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
This exactly right. The gay mafia is going to demand that he church perform the sacrament of marriage for same sex couples or face devastating fines and penalties. The Church will not be able to perform their sacred rights unless they conform to take most outrageous demands and whims of the most far out fringe.
By not standing up for the barks and photographers and others being targeted for destruction we are fostering and enabling the coming attack on religion. Not just the Catholics of course. The Mormons and Orthodox Jews as well. Everyone except the Muslims because they are afraid of them.
We are already half way down the slippery slope.
Jeff wrote:
“You CAN discriminate against people whose political beliefs you do not share.”
This is true in some cases, but not all. For example, in the District of Columbia, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone based on “political affiliation.” D.C. is an extreme example (it has the most “protected categories” of any jurisdiction), but your statement is not 100% accurate.
Jim22:
Addresses that at the above 1:12 pm post. If the bakery switches to a “sole-proprietorship” business license and loses it’s “corporate veil” protections it has more freedom to discriminate.
“The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. “
Jim22:
Businesses write the checks but businesses never pay any taxes. All business expenses, including taxes, are passed onto the consumers. Business income is gross revenues minus expenses.
Consumers pay taxes, businesses are only the check-writers! If you want to tax the rich you do it on the personal side of the tax ledger.
Ross – you need a good Econ course. Businesses pay taxes that are not passed on to consumers. Yes, some taxes, like sales taxes are allowed to be passed directly on to the consumer, but must be paid regardless of how it is done added on or included in the original price. Any business that makes a profit pays taxes on the profit (assuming there is one) at the end of its fiscal year. What remains can be dispersed to shareholders or partners.
“The real reason the gay community is annoyed is that they don’t get a tax break not that a Catholic doesn’t recognize their “marriage”.”
No, they want Catholics to be forced to perform gay marriages, too.
Physicians for National Healthcare (socialists for single payer), reporting on an OCT 2014 study in International Journal of Health Services:
“
Ross – To be clear, my solution to all of this is follow the money. Remove the govt. from marriage by removing it from the tax code. The real reason the gay community is annoyed is that they don’t get a tax break not that a Catholic doesn’t recognize their “marriage”. Remove marriage from the tax code and suddenly no one cares about what anyone does in their bedroom.
“Freedom means you have to respect other people’s freedoms as well.”
Except for bakers, photographers, and other “businesses that serve people.”
(See Jeff above for details.)
Ross “Equal marriage rights is almost the exact same argument as interracial marriage”
So you are admitting that they aren’t the same.
Ross – “Freedom means you have to respect other people’s freedoms as well.”
Absolutely! I’m glad you agree that the cake owners have the freedom from being forced to do business with everyone.
Ross – “As far as the private business argument to discriminate: every private business also benefits from public roads, public police protection, public education, public fire protection services and other government infrastructure. Since they don’t exist in a private vacuum they should treat every customer the same.”
So you ignore the fact that these business’ pay taxes for all of those services.
Jim22:
Equal marriage rights is almost the exact same argument as interracial marriage and critics used the Bible to argue against those marriages as well.
Real conservatives support “maximum” individual freedom – as long as one citizen, doesn’t infringe on another citizen’s constitutional rights.
Freedom means you have to respect other people’s freedoms as well.
“If your conscience will not permit you to serve gay people or black people, then stay out of business that serves people.”
That is what Nick meant by “the Gay Mafia.”
Thanks for the perfect example.
Jeff doesn’t seem to know the difference between race and sexual orientation. To me, one is a choice. This is why it is so important for the gay agenda to remove the idea that sexuality is a choice for once it is done, it opens the door even wider to claim victimhood.
Every situation is totally unique. If a couple lives in a large city they may have their choice of many vendors and minority groups wouldn’t want to spend their money on businesses that discriminate against them so not as much of an issue.
However, If the person lives in a rural area and the closet town is far away with only one or two bakeries in town and both refuse to serve them. It’s also likely that not only bakeries but caterers, photographers and other wedding vendors will also refuse service to them. The Civil Rights Act was created for this type of discrimination that treats some Americans as 2nd Class citizens.
For example, a bakery could ban “private parts” on a cake that would apply to all customers (regardless of race, religion or sex), but they can’t ban a gay couple from kissing while allowing it for a straight couple.
As far as the private business argument to discriminate: every private business also benefits from public roads, public police protection, public education, public fire protection services and other government infrastructure. Since they don’t exist in a private vacuum they should treat every customer the same.
Jeff…..I take it you have never made a wedding cake. There is a great deal of art involved.
Go to Costco then and get a cake.
Jeff Silberman wrote: “If your conscience will not permit you to serve gay people or black people, then stay out of business that serves people.”
Oh great! Now people are not free to earn a living if they do not agree with homosexual behavior. Kind of reminds me about something in the Bible that nobody can buy or sell if they do not receive the mark of the beast.
Jeff Silberman wrote: “You CANNOT discriminate against characteristics of people over which they had no control.”
You really believe that lie? Nobody has been born gay. NOBODY. Sexuality evolves over a series of choices. It is based upon not just genetic proclivities involving the senses of sexual pleasure, but also upon the environment and cognitive choices. The monozygotic twin studies in homosexuality prove this conclusively.
Everybody can control their sexuality. There is nothing defective about gays that make them unable to control their sexual urges.
Jeff
Your examples are not relevant to the discussion of whether you can force an artist (baker, sculptor, photographer etc) to create an offensive or morally repugnant work of art.
If your conscience will not permit you to serve gay people or black people, then stay out of business that serves people.
We already have laws forbidding rent discrimination and other discrimination in serving the general public.
The difference is in the creative expression or free speech of the artist versus just making a product offered to anyone. Ice cubes versus an ice sculpture.
Building a house is not necessarily a creative expression, even though something is created, so a contractor can’t refuse to build a home for discriminatory reasons. He can refuse you for other reasons and doesn’t have to say why. Maybe you just are a too difficult client. We have refused to do work for people in our business, because they have trouble written all over them. I have refused to take on clients in my (previous) financial planning practice.
My stock phrasing, was something along these lines. 🙂
“Mr. and Mrs. Client. We have been working together now for some time (no we haven’t because you just won’t get your head out of your a$$ and pay attention or follow my advice….and you argue with everything I say), unfortunately I just don’t think that we are compatible as a team. My philosophy as an advisor doesn’t seem to be compatible with yours (I want to make you money and you seem to want to lose it and ignore all of my professional advice.) So, I believe that it might be for the best if you found an advisor that can give you the time and attention that you deserve. So I regretfully think that you should search for another advisor as I can’t service your account any longer. (Find some other poor schumck who has more patience that I do and don’t let the door hit you and your fat portfolio on the way out.) Followed by a letter stating similar concepts.
Granted, I wasn’t creating a work of art, but the principle is the same. My right to refuse to work with someone.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/06/doctor-loves-ehr.html
Why this doctor loves her EHR.