Colorado baker faces complaint for refusing anti-gay message on cake
Colorado baker faces complaint for refusing anti-gay message on cake
DENVER A dispute over a cake in Colorado raises a new question about gay rights and religious freedom: If bakers can be fined for refusing to serve married gay couples, can they also be punished for declining to make a cake with anti-gay statements?
A baker in suburban Denver who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding is fighting a legal order requiring him to serve gay couples even though he argued that would violate his religious beliefs.
But now a separate case puts a twist in the debate over discrimination in public businesses, and it underscores the tensions that can arise when religious freedom intersects with a growing acceptance of gay couples.
Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, is facing a complaint from a customer alleging she discriminated against his religious beliefs.
According to Silva, the man who visited last year wanted a Bible-shaped cake, which she agreed to make. Just as they were getting ready to complete the order, Silva said the man showed her a piece of paper with hateful words about gays that he wanted written on the cake. He also wanted the cake to have two men holding hands and an X on top of them, Silva said.
She said she would make the cake, but declined to write his suggested messages on the cake, telling him she would give him icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words himself. Silva said the customer didn't want that.
"It's just horrible. It doesn't matter if, you know, if you're Catholic, or Jewish, or Christian, if I'm gay or not gay or whatever," said Silva, 40, adding that she has made cakes regularly for all religious occasions. "We should all be loving each other. I mean there's no reason to discriminate."
Discrimination complaints to Colorado's Civil Rights Division, which is reviewing the matter, are confidential. For that reason, Silva declined to share the correspondence she has received from state officials on the case. KUSA-TV reported the complainant is Bill Jack of Castle Rock, a bedroom community south of Denver.
In a statement to the television station, Jack said he believes he "was discriminated against by the bakery based on my creed."
"As a result, I filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Out of respect for the process, I will wait for the director to release his findings before making further comments."
Jack did not respond to emails from The Associated Press seeking comment. No one answered the door at the address listed for Jack in Castle Rock.
The case comes as Republicans in Colorado's Legislature talk about changing the state law requiring that businesses serve gays in the wake of a series of incidents where religious business owners rejected orders to celebrate gay weddings. Republican Sen. Kevin Lundberg said the new case shows a "clash of values" and argued Colorado's public accommodation law is not working.
"The state shouldn't come in and say to the individual businessman, 'You must violate your religious and I'll say religious-slash-moral convictions. This baker (Silva), thought that was a violation of their moral convictions. The other baker, which we all know very well because of all the stories, clearly that was a violation of their religious convictions," Lundberg said.
But gay rights advocates say there is a significant difference in the cases. Silva refused to put specific words on a cake while Jack Phillips, the baker who turned away the gay couple, refused to make any wedding cake for them in principle.
"There's no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado.
Phillips' attorneys had argued in court that requiring him to prepare a gay marriage cake would be akin to forcing a black baker to prepare a cake with a white supremacist message. But administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer disagreed, writing that business owners can refuse a specific message, but not service.
"In both cases, 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," administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said.
Phillips' attorney, Nicolle Martin, said she has sympathy for Silva, arguing she is in the same category as her client. "I absolutely support her right to decline," Martin said. "I support her right as an American to pick and choose the messages she will express."
Silva said she remains shaken up by the incident. "I really think I should be the one putting the complaint against him, because he has a very discriminating message," she said.
Tags
Who is online
472 visitors
Reminds me of this:
gggrrrr...I can't get the video to load!
In both cases... is there no where else in Denver that would make them a cake?
Seriously... if the business wont do what you want, find a new business to take your money for service rendered.
I dont disagree or agree with any of the messages being "discriminated against", but business owners should be able to refuse to provide service for any reason. Even if they wont serve gay people... that just means the gay people need to find a better place to go and support with their money.
I think this group targeted this particular bakery, hoping to cause a stink they could sue about.
