’ve been talking about.
One day, we won’t be able to walk down the street without being arrested for discrimination – for making disparaging remarks about a political party, a silly blonde joke, whatever.
I would like businesses to be able to decide what they want to do.
I don’t want a bakery forced to cater to an Anne Coulter event. And if someone has a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, they shouldn’t be forced to support that. It’s their opinion. We are NEVER going to get an entire nation to all think the same.
Honestly, who would want to eat a cake that the baker was forced to make against his or her will?
I personally support gay marriage. But I am appalled at the tactics taken by those who support it against those who don’t. People are suddenly not allowed to have opinions that don’t follow the Party Line.
Anti-discrimination laws were enacted to tear down Jim Crow laws that tried to keep a de facto slave status. This is an attempt to force people to go against their religion, or not be allowed to work.
Government should get out of the marriage business and only do civil unions, as Rabbi Schmuley has advised. If a couple wants a religious wedding, then they have a choice of denominations that conduct same sex marriages. They don’t need to force any church or temple to do it. If you want a cake baked, then find a bakery who wants to do it. I also would not go to a conservative Middle Eastern bakery and demand they cater a strip party, where they would have to send their innocent daughters as servers. I would not ask an Amish custom carpenter to make an anti-Christian sign. I would not tell a Jewish bakery they had to work on the Sabbath or I would sue.
If I wanted to have a cake made for a fiscal conservative convention, I am sure that some bakers would turn me down because of their own personal politics. I cannot imagine suing them to make them cater to me with a cake they would have probably spit in. I would just find another baker.