Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Catholic_Lady]

Fair enough. Being legally allowed to refuse services if it is for hate groups makes sense.

How do you personally feel about what lies in the middle?

Examples:

-Refusing to make a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony.
-Refusing to make a cake for a pro life or pro choice fundraiser.
-Refusing to make a cake for a Catholic infant baptism.
-Refusing to make a cake for a campaign fundraiser for a political candidate you oppose.

Again, this is all assuming the cakes are generic and the Baker only knows because the information was voluntarily relayed to him by the customer without him asking.

The only one I feel could be remotely justified would be the one for the circumcision, as it could be regarded as an endorsement of infant genital mutilation. But there is no way to put it into law so idk. Maybe that's why wiggle room is needed and lawsuits like this need to happen. Some cases have to be evaluated individually.

The other cases are comparatively minor political/philosophical disagreements. I personally wouldn't care, take the money and do the damn job. It's a cake. As long as it's not for Nazis, it's fine.

(my bold)

...And therein lies the problem. Many people don't consider male circumsicion genital mutilation, and many people don't consider abortion killing a human life. And many DO consider them those things. As an example, I would be ok with making a cake for a Jewish circumcision ceremony, but would be horrified at the thought of making one for a pro choice fundraiser.

I say if you owned a bakery, you should be allowed to refuse the circumcision cake. And if I owned a bakery I should be allowed to refuse the abortion cake. Both can be legally refused, along with the other examples.

It wouldn't really be fair for the government to arbitrarily deem one ok to be refused and not the other. It has to be more objective than that.

That's personally why I still feel the best way to handle all this is to allow for a Baker to refuse services for any cause/event they morally and/or religiously oppose... accross the board. So long as it is the cause/event itself that is being opposed, and not because they have anything against the people themselves.

Of course, there would still be certain cases where someone might *claim* they oppose an event for moral reason, when really they are discriminating against the *person* (like in Tib's example of a black person graduating college). And the courts would have to figure it out for those off the wall cases.

But I still think it is overall more practical and objective to allow refusal of events/causes across the board (and deal with the off the wall scenarios like mentioned above) than to have it be like "well, some events/causes are ok to refuse services for... but some are not...."