Normally, I would agree with you 100%, take your business elsewhere. And in Denver, that shouldn't be a problem, at all. I'm thinking of all these small towns out there that may have but one bakery... I can see some people refusing to bake a wedding cake for a divorced bride... Or refusing to bake a cake for any number of reasons, based on their own personal prejudices. Basically, if it's a nice message, I would think a business owner should think long and hard about refusing business.
I don't blame any owner of any business for not wanting to put any kind of hate message on a cake. That would be bad for business... I can just see it: "Great cake! Where did you get it?"
If the government can force companies to make pro-gay wedding cakes, then the government can force companies to make anti gay wedding cakes.
No. They are not. In the first case, the customers were the targets of discrimination. In this case, Mr. Jack's words were the issue. While he is free to say what he thinks, he is not free to force others to say what he thinks.
And PS, Mr. Jack doesn't look like the typical 'swing by the bakery andorder a bible-shaped cake' kind of guy, but he does resemble a guy not even bothering to hide his personal agenda.
For Silva, it is a losing situation for her to comply with the request to put that kind of message on a cake that represents her place of business She evenoffered to let the customer write the saying on the cake ,which I thought was a great idea.
Exactly!Had he taken the offer to write the "greeting"' himself, there would be no problem.
Yep, personal principles have no place in business when dealing with customers, at least that is what we have been told.
Why?
I'm wondering if they do a mail-order business? I might like some Denver cake...
Please tell me you are not serious.
The cake was never made. Mr. Jack walked out before completing his order.
What impressed me, was that Ms. Silva offered him a more than fair compromise. She would bake the cake, and then provide Mr. Jack with the implements and icing so he could make his own statement, one that she found to be hateful and prejudicial. It's all moot anyway. Thiscreep didn't want a cake or a compromise. It was the response he was after. I bet he had the media on the phone before the bakery doorhit him in the ass on his way out.
I'm gonna get all my cakes made there ... good publicity !
This is a religious man?????? I would like to know what religion....
I bet he had the media on the phone before the bakery doorhit him in the ass on his way out I'll bet you're right!
ROFL!!
Hal, nothing is showing.
Sorry Nona, try this one (it's the same bit with an introduction by Daniel Tosh):
I'm shocked, I tell you. I'm...just...just...shocked.
a simple solution to the problem for all concerned is for the business owners to display a sign that says "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"
What a POS!!
Got it Hal....thanks! (snicker)
The customer is a jackass. You go that right!!
There is somewhat of a prison pallor look about him, isn't there?
I've been asking myself why, out of all the bakeriesfrom which he could have chosen his target, hepicked Azucar? $10 says this is why .Marjorie Silva was an immigrant with a dream that came true. I'm sure that lots of people who associate with Mr. Jack, and even lots that don't,have foundthe whole thing less bully-ishbecause his victim immigrated to the US from Peru. Had he picked on a little oldgrannyborn in a soddie in Kansas, he would have probably had to change his name (again) and beat-feet until the death threats subsided.
It's working now RW.
I disagree Robert G.
Bakery 1:
Customer: We would like you to make us a cake for our upcoming wedding, please.
Baker: We don't do that for Your Kind. Please get out.
Bakery 2:
Customer: We would like a bible shaped cake please.
Baker: Sure we will gladly do that for you.
Customer: Once the cake is completed we would like you to shit on the top of it for us.
Baker: No. No we will not do that for you but if you want shit on the top of the cakewemake foryou then you can take it into the shops john and do it yourself.
Customer: You Bigots!
Baker: Sorry you feel that way. We're happy to make your bible shaped cake butif you insist on shitting on the top of it then you'll have to do that yourself. If that'snot good enough for youthen please leave
First bakery was illegal in their actions but I doubt the second one is at all.
This whole mess is ridiculous.
I've been asking myself why, out of all the bakeriesfrom which he could have chosen his target, hepicked Azucar? $10 says this is why . You may be onto something.
They can't and they don't.
Of course they do.
He's a lot of things I can't call him on NT because of those new rules, ggrrrr...and I was hoping to add some more words to add to my vocabulary.....sigh
I would not have done it either. My company, I can run it like I want. Decorate your own damn cake.
Hilarious!!
