She didn't have to say she wouldn't design one for a gay marriage. She just had to say that she designed websites promoting the "one man one woman" view of marriage. The gays could take it or leave it.
She didn't have to say she wouldn't design one for a gay marriage. She just had to say that she designed websites promoting the "one man one woman" view of marriage. The gays could take it or leave it.
Yea, and that wouldn't be allowed, as it would still exclude a same-sex marriage. The law is broad, and any distinction that would exclude a protected class in any way would be a violation.
I mean, it's not like we have examples of the law being used that way. Oh wait, that was actually part of the masterpiece cakeshop lawsuit, and when he informed a customer that their services only provided cakes for opposite sex weddings, he got sued and lost.
Somehow my comment about Mastercake did not post. He offered wedding cakes IN GENERAL without being specific about what themes he included. Probably because he didn't actually indicate he only did specific themes (hard to do on a cake). He wanted to refuse cakes to gays because it "endorsed" a life style he didn't approve of. He didn't lose actually--the case was remanded for technical-ish reasons. But he well and truly SHOULD have lost.
No, he was specific about it, he literally advertised on his website about it and when someone asked in the store itself, not knowing about it, he immediately informed them that his services only included opposite sex wedding cakes.
And then people who did know about it came and did similar things, and despite being aware of what the service entailed, the cakeshop was found to be in the wrong by the lower court and appeals court once again, AFTER the ruling by SCOTUS on the previous matter.
You are not seeing the distinction between advertising a specific product and refusing to serve a protected class because they have no clue that your product is indeed specific.
No, he lost on appeal. Then SCOTUS ended up stepping in. Colorado judges agreed that the law was able to force him.
And he had upon first contact with the person informed them about that. It was on his website too, but the person never visited the website, and only inquired within the store itself.
And then there were people who went out of their way, after the publicity surrounding it and knowing that the services did not include anything that went against the Christian values, requested things that went against the Christian values he held and then he was found to be guilty. This was after the SCOTUS ruling even.
The laws SHOULD have been able to force him. You can't say "I won't serve gays" if you serve anyone else. You CAN say I sell religiously themed cakes. But of course he didn't. He just discriminated. Because he didn't actually sell religiously themed cakes.
But if he HAD, he'd have been able to say "my cakes are religiously themed. Do you want one celebrating Christian views of marriage?"
That's the difference between offering a general product (a site design, a cake) and THEN refusing to do it for gays. As opposed to selling a specifically religious product.
Amazon has 104 creative signs saying "God Bless Our Home." Do you really think that those vendors are getting sued by Buddhists for "excluding" them? "
Those signs are not custom made products, but premade products. That's also a distinction. Wedding cakes in general are not premade, but custom made. The service is making the cake, not selling the cake. He designs the cake and has creative input over it. The service Amazon has is selling the signs, not making the signs.
There is a difference between a sign with a premade message that cannot be altered and a custom made product that has limitations to it. Anyone is allowed to buy those signs, and anyone is allowed to buy a custom cake as long as the design is within the specifications. The problem is, that the law prevents the specifications from excluding anything related to a protected class.
I was referring to the VENDORS being sued, not Amazon. And how do you know they are not filled with creative fervor? Something is no less creative if it is then replicated for sale. WHAT distinctions? Suppose I as a gay couple want a plain old wedding cake--hand crafted, of course, but with NO indication that there is anything "gay" about it.
Because those products are ready made in bulk, they don't custom craft each of them. That makes it a non-creative product, as there is no customization or individual input to it.
And that simply wouldn't be possible. A wedding cake represents the couple, with things that symbolize both partners. If the elements that represent the couple are fully removed, it's a fancy cake, not a wedding cake. The topper is only one part of that, and isn't needed, but things like the flavor and the design are made to represent the couple. The white icing often used for instance represents the brides purity. A wedding cake is symbolic, it has meaning, and represents the couple and their union.
So a bakery can refuse to provide a white cake when the bride isn't a virgin? If one or both are divorced? What he was saying was that all that symbolism is reserved for opposite sex couples, even if someone looking at it would have no clue that the symbolism was saying anything particular about the sex of the partners.
He didn't say "I won't serve gays", he said "I only make opposite sex wedding cakes", both in person and on his website. Gay people were allowed to buy cakes, just not a gay wedding cake, because his services did not include that.
He literally advertised that he only made opposite sex wedding cakes, and someone came to ask him for a same sex wedding cake anyway.
His reasoning behind it was that it was because it was against his beliefs, but he always advertised and made clear that his services did not include same sex wedding cakes.
Hmm. And what exactly is a "gay wedding cake?" What is an "opposite sex wedding cake?" They could buy birthday cakes, of course, but not wedding cakes. THAT is the distinction--it was the WEDDING part he was refusing to do. Even if it was a plain old wedding cake just like the straight couple next door had. Are you saying that the gay couple insisted on having two men sitting on top of the cake? I don't think they did. He could easily have advertised "I don't do wedding cakes with two men sitting on top because my cakes express a Christian View of Marriage. " A gay couple could just not have any figures on top.
A wedding cake does generally have something that symbolizes the couple on it or in it, that's what makes it a wedding cake rather than just a fancy cake. If they wanted just a fancy cake they could get one, but that wouldn't be a wedding cake. It isn't just the topper that makes it a wedding cake. There is a lot of symbolism that goes into a wedding cake, even down to the flavor and the designs.
Uh huh. So he skips the symbolism for the gay couple. Big deal. And so WHAT if they decide not to have the symbolism of two men on top? If they wanted two men they could go elsewhere. Or they could buy the cake without and put their own figures on top.
What particular "flavor and design" says "gay" on a cake?
