@pizzagirl I think that would be covered by the hate speech thing. Maybe you can be forced to make a cake that says “Happy 25th, Jonesboro chapter” or whatever for that KKK group but then again, KKK groups aren’t protected so maybe you can just say no. Same way you could say no to some gay organization that promotes imprisoning all the breeders or whatever.
But I think you can definitely be successfully sued if you refuse to customize/bake a cake for a Mormon couple, a black couple, a gay couple, a handicapped couple, etc.
Right. But is the government really going to get involved in the minutia of whether I should be “forced” to write “Happy 25th, Jonesboro chapter” versus “KKK Forever”? That’s where we get into way more weeds than where I think the government should be involved. Frankly, I’m just going to punt at that point and say that I have enough business, I can’t handle another big order for that day. Is the govt going to force me?
I think if you made habit of being too busy only for black, gay, whatever-religion people then yes, you could be sued and lose.
No one can prove that you said no once because you’re busy. But if there’s a pattern or any way to prove you said no because you don’t want to serve those people (with all your offered services including the custom ones) then I think yes.
The question is religion. Orthodox Jewish people and devout Muslims, along with Christians, don’t recognize gay marriage within their faiths, so that’s where the conflict comes in. I really don’t know the answer because it’s not a conflict in my denomination, but it does make me wonder after all the years of saying (and I said it too) that we just wanted all couples to have the right to be legally married, but had no interest in infringing on anyone else’s religion. It does seem like there are people intentionally seeking out Christians to impose their will upon. But they don’t seem to be doing the same to other religions which hold the same views. It makes me wonder. What I think (me, not anyone else) is that participating in any way in a wedding ceremony that you sincerely believe to be against your religious beliefs should be protected, but refusing your usual and customary service should not be protected. My denomination is strict on who can be married and in what circumstances (across the board), so it’s perfectly normal to me in my life that getting a cleric or musician to participate in your wedding (or baptism for that matter), is a privilege, not a right. It may be different in other denominations.
The Confederate flag cake is an interesting one. I’d have a real hard time baking a Confederate flag cake for someone (unless it was in a historical / educational context, I suppose). Maybe the distinction has to do with being an employer versus an employee. I suppose if I worked for Safeway and their policy was “whatever the consumer desires” I’d have to buck up and make it, but if it were PG’s Quaint Bakery Shoppe I’d have a hard time doing it.
Pretty sure the confederate flag has been deemed a hate symbol (can’t wear confederate flag clothes in schools bc hate symbol) so you could refuse to make the Confederate flag cake
If one is in a service business like a bakery or a dress maker or a florist one must follow the public accommodation laws. Your religious beliefs do not matter at all. if you never make weddings cakes or do flowers for weddings - you are not required to provide those things to anyone - but if you do provide those services you must provide them to everyone.
A kosher butcher must sell his meat to everyone but is not required to carry or sell pork to a non kosher person because he doesn’t sell pork to anyone.
If a business owner’s religion beliefs interfere with the public accomondation laws - said business person needs to find another line of work.
The peculiar thing to me about the NC law is that a transgendered man or women must use the bathroom of the gender they were born with. So, for instance, the Harvard student who transitioned to male would be required to use the ladies room in NC. Kind of bizarre since the legislation was passed to protect children from being in a bathroom with the opposite sex. The law is doing exactly what they say they are trying to protect children from.
If the Harvard student walked into a ladies room in NC (which is what the NC requires) people in that ladies room would think there was a man in there.
The thing is all the courts have already ruled that you as a vender aren’t “participating” in a wedding you are just selling a product… only a minister is participating, so if you don’t want to support a “gay wedding” then you can’t sell that product to any weddings… that is equal protection whether you like it or not.
What a slippery slope we would have if we as sellers determined what things/actions we will allow people to do with the products we sell … and that brings back Jim Crow era
Courts have ruled you don’t have to write derogatory, obscene or Hate Speech… so I’m guessing that Hitler would certainly be seen as derogatory or hate if they sued !!! and @Pizzagirl you would never ever be forced to write “KKK Forever, Down With Jews and Blacks.” bc that is derogatory … but “Congrats Mary and Susan” isn’t even if your religion thinks it is…
I think that might be a bit of a stretch. Jim Crow was a lot more than not getting a wedding cake. I happen to think that religion is something that should be considered, and I always think people of every stripe should use common sense and err on the part of avoiding ugliness. Which goes both ways. I can’t imagine that there are many places where there is only one florist or one bakery and any couple would have to single out that one establishment for conflict. I also note that it’s always been Christian establishments that are chosen. I would ask a baker/florist who was refusing to provide a particular service whether their religion really intended for them to take that stand. I would expect that very few really couldn’t do it. I would ask the couple seeking service why they had chosen that particular provider and what their actual goal was. Because I would like to know the answers to those questions.
I worked for a firm that dealt with a lot of Orthodox Jewish men in the Diamond District. They have rules for gender engagement that, frankly, can be offensive. My firm would never turn away the business, nor would I have wanted to pass on the almighty dollar, but I know that the men in question would and did turn away business because of their contact rules. They held them that sincerely. While I don’t agree, I respect and support their right to practice their religion as they do in all aspects of their lives and fight for their right to be protected.
