I don’t know. This area is not crystal clear to me. We already do require employers to accommodate their employees’ religious practices, as in the Ambercrombie case where the store was required to allow its Muslim employee to wear her religious headwear on the sales floor, in violation of their regular dress code.
Perhaps businesses will be required to hire additional employees who don’t have religious objections? This would be similar to ADA requirements, where employers are required to hire assistants or buy equipment for the disabled in order to do their jobs.
I wonder if this ruling will have the unintended consequence of gay couples never frequenting this establishment. As others have point out, why in the name of common sense would you ask anyone who holds you in such distain to be involved in producing something you are going to eat???
So, possibly, in the end the baker wins…no gay couples will frequent the establishment, hard line religious will over compensate by bringing in more of their business… B-)
This is a well-developed area of law. Businesses are required to accommodate their employee’s religious practices only if this causes no more than a de minimis cost or burden on the business. Having to hire additional employees to handle the work that the religious employee refuses to do would clearly be more than a de minimis burden. Therefore, businesses cannot be required to hire additional employees to accommodate the religious scruples of existing employees. Rather, the existing employees will be required to do the work they were hired for, or get fired.
Allowing an observant Muslim woman to wear a stylish headscarf in contravention of the business’s dress code is deemed a de minimis burden, and therefore the Court has decided that Abercrombie can’t refuse to hire a Muslim woman because she wears a headscarf.
I do not like discrimination, but neither do I like singling out a business whose owners religious views are known, asking them to do something they would object to and then suing them out of business.
In the Colorado cake case, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to Masterpiece Bakery to get cake. They didn’t single out the bakery; they went to a bakery that had a good reputation for cake, just like you or I would do. Craig’s mother went along, for heaven’s sake. They weren’t trying to make a scene. They wanted cake for their wedding reception.
It was the owner that turned what should have been a happy event of choosing cake for a wedding reception into a court case. The gay couple just wanted cake.
I’m secular, but I think there is a big difference in the kosher butcher example, and the cake example. But here’s one that might be amusing. What if the Catholic baker refuses to sell communion wagers to the Episcopalian church? Okay or not okay?
Communion wafers are sanctified by the priest in the sacrament of the mass. Before that, they are just little crackers. It would be odd, and not religiously justified, if the Catholic baker refused to sell the communion wafers to Episcopalians. Perhaps a better example would be the Catholic baker refusing to sell wafers to some Satanists who were going to perform some parody of a mass, a parody that Catholics would find offensive. Would that be justified? I think it would be illegal.
The inherent problem is how do you define “serving the public”.
Also, if the gay couple was with one of their moms, does that not even more support the idea that this a big deal, not “just a cake” that is “just purchase of a product like any other”?
This is not renting out a house or reviewing their job application (though it would be interesting to test that case here).
I wonder what the kids and grandkids will think of grandma and grandpa who were so vociferous in their insistence on a right to discriminate against gay people? Probably the same as Mr. Arabrab things of his great aunt in Louisiana who had the Klu Klux Klan robe in her attic.
It has been said many times on this thread that business owners are not required to do anything or sell anything that they don’t ordinarily do or sell. The Little Clare sisters sell cookies once a year after mass. Anyone who wants to buy the cookies can, even if those people are living a life style the Sisters don’t support. However, the sisters aren’t required to sell the cookies in Wiccan meeting places or Temples or at drug dispensaries. They are not required to package the cookies in non-religious boxes or remove the notes included in every box that talk about their mission. Anyone who make it to their sales tables can buy the cookies, but the Sisters don’t take special orders.
Same with the baker, the Jewish caterer, the Hobby Lobby store. Anyone can buy their products. The baker in this case did take special orders, so the objection was to personalizing a cake for this wedding. As someone said above, then the question becomes is the request minor, de minimus cost to the business. Yes.
