“SweetCakes by Melissa,” an Oregon cake bakery, is in the news after refusing to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple. The couple made a complaint to the state attorney general’s office, which is now investigating.
So is refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding illegal? Maybe so. According to Oregon Law,
…all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
So what is a “place of public accommodation,” you ask? I gotcha covered:
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private.
You can read a fuller account of what happened at The Oregonian‘s website. Everyone agrees that a customer was turned away by Aaron Klein, the co-owner of SweetCakes, because she requested a cake for her same-sex wedding. The customer claims that Aaron used insulting language like “abomination” when turning her down; Aaron denies that.
According to the Oregonian, “the attorney general’s office is waiting for Sweet Cakes’ official account of the encounter before taking action. If the agency finds cause, it has the option of filing a discrimination complaint with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries.”
According to right-wing Christian blogger Denny Burk:
Klein contends that the first amendment guarantees his right to practice his religion without interference from the government. In short, he believes that he shouldn’t have to violate his conscience by providing his services to a same-sex wedding. He claims that his Constitutional right to freedom of religion trumps Oregon state law.
My thoughts:
1) My knee-jerk reaction is a Libertarian one: If the Kleins want to refuse to sell cakes to same-sex couples, then they should have that right. There are many other bakers in the Portland/Gresham area who will happily take the business the Kleins are refusing.
2) My next thought is “where does it end”? If the Kleins can refuse to sell to a lesbian couple’s wedding based on his religious beliefs, then couldn’t another cake-maker refuse to sell to any lesbian, gay or trans person based on that cake-maker’s religious beliefs? And if cake-makers can do that, why not restaurants and hotels? And what about a shop owner who thinks God doesn’t approve of Jewish weddings, or interracial weddings, or Asians – does that merchant get an out from anti-discrimination laws, too?
What about a teacher who says that her religious beliefs don’t allow her to teach the kids of same-sex couples – should she be given an out? SSM opponents often argue that public employees like city clerks should be allowed to refuse to serve same-sex couples; if clerks can do that, why not teachers? It’s surely much harder to break your religious convictions to deal with a student for a full school year, than it is to take two minutes to put a stamp on a form.
In short, if everyone is allowed to ignore state anti-discrimination law based on their claimed personal religious beliefs, then it seems to me that anti-discrimination laws must logically be void and unenforceable.
There are, of course, some people who are opposed to all anti-discrimination laws. My suspicion, however, is that most people who think that the Kleins should be allowed to ignore discrimination law based on their religious convictions, aren’t arguing that religion should be a general “get out of anti-discrimination law free” card. Rather, they want lgbt people singled out for lesser legal protections. Very few of those who think that religious business owners should have free reign to discriminate against lesbian and gay customers think the same when you ask them about the right to discriminate against Black people or against Jews.
3) This case, and others like it, actually has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage controversy.
It’s important to recognize that the issue being argued over, when we argue about same-sex marriage, is not “do same-sex couples have the right to hold weddings and call themselves married?” No one in mainstream America, not even in the GOP, not even Brian Brown, argues against the right of two women or men to dress up in formal wear, rent a hall, and make formal vows in front of their loved ones. Lesbians and gays have the right to get married, and have been getting married for decades, long before anti-SSM activists were aware of the practice.
The actual legal controversy is, will the state recognize same-sex marriages? And that controversy is not at all relevant to what’s currently happening with SweetCakes.
In fact, legal recognition of same-sex marriages was constitutionally banned in Oregon.
Although anti-SSM activists claim events like these are the result of same-sex marriage laws, banning legal same-sex marriage doesn’t actually prevent these legal conflicts, as SweetCakes demonstrates. That’s because the relevant law here is not marriage law, but anti-discrimination law.
That’s what’s at issue here. Not the “right” for Christians like the Kleins to prevent same-sex couples from legally recognized marriages, or the “right” to prevent a gay widow or widower from benefiting from their spouse’s Social Security, or the “right” to prevent children of same-sex couples from having the benefits of married parents, or the “right” to keep international couples apart, or the “right” to prevent same-sex couples from access to the hundreds of legal rights that the Kleins have access to.
The Kleins have already won all those “rights” in Oregon, much joy may it bring them. What they want is the right to discriminate against lesbian and gay customers.
And maybe they should have that right. I’m sympathetic to the idea that small businesses – businesses that are run by the owner or owners, that have fewer than five employees – should be exempt from being seen as “public accommodations” for the purpose of anti-discrimination laws. I’m especially open to this argument in the case of people whose work is expressive, such as photographers and cake-makers.
