SCOTUS Strikes Again!

I love Chik-Fil-A spicy chicken deluxe sandwiches. My GF refuses to set foot on any Chik-Fil-A property. Different strokes for different folks. She’s the LGBTQ activist and I’m the quiet girl who stands beside her and no longer buys from Chik-Fil-A (eh, my spicy chicken cravings usually came on Sunday’s anyway 🙄).

So as you can imagine, our opinions on the recent news that SCOTUS will be hearing another LGBTQ-related case are quite divergent.

Back in 2018 the Court decided that while a Colorado baker could not refuse to serve LGBTQ clientele, they could refuse to put two brides or two grooms on a cake. I agreed with this ruling and my GF strongly disagrees. In that case, the Court ruled that forcing the baker to create custom cake designs that were contrary to his/her religious views would violate their freedom of religion. I agree. But two gay guys come in to buy some cupcakes and they cannot be refused service. A bakery is a public accommodation.

So, now this new case … A Colorado web developer wants to expand her business into wedding websites but is concerned that she will land on the wrong side of Colorado’s public accommodation law. I think the same logic should apply: Two people come to you for a website, you cannot refuse service because of who they are (gay, straight, bi, black, Muslim, whatever). But if because of your personal beliefs you choose not to offer websites that show happy gay couples, then I don’t feel the law should force you to.

Oh, but what about black couples or biracial couples or minority religious couples? It gets messy, right?

It does, but then, the law is always messy. And in this case, if a baker or a photographer or a website designer decided that they only offered their creative services depicting white Anglo-Saxon protestant artistry, then I would hope that the market would crush them out of business but I would not empower the government to do so.

Your thoughts?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

KarateAaron · 46-50, M

Sorry, Sara, but I agree with your girlfriend on this issue. When a business is open to the public, it should have to serve the entirety of the public, without discrimination. There is no functional difference between putting two groom figurines on the top of a wedding cake versus putting one groom figurine and one bride figurine. The cake maker is putting two figurines at the top of the cake. With a website, the same is true from a functional perspective -- a photo is a photo (whether it has one man and one woman, or two women). A photographer who is open to the public for business would be in violation of anti-discrimination laws if he were to say, for example, that he would only photograph white people, and not photograph black people. The same should be true for sexual orientation. What if the school yearbook photographer refused to take the photo of any students who were openly gay/lesbian? Should those students be excluded from the yearbook because photographing them violated some alleged "religious belief" of the school photographer?

While it is nice to think that the market would crush people who discriminate, it does not always work that way. The market is not a good tool for regulating against discriminatory behavior. This generally isn't a problem in a big city (like Los Angeles, where I live) -- if there is a jerk photographer who refuses to photograph a gay wedding, the couple could hire another photographer. The same is true of a jerk wedding cake maker here in Los Angeles. Given the huge size of L.A., it is not difficult to find multiple different vendors for a particular task. However, in small towns, there may only be a small handful of photographers, wedding cake makers, etc. Thus, a gay couple in a small town may have no options for these services. And every gay or lesbian couple in a small or rural area should not be forced to have to travel to a big city to get married.

The same arguments were made against desegregation -- i.e., that the market would find a way. But in certain areas, no restaurants were willing to serve food to black people. It wasn't reasonable for those folks to never be able to eat a meal out, or only eat out when they travel to a big city, etc.. If a business is open to the public, then they should not be allowed to discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. (i.e., any of the protected classes).

I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that. I generally agree with you about most things, but on this one, I have to side with your GF. Sorry!

SW-User

@KarateAaron

.. If a business is open to the public, then they should not be allowed to discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. (i.e., any of the protected classes).

So your good with shutting down all the Ladies Only clubs, gyms, etc?

MethDozer · M

@KarateAaron How far does it go though?

Are they obligated then to put an image of Satan?

Is an artist obligated to paint naked dicks if they do custom work?
Should a gay atheist artist be forced to paint a protrsit of Jesus when they find the religion offensive to their personal struggle?

The bakery was made to not discriminate in that they nade the cake. The couple can decorate it however they like. The service was provided in that they were rightfully made to bake the cake. Getting testy over the couple having to place their own plastic charm on it isn't realy denying any service.