I think it’s possible to respect that sometimes in life there are opposing views that are equally right and equally wrong and that coexistence, rather than destruction, are better options.
There are two parts to that question: I’m a lawyer, but I think my comments might confuse, rather than clarify the situation. I would like to begin by saying the cake issue and the bathroom issue are quite different, but both are more complicated than some folks realize.
The cake. I think Pizzagirl rightly points out that there is a difference between selling products or services from a place of public accommodation and providing customized services that involve some level of participation in somebody else's activities. So, I would say that at one end of the spectrum, you can't sell cookies from your bakery to whites only. On the other hand, if you are a wedding photographer, could you restrict your services to weddings performed by religious groups of which you approve? The custom cake is kind of in the middle--the degree to which the design of the cake is also "speech" is an additional complication. Is writing "All Hail the KKK" legally distinguishable from "Happy Wedding Day Mary and Sue?" Probably not--I think the Supreme Court might well rule that you can't be forced to transmit a message that you don't agree with--but that the cake itself doesn't constitute such a message. I think the Court might also rule that you can't be required to be an active participant in an activity with which you disagree. That's tougher, though, and it would be a difficult line-drawing exercise. I think most people probably would agree that ministers shouldn't be required to marry people who would not be eligible to marry under the tenets of that minister's religion. But what about wedding planners? Photographers? Caterers? Does a service provider give up his right to free association when he offers services to the public? Not so clear. I think I could write a pretty good brief on either side of this issue. And with a 4-4 Supreme Court...who knows?
The bathrooms. The discussion, and the public arguments, have been couched in terms of "gender assigned at birth" or "gender identity," etc., but let's get real: it's all about penises. Some people really and truly don't want their daughters to have to see a penis in the middle school locker room. This outlook would have been overwhelmingly mainstream just a few years ago, and it's probably still pretty mainstream now. That's why this issue has been chosen as the point of the spear for laws to restrict LGTB people. And I'm a little unclear on what the response to this penisphobia is: is it "your daughter probably won't see a penis even if a T person is using the same bathroom or locker room," or is it "your daughter should be OK with seeing a penis in the bathroom or locker room." If it's the latter, that's a hard sell, and it may explain why these laws have gotten traction. In my personal opinion, it is an issue that would benefit from thoughtful discussion and compromise, but unfortunately we're in a period now when we don't use those methods to address difficult issues. (I could probably write pretty good briefs on either side of this issue as well, particularly if the law in question was narrowly tailored to bathroom issues. The briefs would differ primarily in terms of whose right of privacy I would invoke.)
I want to add its interesting that NC has chosen in their law to not allow anyone to sue in state courts for discrimination rather than not just LGBT … so now no one in NC is protected for discrimination by state court …
@Hunt so far there hasn’t been a court ruling that has said its ok for wedding services to discriminate… i.e. photographers
I think that could easily change, with the right case and the right court. A photographer who only works Catholic weddings might be a much more sympathetic case, for example.
@zoosermom Here’s one for you… my son is gay. When roommate’s parents found out my son was gay, they told my son on the telephone that “their son would not be allowed room with my son because you are gay and being gay is not ok w their religious views”
Do you think this is ok bc of their religious views?
my son is protected by University nondiscrimination laws but do you think he shouldn’t be? This creates an inferior class who, just bc of immutable nature gets to be discriminated against
Would a service provider who exclusively works with a particular venue or house of worship be exempt from consequences if he or she only serves people getting married at that venue? It’s pretty common here (as I imagine elsewhere) that many synagogues and some larger churches have wedding planners/caterers/floral designers who only work at those locations. If my church had such providers (which it does not), could they legally turn down everyone else because they aren’t making the decision as to who gets married there? And, again, my church is pretty strict, so people do regularly get turned down.
That’s an interesting question. My best guess is that a complaint against such a person would fail, because there would be no evidence that the person intended to discriminate. You can turn down work for a good reason or for no reason–just not for a discriminatory reason. I can shut down my bakery for a month in the summer for vacation, even if that means that same-sex couples won’t be able to buy cakes from me during that period. If I shut down only during Gay Pride Week, then there might be a stronger case for a complaint.
“I think that could easily change, with the right case and the right court. A photographer who only works Catholic weddings might be a much more sympathetic case, for example.”
That is certainly grasping at straws, though. How many wedding photogs only photograph weddings of a specific religion?
Would a photographer have the right to refuse to photograph a black couples wedding because they only photograph white people’s weddings?
I don’t understand where service providers get the idea they are participants in a wedding. They are hired help - nothing more.
Does anyone know if the cake baker in Colorado who lost on appeal to the CO Supreme Court is still appealing that decision.
Another fascinating thing about the NC law ( and the MS/TN laws) is that those who support these types of laws have always maintained that if people think it’s wrong to discriminate they should just talk with their money and boycott those establishments - but I’ve been reading where these same people are calling Bruce Springsteen/Pay Pal and the rest of those who are refusing to do business in NC bullies and black mailers.