This is a true case of “goods in conflict” – the right of discriminated against groups to be fully equal members of society everywhere in the public square, versus the right of mom-and-pop businesses to choose who to do business with.
I know some readers will disagree with me strongly. The choice to discriminate against lesbian and gay customers is harmful, and irrational, and should not be tolerated, some will say, and I have great sympathy for that view. I agree that what SweetCakes did is harmful and irrational. In the case of larger businesses, it shouldn’t be legally tolerated – corporations are too large a chunk of society to be allowed to pick and choose which Americans they’re willing to treat as equals. (If we allowed McDonalds to refuse to serve Jews, for instance, that would be too great an injury to the ability of Jews to be thought of as equal citizens.) Nor should it be tolerated in businesses that provide potentially life-saving services, such as doctors, or innkeepers.
But in the case of mom-and-pop bakeries, I think we should err on the side of legal tolerance.
I don’t for a second doubt that some lgbt people find being refused service genuinely horrible and traumatic. (The effects of small bigotries are cumulative. What feels like a polite refusal of service to Klein, may feel like the 1000th attack on a lifelong weeping wound to the customer he’s refusing.)
However, this is the sort of harm that should be addressed by reforming society, not by force of law. We cannot legislate away small harms and prejudices; we can only beat them through gradual persuasion. And gradual persuasion will only be impeded by the use of government force on tiny businesses like SweetCakes.
And yet… now that I’ve written that, I wonder about someone living in a small town. What if half the mom-and-pop businesses in a small town – a town in which virtually all the businesses are mom-and-pop stores – decided not to serve the one Muslim family in town? If we say they’re legally allowed to do that, what we’re saying is that if all the little businesses in a town agree, they can informally collude to ostracize any despised minority, turning them into second-class citizens. Why should they be allowed to do that?
It’s not as if anti-discrimination law is handed down by some unaccountable dictator. It comes from democratically elected representatives – and in Oregon’s case, it reflects the fact that most Oregonians want to live in a society with formal equality. A society in which any lesbian or gay man can walk into any store and be assured treatment that’s just as good as the treatment heterosexuals get.
And just like that, I’ve convinced myself to change my mind. I really am torn on this issue.
Categories: Civil Society, Marriage
This is no different than refusing to seat a mixed-race couple because of religious beliefs. While there are other bakers who would be more than happy to take this couple’s money, every time we face this form of discrimination it takes something out of us. It robs us of some of our ego strengths.
Then, I have come to the conclusion that people do this to create a controversy. While one might feel that such unions are sinful, what does baking a cake for them have to do with religious objection? Or driving a trolley? No. The word has gotten out that self-victimization is currency for marriage discrimination campaigns.
None of this makes a whit more sense than a Hasidic jeweler on 47th Street refusing to sell wedding bands to a Christian couple (oy veh).
Ironically, there’s nothing in the Bible or any other religious text that I know of that says you can’t bake for “sinners,” or interact with them, or conduct commerce with them. Where does the Bible say that a same-sex wedding is forbidden anyway? Does this man routinely screen his customers for whether they’ve been married before and are embarking on an adulterous marriage? Should fornicators get a pass from this baker? Decisions, decisions.
Using Jesus Christ as a front man for your personal prejudices is rather despicable, and is probably one reason so many potential converts to Christianity are turned off to it.
At least this baker isn’t in the business of making forbidden graven images, like the christian photographers we hear so much about!
I think where I would draw the line is that you could refuse to provide services for a same-sex wedding, but you should not be allowed to refuse services to a gay person who was buying cookies.
I guess this would mean that even if your religion says you should discriminate against someone just for being gay, the law says you can’t. But that if your religion says you don’t allow same sex marriage, then you don’t have to do anything to support it.
@Kevin – What if the baker did in fact refuse to make wedding cakes for people he knew had cheated together and broken up a marriage to get together? Would it be okay to refuse same sex couples then?
And what if a couple wanted to celebrate a polygamous relationship and the baker didn’t want to make their cake?
Re: None of this makes a whit more sense than a Hasidic jeweler on 47th Street refusing to sell wedding bands to a Christian couple (oy veh).
Does a Jewish publisher or printer have the right to refuse to publish/print Christian tracts explaining the beauties of Christianity?
I honestly don’t know what the law says about that, but I would think they should be able to decline that contract if they feel like it. I also don’t know if the two are quite comparable (there are obvious speech and expression issues involved in publishing or printing literature, which there aren’t in the case of baking a cake or selling a wedding band).