On a side note,I found someinteresting info about the pious Bill Jack. It would seem that he has been associated with more than one religious charity that has fallen under federal scrutiny, and one of them had their tax exempt status revoked fornon-compliance and other shady shenanigans. In addition, I would swear that this fool either has or had ties to Westboro Baptist. I might be hallucinating, but I don't think so.
Grump! YEAH!! That's right, you tell them!!
MM.....2 thumbs up!!!!
In addition, I would swear that this fool either has or had ties to Westboro Baptist.
VERY interesting!
Update on thisstory:
Colorado bakery that refused to bake anti-gay cakes did not discriminate , state agency says
By Peter Holley April 4 at 4:29 PM
Well good,the correct decision in my opinion.
Thanks for the update!
I think this group targeted this particular bakery, hoping to cause a stink they could sue about.
Yep.
He's a lot of things I can't call him on NT because of those new rules, ggrrrr..
Me too.
ArkansasHermit Perfect explanation! Abso-fucking-lutly perfect!
"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"
Never hold up in civil court, Those types of signs are useless as a defense in a lawsuit if the plaintiff can show he was refused service based on his race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...
Those signs are just good for refusing services to drunks and such. Other then that, useless.
Does the law need to be clarified for both businesses and customers that you neither purposefully discriminate in refusing business or requesting that business be conducted in a nature of hate?
Not to those of intelligence. Great ruling by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies. Right on the money.
Go ahead ring her up, she might look absolutely UGLY in lingerie, but she absolutely has the right to buy it, if your offering it for sale.
Any person has the right to go into a bakery and order a cake, pay for it and enjoy it. When you want to make the cake special or custom, the bakery has the right to refuse to do it.
That is the long and short of it. From my understanding both bakery's were willing to do a cake, one a wedding cake, they refused to customize it to the customers specifications, which they should be allowed to decide for themselves, gayness or political stance notwithstanding.
So in my estimation this is a case of political favoritism that IS rampant in today's society. If it wasn't rampant, then there wouldn't be this pushback from the other side.
This isn't about discrimination on a should we or shouldn't we basis, it is an argument about the scope of what is called discrimination, and right now that description is fairly large and broad, and in some cases unduly large and broad.
This is one of such cases.
So in the age of flour power the state can compel you to make certain kinds of cakes but relieve you of the obligation to make certain other kinds of cakes. In our brave new gteaupia, it will all eventually wind up at the Supreme Court, at which America's Masterchef Anthony Kennedy will decide precisely which half-baked state-mandated menu items on the cake stand of American liberty are constitutional and which are not.
And, if a few Indiana pizzerias have to be put out of business along the way, well, as the Commies used to say, you can't make a gay wedding cake without breaking a few eggs.
Do you ever get the queasy feeling that America's cake is past its sell-by date? Increasingly, in the most mundane matters of daily life, everything is either legal or illegal. That is not how a free society operates...
A land of hyper-regulation is not the same as a land of law. The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled on two cases of British women whose employers forbade them to wear crucifixes one an NHS nurse, the other a British Airways baggage handler. The court ruled against the nurse but in favor of the baggage handler. Why? What particular legal principle illuminated both cases? Don't ask the jurists. Re the BA employee, they declared that "the court has reached the conclusion in the present case that a fair balance was not struck." How is BA or any other employer to know what constitutes a "fair balance"? They can't or not reliably. Only the state and the courts can definitively establish that, by colonizing Moulton's "middle land" unto policing dress codes, religious expression, social habits, and even casual conversational exchanges.
Or, as we now know, policing the kinds of cakes one is compelled to bake.
.
This country has lost its mind.
No a free country should operate under the golden rule... do unto others, etc. Sadly it doesn't. So then government runs interference because people behave as if their beliefs are the only ones that should be respected. If we all had a live and let live attitude, we would have a whole lot less of government interference.
Good point!
MM.....2 thumbs up!!!!
Thanks!
