MORE ON THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE

I did a post a while back about a Colorado cake shop that refused to make a cake for an LGBT wedding. They said it violated their right to free speech. The judge ruled against the cake shop, saying that by refusing to make ANY cake they were guilty of discrimination against a protected group of people. Colorado had extended rights of public accommodation to LGBT.

Well, a Religious group has tried to put the law to the test in their own way. They ordered a cake from a gay baker at the Azacar Bakery with an anti gay message on it, and when the gay baker refused to make the cake, they tried to sue. And failed. Apparently they never read the judges ruling:
"it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

I'm amazed that people are talking about this as though they know something about it without ever having read the judges ruling on the case.  If they would simply do that, some of the nonsense might stop, and we could get headed in the direction of a good solution and compromise.

I was impressed with the Azacar Bakeries response to the request. They refused to make the cake with the anti-gay message, but they did agree to make the cake without the message and to provide the materials where the purchaser could put the offensive message on the cake themselves.
And the Religious group tried to sue.
I just have to shake my head.

In the Elane Photography case out of New Mexico, in which a judge also ruled that a photography shop was in violation of public accommodation laws with regards to an LGBT wedding, here is what he said:

"On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.
 In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur."

I have some very good friends who look at this and focus on that last line "it is the price of citizenship". And this concerns them.
I agree, I don't like to hear anything is the price of citizenship.
In the case of a wedding cake, with no obvious pro-gay message, no double groom/double bride at the top that might infringe upon the makers right to free speech, I see no problem.

The Photography case, where a photographer was asked to take pictures at a gay wedding, almost went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to take it, leaving the lower courts ruling in effect against the photographers.
Someday I think they will have to take a case like this. Certainly baking a cake with no pro-gay message requires little participation in the actual event.
But taking pictures at a gay wedding? The photographer has to be very much involved, His participation level in the event is at a much higher level than that of the baker.

In the meantime, I will ask who seems to be the more tolerant--Azacar Bakery, or the religious grouup suing, or the Baker who flat out refused to make ANY cake-- and willing to make compromise, or as the judge has it in his two sentences before the last:
" That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world."