Hector_St_Clare:
A publisher is not a public accommodation. The answer to your question is “probably.” It skirts the issue.
There is nothing inherently religious about baking cakes, driving a trolley or taking pictures. There is no reason for a religious exemption. But there is more to this.
Does this baker inquire if he is baking a cake for a couple where both partners have been married before? All these people seem to have different OT’s than I have. Mine does not have a passage of Leviticus underlined, italicized or highlighted in yellow. Why is the gay so special? The answer to that is simple (IMHO). Gay rights and opposition to gay rights are political enterprises.
I think, Barry, that a good rule of thumb for “expressive” businesses might be: could you/would you have done exactly the same work for a different client? (If the client were a male, or a Jew, or Irish, etc.)
So, it makes sense for a baker to be able to say, “I will not write ‘Happy F*cking Birthday” on a cake, because that is not a message my bakery wishes to send on its cakes.”
But it is unreasonable for a baker to say,”I will write ‘Happy Birthday’ on a cake for a white child, but not on a cake for a black child.” There’s a difference between expressing yourself through art and attempting to regulate the race/gender/religion of the people who can appreciate that art.
If you are willing to bake a lemon poppy cake for a straight wedding, but you won’t bake exactly the same cake for a gay wedding, then it’s not reasonable to say that your cake-baking, in and of itself, is expressive activity. Your concern is your audience, not your art.
Diane M:
If you do not want to serve all comers then you should not be in that kind of business. It really is that simple. There is no line. If I own a coffee shop or a bakery I have to serve Klansmen.
Keep in mind that people who did not want to serve blacks in the south often cited religious reasons. I can find a religious reason for just about anything. These controversies stem from animus.
My compromise is that if the work that is being performed is explicitly religious in nature, then it gets an exemption. Otherwise, no. Historically, we know what this looked like; it’s why we have the Civil Rights Act. Had the Civil Right Act not existed, our public sphere would be a lot more white and male than it is.
Barry, the force of law is exactly what opened up change in the public sphere. Having that force of law to break down the barriers is what made it possible for marginalized people to create the changes in attitudes over time. Had that not happened….we’d still be living under the conditions of the past. I never could have changed the attitudes of tradesmen who were opposed to women being in the trades had I not had the force of law to allow me to be there to begin with.
My father related this to me almost 50 years ago. Yet, I can tell you exactly where we were and what we were doing so it obviously made an impression on me.
My father, the proud Chairman of the Board of a casualty insurance company, was checking into a hotel in Roanoke. He had reserved a suite. The guy at the front desk said “Hart, is that short for Hartman?” My father said no. Are you asking me if I am Jewish?” This went back and forth until my father said “are you saying that you don’t have a room for me?” The answer was “I would be happy to make a reservation elsewhere.”
The bottom line to all of this is that my father was trying to check into a “Christian” hotel. This is why we have no exceptions in current law. If I open a restaurant, I have to serve skinheads.
I agree, Barry, that this is often a complicated line to draw. One thing that jumps out at me is this: that if the bakery owners had simply not wished to serve the couple (by filling their order) due to private principles, they could have found a gracious way to say “no.” My wife and I got married at a local coffee shop last fall. When we emailed the owner of the shop to ask if they would host the wedding, she was tearfully pleased to provide us the space. But if she had not wanted to host our wedding, she could have simply said that space or scheduling would not allow for it. The fact that the couple reported explicit discrimination based on their same-sex status means that the bakery owners felt like it was important to make their reasoning explicit.
I’m not sure how that fits into a legal framework. Obviously, if it were only illegal to discriminate if you SAID it was discrimination based on sexual orientation, then people wishing to discriminate would just come up with “polite” reasoning not to serve their queer customers. But I guess I’d be willing to let the onus be on the customers to make the case that they were discriminated against based on their class status (i.e. homosexuality) rather than the business simply not having the means to serve them?
Gah. Complicated.
“@Kevin – What if the baker did in fact refuse to make wedding cakes for people he knew had cheated together and broken up a marriage to get together? Would it be okay to refuse same sex couples then?”
I’d be more comfortable with these supposed religious expressions being more about religion than being about personal disapproval of gay people. But the fact remains, there is no biblical directive to take action against people you perceive to be sinning, that I know of, in commercial interactions. And in this particular case, I don’t know of the biblical passage that says same-sex marriage is sinful.
