Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right

One wonders what would have happened if the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case involved not the owners refusing to be coerced to violate their religious conscience by providing a cake not to two same-sex people celebrating their union and calling it a marriage, but rather a Muslim bakery being forced to bake a cake decorated with a cartoon picture of the prophet Muhammad covered with bacon sprinkles.

  • moraywatson

    How about a cake with “Happy 7th Birthday Aisha, And A Happy 1st Anniversary Too!”

  • Drunk by Noon ✓

    Ass-cakes of oppression.

  • Hard Little Machine

    The issue isn’t the product – which in this case is materially identical to any other product they sell – it’s about who the customer is. Legally I think they go it right however the amount of the fine is absurd. It would be interesting if from a test case point of view a gay couple went to a Lebanese bakery, thinking exactly what everyone else here is thinking, only to be told that as Maronite Christians they don’t support gay marriage either. I doubt very much we’d see all this noise.

    • Manual Paleologos

      I agree, it was a predatory case.

  • It’s all about power. If it wasn’t cakes, it would be about something else.

    • UCSPanther

      Exactly. When a rabid queer wearing a shirt that reads “When you see a rainbow, God is having gay sex”, their intent is to not be inclusive, but to mock those they view as their enemies.

      And they have a very clear-cut hatred of Christianity in that vein…

      • Because they’re @$$holes.

      • Watchman

        However I must support their freedom of speech so that my freedom of speech is likewise kept free, even though I’m pretty sure such a t-shirt wearer is likely not to support my right to my freedom of speech. I’d still prefer to know what sort of person that t-shirt wearer is by them putting their views on public display. Of course, as Osumashi Kinyobe says it doesn’t make them not @ssholes at the same time.

        • Clausewitz

          Yeah but as we have seen in the past year, respecting their freedom of speech does not mean that you will be reciprocated in the same manner.

          • Watchman

            Totally agree. I still like to work with a consistent attitude towards free speech, and avoid the charge of hypocrisy. Not for them, but for my own ethical consistency.

  • Manual Paleologos

    There is a conflict between Constitutional Rights. The conflict, here, is between 14thA Equal Protection and the attendant Civil Rights laws, and 1stA right to Freedom of Speech. I don’t think Religious Freedom comes into it, as it has been rejected by SCOTUS as an attempt to circumvent the Civil Rights Act.

    The argument, I think, comes down to what comprises speech. Routine retail tasks come under the Civil Rights Act and its state analogs.You have to sell them a cake, or let them eat at your restaurant, or sleep in your motel. So, if all they are doing is piling up three cake slabs, slathering them with frosting, putting two figurines in tuxedos on top, and lettering “Best Wishes Adam and Steve,” they will lose. That is mere craft. If it is one of those super-artsy cakes you see on TV, they should win on free speech, because that is art. Compelled speech is as heinous as prohibited speech.

    Somewhere between those extremes, is a fuzzy like. I suspect that SCOTUS will leave it to the trial court to determine where that line lies.

    • DaninVan

      Having said that, Manual, it’s still unconscionable that a merchant can’t deny service to a potential customer. Restaurants and bars don’t seem to have difficulty in saying “Sorry, no.” (Not that I have been personally rejected, mind you… 😉 )
      I don’t see the Government stepping forward and making good on clients’ defaulting on payments.
      Scenario; Baker says “No.” Court says, “You have to.”
      Baker complies , client shows up, says “I don’t like it; not paying.”
      Is the Court going to fork over the money?
      I always thought it wasn’t lawful for a third party to interfere in a contract?

      • zee

        I think that’s essentially the same argument Barry Goldwater used to oppose the Civil Rights Act. The courts didn’t agree than and are’t likley to now.

        • Manual Paleologos

          And it’s been tested all the way to The Supremes.

      • Manual Paleologos

        Restaurants and bars don’t seem to have difficulty in saying “Sorry, no.”

        They can’t do that to protected groups, based on their protected status. They can eject someone for inappropriate conduct. You can’t eject a Black because he is Black, or a gay because he is gay. You can kick out all the Republicans or Democrats you want, because they are not a protected class.