A small business owner in Colorado denied a gay couple when they approached him for the purpose of purchasing a cake for their wedding. This clearly relates to what we learned in class this week about federalism because of how the courts approached this issue. It started out as an issue concerning a states laws on discrimination, that would mean that the baker would have to sell his merchandise to all peoples, or the federal law of the first amendment concerning the bakers right to free speech. The baker claims it is against his religion and first amendment rights to create something in support of a union between two people of the same sex.
Mr. Phillips, the baker, said that he had no problem serving anyone regardless of their race, sex, religion or creed, but that he was not able to create a custom made cake to celebrate gay marriage because it isn't something he believes in.
In the end, it was ruled that Phillips rights to free speech had not been violated, and it was noted that the design of the cake was not even discussed before he turned them down for being a same sex couple.
My analysis of this case would be that as an artistic business, you should be willing to cater to the needs of your clients so long as they do not harm anyone and that they can pay you for your services. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do, as evident in his decision to of serve wedding cakes to no couples instead of all couples. Furthermore, Phillips rights to free speech in the expression on his cake had not been violated. The fact of the matter is that the couple was not able to ask for anything specific on their custom made cake before they were turned down; clearly showing that they were turned down for being homosexual, and not because they wanted something specific displayed on their cake.
Do you think that the government should be able to tell artists what they must create?
Do you think that the baker should have been allowed to deny the couple service? Or anyone service?
9 comments:
i dont not believe the federal government should be able to tell the artist what to create and not create. The art that an artists creates is in his decision, as long as it remains relevant tot eh first amendment. as long as the art does not violate the 1st amendment in terms of hate speech or discrimination, the federal government should not have power over what they do. I also believe that the baker had the right to refuse service to them,but in the wrong reasons.as some places state they can deny service to anyone, same must apply to this bakery.However, because he directly targeted refusing service because of their homosexuality, it is a different story and violates the couple's first amendment.
I don't think that the government should be allowed to tell artists what to create, as this defeats the purpose of freedom of expression, especially for an art form like making cakes. I also agree with Josh that the baker has the right to refuse service to anyone, as any business has, but not for discriminatory reasoning, due to federal and state anti-discriminatory laws. Businesses are only really allowed to refuse service to customers who pose some sort of danger to the business or other customers, but this couple wasn't doing anything of the nature.
I believe Emma and Josh's takes on the first amendment conflict between freedom of religious expression and the status of anti-discrimination law are both accurate. From my understanding of this situation, this definitely fits under the "arbitrary denial" that forms the distinction between discrimination and service denial. If this case is indeed heard by the supreme court, it will likely be a landmark civil rights case.
To play a bit of devil's advocate, I'll make the case for a free market correction of this. If anti-discriminatory laws had not been present, many argue that the negative publicity from this would drive down demand for the business, and thus eventually force the owner into choosing between ideology and loss of his business. While perhaps there are obvious issues with rights of the minority in this solution, it's a viewpoint to be considered.
I think that the baker, and all businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody because it is their own private business. The government should have no role in determining how people run their businesses as long as the business owners do not harm or scam customers. If somebody wants to discriminate against their customers based on race, gender or sexuality then that i their own choice. If somebody refuses to sell serve white people, then that is their choice, white people should go shop somewhere else. Businesses should have the right to run their businesses with as few regulations as possible. If somebody is a racist or is homophobic then that is their own belief and if they chose not to serve people based on what social group they belong to then that is their choice and the government should have no involvement in that. If they chose to do this, as Austin said, their business will not be as profitable because one, they will have less customers, and two, their business will most likely be heavily stigmatized resulting in less people willing to give business to them.
Personally, I believe that the baker should have the freedom to choose who he wishes to serve. A lot of shops have the sign that indicates that they may turn away any customers on their own whim, and I don't see why this has to be any different. While I do not agree with discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, I do believe that people should be allowed their own decision, especially when it comes to an art that they provide as a service. If anything, it'd be the baker's loss because they wouldn't have profited off of that customer. The federal government shouldn't have the power to "order" anyone to provide a service the seller does not wish to provide, since that foreshadows for bad quality and begrudging feelings. Our careers are supposed to be something we enjoy, not something that our government can stroll in and dictate around.
The government should not be able to force the artist to make his art in a certain way or control any aspect of his work. I believe that the baker has the right to refuse service to this couple. As the owner of his own business, he has the right to deny his service to anyone. While I do not condone his actions of rejecting this gay couple, it is in his right to do so.
I'm a bit unsure about this part of your analysis: "you should be willing to cater to the needs of your clients so long as they do not harm anyone and that they can pay you for your services." Any business owner, regardless of the type of business, should be allowed to make decisions about what their company does. They shouldn't do something against their belief or goals just because someone can pay. For example, should a company that makes electric cars be forced to manufacture gas-powered cars, even if they don't want to? If someone wants to buy a car that runs on gas, then it's up to them to look elsewhere. However, this reasoning assumes that the couple was denied based on the type of cake that they were trying to make, not solely based on the fact that they were gay.
While it’s definitely true that, as a private business, Mr. Phillips has the right to refuse service to potential customers, his refusal to serve the gay couple simply because they were gay points toward discrimination; thus, I believe that the court decision was fully justified. To answer the first discussion question, I don’t believe that the government should be able to dictate what artists should create. As stated previously, doing so would violate the artists’ freedom of expression. In addition, Avichal raises an interesting hypothetical regarding the owner of a business producing something that goes against their beliefs/visions. I don’t quite agree with the sentiment that “if someone wants to buy a car that runs on gas, then it’s up to them to look elsewhere.” Although the cake shop owner’s refusal to craft a cake for the couple isn’t extremely significant on an individual level (the couple could and were able to find another cake shop), the widespread implications of this act of discrimination are troubling, especially in a society whether those in the LGBTQ+ community still face discrimination. Thus, I don’t think it’s as simple as a customer looking elsewhere for a business that will produce what they need.
Post a Comment