It makes sense that a cleric might not want to bless the marriage, if he feels that same-sex marriage is contrary to biblical instructions. But cake baking isn’t a religious ritual. Neither is photography, which, as I’ve noted, violates one of the Ten Commandments prohibiting the creation of graven images. Of the many absurdities and indignancies inflicted on gay people by Christians, the Christian wedding photographer is a real keeper. You can’t make this stuff up!
I have strong concerns over a businessman determining how to conduct his business, based on who the customer is. Many, if not most, states agree, and have prohibitions against denying services or products to customers, based on who they are. Permitting businesses to decide whom they may serve, based on who they are, or what they plan to do with the purchased product, is generally illegal.
Where does it end? Can a Christian rental car company refuse to rent to the straight couple in town to attend their lesbian daughter’s wedding? Can a Christian power company shut off power to the building where a gay wedding is scheduled to occur, in order to stop it? Can a “catholic” employer stop paying (in essence, fire) an employee who admits to purchasing birth control with his or her salary? Can a “catholic” hospital refuse to allow unsupervised visits to unmarried woman patient by adult males, for fear of pre-marital sexual interaction, particularly if that male is the live-in boyfriend of the patient? The mind boggles at all the possibilities, and how inconsistently religious doctrine is applied.
The fact is, straight “sinners” receive quite a bit of accommodation from religious folks; gay “sinners” do not, and I don’t know why. It makes no sense, since there is no biblical directive to distinguish between the two kinds of “sinners.”
You asked, and I rarely have a yes or no answer!
Two questions from dinner table conversation:
Would the baker refuse to make a cake for someone having a wedding of a different religion from him? (Since the wedding ceremony wouldn’t be his religion.)
How much a part of the wedding is a cake? In other words, does it matter if you are making something that is actually used to help the people get married in some way/is part of the religious service or if it is just part of the party afterwards?
Diane, when you’re ready to blog as the Dinner Table Conversation reporter (seriously), let me know. I love it.
Here’s my dream scenario #1: Brad and Angelina finally set the date, with plans for the ultimate wedding and enormous publicity for any business providing services for the wedding: music, cakes, flowers, whatever. They ask a “Christian” photographer, who regretfully declines the business, despite all the great publicity, because Brad and Angie are adulterers, having each been previously married. Obviously, a Christian photographer can’t participate or facilitate a wedding between adulterers! Now that’s a story I want to read!
Dream scenario #2: a Christian cake baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for his daughter, or even attend her wedding, because she had premarital sex and is therefore ineligible to marry. Ideally, the faithful father of the bride will reach his decision at the last minute, the day of the wedding, so he can ruin his daughter’s memorable day! Sometimes you have to hurt the ones you love, in order to please God! But this kind of drama is probably what’s needed, to get the attention of non-believers, and get them to do the right thing!
Hi Kevin– I wouldn’t want a dad to do that to his daughter, but yes, if a business person-believer wanted to cite the ten commandments which mention adultery prominently, well, that would make some sense, wouldn’t it?
God is displeased with the 49ers! He made the power go out in the Super Dome!
Unfortunately that means I can now make even more comments here!
Elizabeth, I don’t know that it makes sense….the business isn’t facilitating the adultery, and I don’t believe there’s a biblical principle that says you can’t do business with sinners. That’s a made up concept, from the little I know about the Bible or other religious texts.
What do you make of the Mormon couple who has dinner guests and serves their guests coffee with dessert? Are they displeasing the Lord? I had a Mormon girlfriend in high school. I remember the time I popped open a coke and then started apologizing profusely for drinking a caffeinated beverage in front of her. She laughed enormously, explaining that I can do whatever I want; she just isn’t allowed to drink a caffeinated beverage, according to her religious beliefs. If memory serves, she had no problem buying a coke for me, touching a coke can, or otherwise interacting with a caffeinated beverage.
Have any religious leaders weighed in on withholding commercial support for gay people?
It’s a pretty superficial belief that you can’t bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, frankly. It made be sincerely held and all that but it’s still a fundamentally silly objection. What, you won’t get into Heaven is God finds out you baked a cake for a same-sex wedding or commitment ceremony?
Kevin, I think you’re misinterpreting religious beliefs. People can have religious beliefs that aren’t spelled out in a particular religious text. They might be things that you figure out from principles in the texts. They might be based on teachings of religious leaders or scholars over the years. They might come from new revelations.
I get the principle of not wanting to do business with someone you believe is doing wrong. You might want to show disapproval or you might just want to disassociate yourself from them.
