Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry guys, I had a quick jump to San Francisco late last week immediately followed by an interview in Detroit yesterday.

TDF Not sure that's a good analogy.

A wedding cake for the most part is a commodity item. Sure there are basic ones and fancy ones but it's a generally accepted service that vendors provide to the community. I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to be getting married to order a wedding cake.

A glass swastika would be a one off special request and an odd one at that. I've been to Nebe's shop recently and while there are various vases, bowls, ornaments, paperweights and other non-functional yet beautiful things they all have a generally accepted artistic or functional purpose and are standard offerings of his business or any other glass makers business.

It's not the same thing.

And all the talk about Federal Constitutional stuff here needs to be put in context of Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation.

So I'd think that if the cake they were ordering was a somewhat standard cake the vendor would be violating state law.

-spence

"Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation. "

Is there such a law? I'm not doubting you, but from what I saw, the judge did not cite a specific state law that the baker was violating. What I saw (and I may well have missed the law you are referring to) was the judge saying that the couple has the right to not be hurt for who they are. That concept seems to be at odds with the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to celebrate the death of military KIA's at their funerals. That is hurtful to the families, but judges have said that despite the hurt inflicted, they have the right to express their religious beliefs in that manner.

And if there is such a state law, one might argue that it violates the freedom of religion guaranteed to the baker by the Bill Of Rights. When there is a conflict, the United States Constitution trumps state laws.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation. "

Is there such a law?

Yes.

And if there is such a state law, one might argue that it violates the freedom of religion guaranteed to the baker by the Bill Of Rights. When there is a conflict, the United States Constitution trumps state laws.

It violates more than that. To begin with, as ScottW has pointed out, Colorado does not recognize same sex marriage, not even if it is performed in another State. So there would be an apparent conflict between the two laws. If same sex marriage is not accepted as valid in the State, how can a baker be prosecuted for not accommodating such a marriage? The judge should have recognized that the two laws could apply to the baker only in respect to baked goods that he makes and are in stock at the time of purchase. If he does not make same-sex wedding cakes, and there are no wedding cakes in stock at the time of request he cannot, even under the anti-discrimination law, be forced to make one, just as he cannot be forced to make jelly donuts for someone if they are not in stock. The baker can perfectly accommodate the gay couple by selling them those goods that he has produced and are available for sale, but they cannot compel him to make something he otherwise would not nor does not wish to do.

Furthermore, the anti-discrimination law has a fundamental problem with equal protection as provided in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination laws as they are written prohibit discrimination against "protected" classes. But they do not prohibit discrimination against those class of people that do not fall into the protected areas (i.e. sexual orientation, religion, race, gender, etc.) If the baker simply didn't like me for some undecipherable "vibes" he detected, not for any of the protected classifications, the laws would not prohibit him from not selling his wares to me. I would not have the equal protection that the laws provide to others. Of course, the obvious unequal application of such laws is the ensuing discrimination against the baker. Anti-discrimination laws are by nature discriminatory. To be truly anti-discrimination, there should be no protected class of people, everybody should be protected, including the baker. That is asking the impossible. Which may be why the Constitution only prohibits the government from discriminating