Judge Rules Against Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple

Anti-gay bigot Jack Phillips, owner of the bakery

Brace yourself!!  The shrieks of Christian persecution (and associated flying spittle) are bound to erupt in the wake of a court ruling in Colorado that found that a bakery that refused to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple broke unlawfully discriminated and violated Colorado's public accommodations law.   The bigoted owners of the bakery had claimed as a defense that their right to religious liberty had excused them from compliance with the law.  This bogus defense is yet another example of Christofascists believing that they deserve special rights and that they are above the laws that govern everyone else.  The ACLU has details on the ruling here.  Think Progress looks at some of the analysis behind the judge's rejection of the false defense of "religious liberty":

Here are some of the arguments from ADJ Spencer’s ruling as to why “religious freedom” did not justify Phillips’ violation of Colorado’s nondiscrimination law protecting sexual orientation:

It Doesn’t Matter If The Bakery Otherwise Serves Gay People

One of the bakery’s arguments was that it still served gay clients — the owner only objected to a wedding cake that would celebrate a same-sex marriage. Spencer argued that since only gay couples would participate in same-sex marriage, it’s a “distinction without a difference”

This Case Has Nothing To Do With Whether Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal

Conservatives often argue that cases like these that allegedly impose on “religious liberty” are the consequence of marriage equality passing, but Colorado doesn’t have marriage equality. The judge notes that this actually proves that the discrimination is based on the couple’s identity:

Nor is the ALJ persuaded by Respondents’ argument that they should be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages because Colorado does not do so. Although Respondents are correct that Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriage, that fact does not excuse discrimination based upon sexual orientation. . . . Because Respondents’ objection goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’ real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage.

Cakes Do Not Constitute “Speech”

Though the judge was sympathetic that cakes require artistry, he dismissed the idea that they constituted speech. In this case, the bakery refused to provide the cake before the couple could even specify what would or would not be on the cake, thus there is not even any speech to consider.

The Act Of Selling Cakes Also Does Not Constitute “Speech”

Regardless of what the cake itself might communicate or not, the act of selling cakes is also not a form of speech; thus, forcing a bakery to sell to a same-sex couple is not compelled speech.

Baking Cakes Is Not Religious Conduct

Though Phillips objected to providing the cake on religious grounds, the ALJ pointed out that baking a cake is not actually conduct that is part of his religion. Thus, it does not qualify for exemption from regulation.

Self-centeredness, hatred of others, and bigotry.  These are the hallmarks of today's conservative "Christians."  They are not nice or decent people.