I think that’s why I have trouble with this particular question. On the one hand, I think it’s discrimination not to sell the women the cake. On the other hand, I can imagine not wanting to do something that was cooperating with a person I thought was doing wrong. Sometimes refusing to cooperate is a way to stand up to wrong – although usually this is done for things other than sexual issues.
Diane, I am completely indifferent to religious beliefs themselves, but when those beliefs are translated into actions that perpetrate an indignity on someone, I don’t think much of them.
Gay people are disproportionately on the receiving end of Christian-based actions. Why aren’t fornicators and adulterers ever chastised and denied commercial services?
After years of rancor and animosity, Christians have made their peace with Jews, who specifically reject the notion of Jesus Christ as anybody special, let alone a savior with a miraculous life story. In fact, there appears to be a new religion, called “Judeo-Christian.” I can’t begin to imagine what its beliefs are, considering the Jews consider Jesus Christ basically a troublemaker, nothing more, and Jesus Christ basically said the Jewish beliefs were pretty much misguided.
Isn’t time Christians bury the hatchet regarding homosexuality and gay people?
I think there’s a danger to trivializing a faith with protestations about wedding cakes. I can’t claim to care a whole lot about what becomes of Christianity but these Christian photographer/baker/candlestick maker stories that make the news are bad PR, in my opinion. My understanding is that Christians are tasked to evangelize the faith, both by living by example, and not doing stuff that ends up turning people off to it.
Kevin,
I agree with you that ‘Judeo-Christian’ is a meaningless term. It was invented to paper over real distinctions between Jews and Christians (and between Christians groups) to maintain the fiction of an united front against the atheistic Soviet menace. And it should really be retired. Judaism probably has more in common with Islam than either of them has to Christianity.
Re: Christians have made their peace with Jews, who specifically reject the notion of Jesus Christ as anybody special, let alone a savior with a miraculous life story.
Well, sort of- Christians have made their peace with Jews *in the public square*, and most businesses can’t discriminate on the basis of religion. But you still have every right to believe and preach that Judaism is false, etc. (and I’d assume that most Christian churches do).
Of course, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is illegal in Oregon. I hope that the state fines the baker and makes him sign a consent decree to obey the law in the future in order to keep his business license.
But the whole thing is silly. What really should happen is that people of good sense will simply quit doing business with the bigot.
I guess I kind of see this issue as a First World Problem.
Like, I’m an attorney and I get the legal principles involved and am receptive to the “where does it end” point. But, I’ve felt that if a company wouldn’t bake my partner and I a cake because we’re gay, it would likely hurt our feelings, but I wouldn’t want to support that business anyway.
And, to the business owner- is it really such a grave harm to serve a gay couple? Now, do we expect NOM to make this bakery, like, the new spokesperson for how Christians are “victimized” by gay people?
In instances like these, I’m just left wondering, is this really about a cake or is this about scoring points against the opposition? These skirmishes are, to me, an aspect of the Gay Culture Wars that get really tiresome and toxic.
in Jewishlaw there is a concept of not enabling a sin but one could argue that the marriage is not a sin its just invalid. or that eating the cake is npt a sin. lots of ways to get out of it.
Barry,
I agree with you that force of law is not the best solution to this scenario, rather a broad public cultural shift away from sectarian views of society and who we associate with is needed. For me, a person of faith refusing to engage with people (in this case by engaging in commercial activity) who disagrees with them doesn’t have a healthy view of how to live a public faith. I have respect for Orthodox Jewish communities and some fundamentalist Christian sects who actively set themselves apart and seek to maintain closed communities because they believe that is best, but for anyone not going to that extreme and actively isolating themselves from all others (pursuing the private life), there needs to be an understanding that living in the world actually requires living in the world even if that means being exposed to others belief systems, activities, and people who make one uncomfortable.
I support anti-discrimination laws that compel places of public accommodation (even small businesses) to be accommodating because I think it is too difficult to construe such laws without setting dangerous precedents which erode the foundations of all anti-discrimination law. And I’ll note that individuals are still free to speak their minds, so a cake baker can make it very clear to a gay couple that they don’t approve of their wedding, even while baking a cake for (and this will probably be enough for that couple to take their custom elsewhere, which no one would blame them for.)
