Gender identify is not a choice and it is not a sexual orientation. So what is he going to claim this time - that being transgender is against his religious beliefs?
And from what I read the cake is not decorated – it’s one color on the inside and another on the outside.
I’m not sure if you’re being serious. I’m going link you the full text of the law. It’s 5 pages. Maybe you’ll be able to articulate your outrage in a more precise way.
Funny. Sexual orientation is protected. If being a tranny is not sexual orientation, the tranny isnt covered.
Fortunately for the tranny… you are wrong. Not that it makes any difference. The cake baker did not discriminate againt the tranny. He would have sold the tranny a cake. NEXT CASE.
You know what you wrote. Don’t play games. You used the pejorative five times in your short response. That means you have no interest in a serious discussion.
I know what the law says and I’m not “outraged.”
What stops a person who subscribes to a wacko religion from claiming his religion forbids creating a cake for a straight couple?
I realize it’s not going to happen. But the question is fair.
His denial was not based on the customers sexual orientation, it was based on a moral objection to the purpose and meaning of the requested item, the same way a tattoo artist would deny a request for a tattoo representing white supremacy or a restaurant would deny a request for a kill the N word burger. The item requested isn’t the issue, the moral objection to the request is.
Imagine, man selling custom hotdogs, Hi, I would like a kill children hot dog please. No. Membership in a protected class does not make you immune from being denied a morally offensive(to the person you made the request to) request.
Nazi “Hello Starbucks barista, I would like a white supremacy latte please.”
Barista “No, you are disgusting”
Nazi “But I am gay and in a protected class you have to give me a white supremacy latte”
Well that is a funny argument. But in our wacky world, it could happen. Although in your example you are talking about an item that’s not on the menu. In the case of the bakers, there is no “menu.” Pretty much everything is custom.
The SCOTUS ruling, to me, was based on the specific facts and is not binding precedent. The major theory of the ruling is that Phillips was treated unfairly by a hostile State Commission that failed to objectively consider his claim of religion freedom. Would the ruling have been different if the Commission appointed an objective arbiter who had made the same ruling against Phillips?
And are you saying that religious freedom does NOT create a license to discriminate against any person on the basis of mere sexual orientation so long as it is rationally religious based?
It is not legal in Colorado and would not be upheld by scotus to discriminate against any protected class but that isn’t what happened, the discrimination was against a request that was morally repugnant to the artist. Had he said, I don’t serve transgenders he wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on.
If the baker sincerely believes that, the government can’t do much about it. There’s nothing illegal about refusing to make a custom order. If he uses that belief to bar them from the establishment completely or refuses to sell them anything, that’s different.