Forcing people to act against the conscious is only going to make things worse. It's truly absurd that Governments are now stepping in and telling bakers exactly which type of cakes they will force them to make. This sort of all invasive asininity by liberals eager to impose their values on others on something so inconsequential as a cake is only going to make the disconnect between parties worse, much worse. The Department of Cake Regulators is like something out of Orwell.
It's truly astonishing how far liberals have left their "live and let live" roots and moved onto to naked authoritarianism over the last 50 years. Real, actual liberals came up with the significant burden test for religious objections that the modern RFRAs copy in the Supreme Court 50 years ago. Liberals used to believe in the right of individuals to think for themselves, now they force citizens to accept liberal dogma or face ruin.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is widely considered one of the most significant and enduring pieces of liberal legislation. It's widely known for it's anti-discrimination provisions, but it also contains protection for religious beliefs. An employer can't fire someone for exercising their religious beliefs. A huge corporation cannot fire someone for refusing to make a gay wedding cake. The employees beliefs must be accommodated.
Liberals used to realize how important it for a society to protect its citizens from commencement on religious questions. Now they dictate to people what they have to believe.
If we all had a live and let live attitude, we would have a whole lot less of government interference.
And NT would be more civil also...
Sean,
Baking a cake doesn't mean you approve of anything. You are baking a cake. So long as you don't have to be part of the ceremony, one would think there wouldn't be a problem.
There are loads of things that customers do that are against store owners beliefs, yet they are served. Why is being gay any different than getting a divorce, an abortion, cruelty to animals.. the list is endless. Business can't operate that way. It shouldn't be that government steps in. It should be that people come to your place of business and you are served.
This isn't a liberal thing. It is a human one.
People keep talking about the cake as if it's the problem. it about what is on top of it that counts. A wedding cake of tiers that is topped by two men or two women is a symbol of love, a symbol of commitment for life, it is no less a symbol as if it were a male and female.
What the man wanted on the cake in this case was a symbols of absolute hate and he even wanted them on the bible he claims to believe in. The baker was right to refuse. She offered to provide him with the equipment to put the words of hate on the bible himself, but he didn't because he really did not want the cake, he wanted to set up a lawsuit. He is a person of shame and a person to be shamed. The judge rightly agreed that there is a difference between love and hate, but it seems like a lot of people on NT don't realize that. I pity them for their extremely narrow vision of hate.
Gracias M M and I'm glad that, @ least this time, I turned out to be correct about the final decisionin thismatter.
Why would anyone want to do business with a store that does (or does not) want to make them the product they want? Take your money and go elsewhere where they want your money and your business. You can't (though government has tried for years and years) to legislate morality. Vote with your feet, take your money elsewhere and tell everyone that will listen about your experience. No point in trying to get the government to fix things like this, there are too many shades.........
The the local judge has already decided she not discriminating. Let's move on to something more important then cakes.
Just out of curiosity, I would like to know if you, oryour child orfriend or relative that were Gay were getting married, and were refused to have the cake decorated the way that was requested just because oftheir Sexual Preference be upset ,and/or feel discriminated against justbecause of being Gay?
My son got married to another man and his friends had no trouble finding them a rather modest cake that was clearly for a gay marriage. They didn't have to shop around. The first bakery was quite helpful and I'm sure made a good profit on the transaction. Of course it was in Los Angeles though.
I'm just sorry I missed it, even though it was just in a courthouse.
MMM I'm so glad that your son didn't have to go through all of this crap.
And he picked a great husband! I'm proud he's part of the family! People say California is liberal, but to me it's not really liberal, it's just commonsense for everyone to be like this and not to be anything different. So I'll be a "liberal" and so will most of us out here and we just won't understand those who feel different because it's just plain commonsense.
After that, is there anyone who is actually happy about being married?
YES!!
AMEN !!
So if a member of NAMBLA walks in and wants a cake with a graphic picture of him and his boy child lover, you have to make them the cake, because if you don't you're practicing discrimination.
I disagree. If a business doesn't want to serve a customer, then the customer should go find someone that wants their money and BTW, if you force someone to make a cake with something their conscience forbids on it, would you really want to eat that cake?