You make an interesting point about communities where many small businesses might collude to deny services to a minority family. This is the perfect example of why accommodation laws are necessary and how the serve a narrow purpose and don’t accomplish what we truly want, a more open and welcoming society. Accommodations laws provide access to essential services, not the assurance that the minority family will suddenly experience their community as more inviting. The law can guarantee that they can survive in any community that they settle in, not that they will find an environment in which to thrive. This is a hard reality, but one that the state isn’t equipped to battle. It is one thing for businesses to grudgingly allow a minority to do business with them “because I’m forced to by the law” and another for a business owner to realize that they are willing to do business with all their neighbors because this provides an opportunity to form civic relationships with a diverse customer base and to model personal ethics in their business practices in a way that creates thoughtful exchanges of ideas and beliefs. Once we get to that mindset, then the community becomes a place where all minorities might feel welcomed and included…but most of our communities are a far way from that ideal.
Sigh. There are three aspects to the public sphere: the political, the economic, and the social. I dislike libertarianism because of its de-facto support of hegemony; libertarianism says that the State, which should be of the people and by the people, should only exercise power to insure that individual citizens have political rights, like the right to vote, run for office, sign petitions, etc. There should be no exercise of power by the State (the State being composed of the will of presumably all its citizenry) to insure that individual citizens have the right to public participation in the economic or social sphere because it would be an infringment upon the right of free association.
Power isn’t just exercised by the State. The State is merely an instrument of power, arguably controlled by persons and entities of greater economic power. In order to have a civil society, one in which all of its people have meaningful access to contribute to and benefit from The Commons, everyone needs to have the same access to the public sphere—and yes, that includes businesses open to the public.
It is not “first world problems” to allow businesses open to the public to discriminate against groups or individuals based on their identity. To do so would effectively shut those marginalized persons out—and not just in small towns. It is not hyperbole to wonder “where does it end?” Critical mass matters in ensuring the basic human rights of marginalized people. Such people can concentrate themselves in a geographic area and thus hope to gain enough control over the public sphere to eke out a liveable position, or it can come from the rule of law—their voice as citizens—such as the Civil Rights Act that imposes conditions of equality in the public sphere.
The trickle-down theory of social change is just as worthless as the trickle down theory of economics. If you eliminate a person’s ability to participate economically and socially, you have eliminated almost all of their ability to create change. It’s easy to look at this case and say, “well, where they live, they have other choices” or “well, if you aren’t being treated like a human being where you live, the problem is you for not moving elsewhere.”
Please explain to me why the burden should be on marginalized people to either move or suck it up and recognize that they shouldn’t have full public access (something that is normally reserved only as punishment for those who have broken the law). Why shouldn’t the burden instead be on business owners who want to discriminate? Why shouldn’t they have to shift their line of work to the private sphere, since it is they who feel the need to deviate from equal treatment?
Of course, I’m being overly hard on the Christian baker, who may literally feel he would be offending God if he provided something to the (secular!) post-wedding celebration we call the reception. He has a conscience, something crucial to a moral society, I would think. I’d like to see him apply his Christian conscience objections more broadly and consistently, perhaps by posting a sign in his shop stating that he doesn’t serve gay people, fornicators, adulterers, Jews, or other groups that fall short of New Testament ideals. I think his business would collapse but that’s a small price to pay for eternal salvation, I would think.
How does the conscience of a Christian who, say, works at a gun factory or sell guns work? He’s creating an instrument of death, and he can’t control how it’s used. Is a gun factory worker answerable to God if the gun he produced ended up killing a teenage girl in Chicago?
I would love to know what religious leaders have to say about the conduct of commerce and the practice of faith.
I definitely agree with fannie that prior to any sort of legal action, just taking our dollars elsewhere seems like the best solution! Like, if someone is that oppossed to my life choices, I’m not really interested in having an interaction with them where I pay them to do anything for me!
I guess, to me, the bigger-picture question is whether the needs of a given population are being met, right? And how those needs are going to be met. So for example obviously I don’t to be treated by an anti-gay medical professional. But what if I live in an area of the country where the ONLY doctors in my health insurance plan (assuming I have one) are socially conservative? Should they, then, be required to treat me, and treat me respectfully, because otherwise I a) would be without healthcare, or b) have to pay out of pocket and travel extensively for respectful medical attention?
I’d argue that as a legal-social issue, what we should be centering is the ability of the marginalized (in this case LGBT couples) to have reasonable access to the same services as the non-marginalized (hetero couples). I don’t think that issue, per se, is a question that concerns only privileged folks. Often, it’s the less-privileged folks who have fewer options in terms of just taking their business elsewhere, so. Even though this feels like a somewhat trite issue because cupcakes! the underlying question of who gets to deny whom services and under what circumstances does have wider implications for social equality.