She didn't have to say she wouldn't design one for a gay marriage. She just had to say that she designed websites promoting the "one man one woman" view of marriage. The gays could take it or leave it.
Yea, and that wouldn't be allowed, as it would still exclude a same-sex marriage. The law is broad, and any distinction that would exclude a protected class in any way would be a violation.
Sorry, don't believe the law works that way. Otherwise anyone selling a religious ANYTHING would be subject to sanctions in Colorado.
I mean, it's not like we have examples of the law being used that way. Oh wait, that was actually part of the masterpiece cakeshop lawsuit, and when he informed a customer that their services only provided cakes for opposite sex weddings, he got sued and lost.
Somehow my comment about Mastercake did not post. He offered wedding cakes IN GENERAL without being specific about what themes he included. Probably because he didn't actually indicate he only did specific themes (hard to do on a cake). He wanted to refuse cakes to gays because it "endorsed" a life style he didn't approve of. He didn't lose actually--the case was remanded for technical-ish reasons. But he well and truly SHOULD have lost.
No, he was specific about it, he literally advertised on his website about it and when someone asked in the store itself, not knowing about it, he immediately informed them that his services only included opposite sex wedding cakes.
And then people who did know about it came and did similar things, and despite being aware of what the service entailed, the cakeshop was found to be in the wrong by the lower court and appeals court once again, AFTER the ruling by SCOTUS on the previous matter.
You are not seeing the distinction between advertising a specific product and refusing to serve a protected class because they have no clue that your product is indeed specific.
No, he lost on appeal. Then SCOTUS ended up stepping in. Colorado judges agreed that the law was able to force him.
And he had upon first contact with the person informed them about that. It was on his website too, but the person never visited the website, and only inquired within the store itself.
And then there were people who went out of their way, after the publicity surrounding it and knowing that the services did not include anything that went against the Christian values, requested things that went against the Christian values he held and then he was found to be guilty. This was after the SCOTUS ruling even.
The laws SHOULD have been able to force him. You can't say "I won't serve gays" if you serve anyone else. You CAN say I sell religiously themed cakes. But of course he didn't. He just discriminated. Because he didn't actually sell religiously themed cakes.
But if he HAD, he'd have been able to say "my cakes are religiously themed. Do you want one celebrating Christian views of marriage?"
That's the difference between offering a general product (a site design, a cake) and THEN refusing to do it for gays. As opposed to selling a specifically religious product.
Amazon has 104 creative signs saying "God Bless Our Home." Do you really think that those vendors are getting sued by Buddhists for "excluding" them? "
Those signs are not custom made products, but premade products. That's also a distinction. Wedding cakes in general are not premade, but custom made. The service is making the cake, not selling the cake. He designs the cake and has creative input over it. The service Amazon has is selling the signs, not making the signs.
There is a difference between a sign with a premade message that cannot be altered and a custom made product that has limitations to it. Anyone is allowed to buy those signs, and anyone is allowed to buy a custom cake as long as the design is within the specifications. The problem is, that the law prevents the specifications from excluding anything related to a protected class.
I was referring to the VENDORS being sued, not Amazon. And how do you know they are not filled with creative fervor? Something is no less creative if it is then replicated for sale. WHAT distinctions? Suppose I as a gay couple want a plain old wedding cake--hand crafted, of course, but with NO indication that there is anything "gay" about it.
Because those products are ready made in bulk, they don't custom craft each of them. That makes it a non-creative product, as there is no customization or individual input to it.
And that simply wouldn't be possible. A wedding cake represents the couple, with things that symbolize both partners. If the elements that represent the couple are fully removed, it's a fancy cake, not a wedding cake. The topper is only one part of that, and isn't needed, but things like the flavor and the design are made to represent the couple. The white icing often used for instance represents the brides purity. A wedding cake is symbolic, it has meaning, and represents the couple and their union.
So a bakery can refuse to provide a white cake when the bride isn't a virgin? If one or both are divorced? What he was saying was that all that symbolism is reserved for opposite sex couples, even if someone looking at it would have no clue that the symbolism was saying anything particular about the sex of the partners.
He didn't say "I won't serve gays", he said "I only make opposite sex wedding cakes", both in person and on his website. Gay people were allowed to buy cakes, just not a gay wedding cake, because his services did not include that.
He literally advertised that he only made opposite sex wedding cakes, and someone came to ask him for a same sex wedding cake anyway.
His reasoning behind it was that it was because it was against his beliefs, but he always advertised and made clear that his services did not include same sex wedding cakes.
Hmm. And what exactly is a "gay wedding cake?" What is an "opposite sex wedding cake?" They could buy birthday cakes, of course, but not wedding cakes. THAT is the distinction--it was the WEDDING part he was refusing to do. Even if it was a plain old wedding cake just like the straight couple next door had. Are you saying that the gay couple insisted on having two men sitting on top of the cake? I don't think they did. He could easily have advertised "I don't do wedding cakes with two men sitting on top because my cakes express a Christian View of Marriage. " A gay couple could just not have any figures on top.
A wedding cake does generally have something that symbolizes the couple on it or in it, that's what makes it a wedding cake rather than just a fancy cake. If they wanted just a fancy cake they could get one, but that wouldn't be a wedding cake. It isn't just the topper that makes it a wedding cake. There is a lot of symbolism that goes into a wedding cake, even down to the flavor and the designs.
Uh huh. So he skips the symbolism for the gay couple. Big deal. And so WHAT if they decide not to have the symbolism of two men on top? If they wanted two men they could go elsewhere. Or they could buy the cake without and put their own figures on top.
What particular "flavor and design" says "gay" on a cake?