“Gay” is not an official class under federal civil rights law, but case law has been expanding the class to be included with the other 7 protected classes. Colorado does have some protections specifically for ‘gay status’ in some areas, like employment and housing. Cases are coming down on the ‘if you offer a product, you have to offer it to everyone on the same terms.’ I don’t think it would matter if it was a polygamist group asking for the cake, or a two white supremacists asking for the cake (although I think the baker could limit what is put on the cake), or someone marrying a guy on death row. The ruling is not really that gay people have the same rights as others, but that if you are a business open to the public, you have to treat all member of the public equally. If you offer customized cakes, you sell them to everyone. You don’t have to offer them if you don’t want to, but if you do you have to sell them to everyone. You can’t say I don’t serve undocumented workers, blacks, people wearing Yankees hats (totally justified in my mind, but…). Even people NOT in a protected class or semi protected class can buy products offered by a public, licensed business.
^I agree with everything you wrote, BUT, the difference with this case and others like Yankees haters, is that the seller has a (presumably righteous) religious objection to participating in same-sex marriages by making the cake. It involves an additional and competing federal protection, that of his right under the First Amendment to exercise his religious freedom without government interference. And again, he is not refusing service to anyone in particular; it is the same-sex wedding cake he does not want to bake. So it is not exactly analogous to general statements about selling your standard inventory to everyone who walks in the door.
I suppose a “de minimus” adjustment he could make is to establish a policy of not inquiring who the cake is being made for. But if he found out by accident, he would have the same problem.
I don’t see the baker as “participating in the same-sex marriage by making the cake” as stated in post #172. The baker is baking a cake. The baker is not participating in the marriage or the ceremony or the reception. He is providing a product to a gay couple who is going to use the product at their wedding. The baker is not attending or participating in the wedding. A person who sells the groom a pair of shoes to use at the wedding is not participating in the wedding. A person who sells the flowers to the couple is not participating in the wedding. The person designing or selling the rings at the jewelry store is not participating in the wedding. Then person who designs and/or prints the invitations is not participating themselves at the wedding. The limo driver is providing transportation to and from the wedding but is not participating in the wedding. The couple is using these products at their wedding. Can you imagine a gay couple having to find every product from someone who is willing to sell to them to use at their wedding?
By the way, I think a wedding cake is in their standard inventory and is customized to a certain extent. Not unlike some wedding rings or invitations and sometimes even the clothing.
Would any of you want your loved one, child, close friend, etc. refused to be served a service or product that is sold to anyone else who uses that business due to his/her race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion? It would pain me to have that happen to someone I care about.
I don’t have an opinion about his beliefs other than to note that we already had an extensive discussion about the “holiness or unholiness” of foods in certain religions and someone wrote about Jesus and wedding cake being mentioned in the bible.
I am not talking about the baker’s beliefs. My post 173 was referring to your post (Bay) 172 stating that the baker was participating in the same sex marriage by making a cake. I don’t see it that way, nor with any of the other providers of products that will be used or designed to be used at the wedding, where the seller is not attending. I also commented on your comment that the wedding cake is not standard inventory, and I disagree about that as wedding cakes are in their standard inventory and are customized by the order in terms of decorations, filling, flavor, etc. just like wedding invitations are customized.
In any case, my post 174 really wonders how anyone would feel to have a loved one declined a product or service at a place of business that was offered to everyone else, but not to them due to their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. I just cannot fathom anyone who would be happy about that and I find it quite offensive that anyone can support such a practice.
soozievt has a good point about all the goods and services potentially involved in a wedding. Making a list, feel free to add:
Reception hall/banquet hall (including catering/food service)
Invitations
Flowers
Cake
Bridal gowns or groom tuxes (and assorted accessories)
Bridesmaid and groomsmen outfits (and accessories)
Limo
Rings
Photographer
Videographer
Favors for tables and other table accessories (place cards, etc.)
Band or other music provider
Wedding registries
Gifts for wedding party (possibly engraved)
Other wedding mementos such as matchbooks with names of the couple and the date
That’s a lot of opportunity for discrimination. As soozievt says, how would it be if your wedding planning (already often a stressful period) was compounded by the fact that you had to call place after place for every service just to find willing providers?
Oh for the love of peet. Why can’t people just be kind and tolerant instead of using the “its against my religion” to practice discrimination. That said, if the bakers were so unkind and refused services due to claims of “its against my religion” I hope many other potential brides and grooms rallied behind the couple denied service and responded with their feet. I wouldn’t want to spent my hard earned money with vendors who knowingly discriminate.