I just think it reinforces the notion of inferiority for certain groups of people. Having laws doesn’t prevent all instances of hatred (just ask a lesbian couple I am friends with who were told by the police not to call them anymore, in response to homophobic neighbors shooting bullets at their home…..something they declined to pursue because (a) their word against police, (b) bullet holes in their neighborhood could be explained away as general neighborhood crime/vandalism, (c) who has the money for an attorney?, and (d) high general level of homophobia in our city and surrounding community. “Just move” isn’t an option because of pesky little things like jobs, mortgage, not wanting to uproot and start over due to age); what it does do is provide the ability to pursue action against unequal treatment despite the logistical inability to amass local allies, and provides a bedrock of humanity and how human beings are to be treated by this society.
Frankly, I’m not in favor of spending money with bigots. However, unless I’m a target of those bigots, how would I know about it? I live in a community that has big problems with racism, sexism and homophobia. I am always privy to sexist bigots, since I’m easily recognizable as a woman. I’m sometime privy to who is racist, because I am sometimes read as a woman of color (mostly Latina)….but since most of the racism in my community is anti-black, I don’t experience it. Public demonstrations against homophobia are a rarity in my community (mostly when Westboro rolls through; it’s noncontroversial to demonstrate against them). Would I find out from friends or acquaintances? Maybe. But see, that level of targeted hatred in a society diminishes human relations. It’s very draining for marginalized people to experience a constant level of dehumanization both major and minor. It breaks down a person’s level of trust.
La Lubu,
I agree with you that a legal system that enables discrimination against disfavored minority groups reinforces the notion of the inferiority of these groups. And, to clarify my earlier comment, I don’t think all cases like this are “First World Problems.” I just think this particular one is.
I’m not opposed to these types of lawsuits (or discrimination laws) in all cases, I just sometimes question the political and legal strategy of suing.
I think, in those who are anti-gay and discriminatory, these types of lawsuits can breed resentment, because people are being “forced” to serve people they don’t want to serve. It can make them center their own sense of “being persecuted” and “victimized” by the government or by The Gays for not being able to determine who they can sell their cupcakes to.
There seem to be many Christians in the US who think they gay people are disproportionately powerful while Christians are a disfavored, persecuted minority. I’m wary of how these cases play into that mindset.
Anna, you make a good point, in my opinion, when bringing up, say, the issue of a bigoted doctor. I have been to an anti-gay OB/GYN and I would never want to have that experience again. Nor would I want to, say, have a wedding in a facility owned by people who actively resented my relationship or presence. To me, the psychological harm of engaging with such people, being “served” by them, and giving them my money is worse than the psychological harm of them discriminating against me.
It’s like, “fine, discriminate against me, because there’s a more clear case of you looking like a bigot.”
In our very pro-capitalist, pro-corporation society, these lawsuits forcing people to serve those they don’t want to serve muddy the waters, in many people’s opinions, on who is victimizing who. When weighing the “competing goods” of the value of non-discrimination versus the value of corporate rights (or religious freedom), the latter often come out ahead.
I think cakes and such should be rather neutral and therefore subject to regular discrimination law (assuming sexual orientation is a protected category).
But what about something personal, like pyschotherapy?
Say a deeply religious psychotherapist who strongly believes that their religion is the one and only way. Wouldn’t it be more ethical for them not to accept clients who didn’t wish to be part of that religion in the first place?
In the same way wouldn’t it be more ethical for them not to accept gay couples if they were anti gay marriage? than to force them to accept everyone?
but then how does one draw the line between what is or isn’t acceptable?
I think, in those who are anti-gay and discriminatory, these types of lawsuits can breed resentment, because people are being “forced” to serve people they don’t want to serve.
Who cares? Seriously, where have we ever gotten anywhere coddling bigots and hoping that if we ask them nicely they’ll behave better? Substitute “racist” for “anti-gay” in your comment there, and see how well that applies as an argument against ending Jim Crow laws.
“But what about something personal, like pyschotherapy?”
What’s “personal” about psychotherapy? It’s a job. What possible religious convictions are compromised when a therapist practices therapy?
There have been court cases where Christian therapists have sued for the right to not have to treat gay people, based on religious reasons, and they’ve rightfully lost. In fact, therapy should be anything BUT personal: you shouldn’t be injecting yourself into your client’s needs. If you have personal reservations that can affect your ability to administer therapy, find another line of work.
“Who cares? Seriously, where have we ever gotten anywhere coddling bigots and hoping that if we ask them nicely they’ll behave better?”
I’m not sure that’s an accurate representation of my position, mythago. It’s kind of simplistic where I was making (or thought I was making) a more nuanced argument.
I think it’s smart to be mindful of how our tactics look not only to bigots, but also to more reasonable people. And, I think many reasonable people are sympathetic to people who want to run their businesses with minimal government influence. (I’m thinking of Republican and Libertarian friends and family members who are, say, generally supportive of LGBT equality but who see this as a “religious freedom” or “business rights” issue rather than primarily an equality issue).
When these lawsuits are filed, it plays right into the anti-gay script of how the Normal People are going to lose all of their rights when LGBT people obtain equality and greater acceptance. I’m not saying I oppose all of these types of lawsuits, it’s just evidence that, well, if anything there actually is no One Big Gay Agenda.
As for asking bigots “nicely” for things? I do support trying to make peace with people who oppose equality, but I think it’s an oversimplification to say that I think that approach involves primarily sitting around “asking nicely” for things. It involves, I would say, dialogue and oftentimes-difficult conversations.
Yet, I also know that with respect to some people, this approach probably will never work in the real world. I’m not hopelessly naive. Just hopeful.
So, I’m also in favor of boycotts and peaceful demonstrations. And, on that point, I know bigots don’t think those tactics are very “nice” (well, at least when pro-LGBT people engage in them).
It just seems like an unrealistic false dichotomy to suggest that we either have to (a) support 100% of these lawsuits 100% of the time or else we (b) just sit around asking nicely for stuff and hope bigots change their minds.
@fannie, whereas I think it is an unrealistic and false dichotomy to say that we must choose between a) engaging in dialogue and informal action like boycotts and b) refusing to enforce the law because we’re timidly avoiding even a 1% risk of offending 1% of “reasonable” people.
(I mean, this isn’t even a lawsuit. This is an investigation of whether a law was violated at all, and the investigators are waiting to hear from the company in question to decide if it was. If so, then it becomes an administrative complaint.)
But let me turn this around on you: if, as you say, “reasonable” people are going to be gulled by the scripts of bigots and liars, then the solution isn’t to refrain from using the law. The solution is dialogue and public speech. Ask those reasonable people, shouldn’t we follow the law? If there is a law that says a business must do X, shouldn’t agencies tasked with upholding the law do so impartially, instead of picking and choosing about which laws “really” count? If SweetCakes were instead refusing to sell to an interracial couple, would that be all right? If the people of Oregon don’t want to force businesses to serve people of the “wrong” race, or gender, or sexual orientation, shouldn’t the people of Oregon change the law?
Re: I definitely agree with fannie that prior to any sort of legal action, just taking our dollars elsewhere seems like the best solution! Like, if someone is that oppossed to my life choices, I’m not really interested in having an interaction with them where I pay them to do anything for me!
I actually don’t particularly object to the nondiscrimination laws type thing in principle (as Kevin says, if you’re required to serve Jews by law, then why not gays too), but this seems like a good compromise, where possible. If someone has strong moral objections to gay marriage, then it seems to be like the polite thing to do, *where possible* would be to not require them to violate their conscience. Even where you have the legal right to do so.
I wonder if the businesses who wish not to bake cakes or take photos for gay couples would be willing to identify themselves as such so that those of us who didn’t wish to do business with them could make an informed decision about where we spend our dollars.
Peter Hoh,
I’m sure they’d find plenty of business elsewhere.
It seems to me, in this case, it’s not only bad business to discriminate against customers, it’s bad religion. A wedding cake is not a religious symbol and neither is a post-wedding reception. There’s nothing inherently religious about earning a living baking things. Considering all this, it’s downright comical to think that he’s serving some religious belief by not baking a wedding cake for a gay event, marriage or otherwise. Genuinely faithful people should be appalled at these kinds of misguided religious eruptions.
Whatever it is you think the Bible says about gay people, it hasn’t declared war on gay people the way that many Christians want to believe. There is no prohibition against being a part of anything gay-related.
Peter Hoh, I think the state should force business owners with discriminatory customer policies to have to post those policies for all customers to see. I suspect a lot of customers who themselves aren’t subject to the discrimination will also find those policies objectionable, and patronize a different store.
Put your discrimination policy in writing, for the public to see. And let the public decide whether to buy from you or not. If it’s not in writing, plainly visible to all customers, then you can’t discriminate.
[...] (to say nothing of vandalism, death threats, violence and other “brownshirt” tactics) against businesses and other entities (including churches) which refuse service based on the owners’ religious [...]