Cakes and Constitutionality: SCOTUS case would impact all businesses

Impact may be the wrong word, but this case will serve as new standard for how people should conduct their businesses, including photography. This case has to do with a bake shop discriminating against sexual orientation based on religious beliefs. We've already seen some news accounts of photographers getting in trouble for refusing certain clients.

Politics aside (that's against the rules here), I thought this would be of interest to members here.

http://www.abajournal.​com …s_to_not_serve_​customers/

It's a very interesting read and I think photographers here will draw direct correlations (expressive activity, first amendment rights, compelled speech versus freedom of speech).

It’s a very interesting and significant case. I’ve been reading some of the amicus briefs; definitely not a casual read.

There have already been similar cases of in the field of photography.

Indeed, and that is likely why Nathan posted it on the photography forum.

I don't think any of those photo related cases made it to the US Supreme Court though.

I would like to see SCOTUS put this to bed for good, but I have to admit that after some of the decisions they've made with the majority of the justices we have now, I am not 100% confident in their ability to make the correct decision.

Mods! Oh, mods! Jake is talking politics!

OhLook wrote in post #18508589
Mods! Oh, mods! Jake is talking politics!

Jake has not mentioned political parties, siding with one versus another, nor chosen sides with individuals based upon political beliefs. He HAS questioned the soundness of decision making of a theoretically non-partisan body, which is more an issue of psychological evaluation (craziness of decisions) rather than politics.
Furthermore, one might say that questioning the motives of our houses of government is more an issue of educational status or medical status ("are they idiots or simply stupid?!") ...the status of 'idiot' is rating on the scale of intellectual disablement, while 'stupid' assesses the showing of a great lack of intelligence or common sense

First I never understand how these cases that seem so petty end up in a court case, someone doesn't want to cook your food, (that you and your friends are going to eat) so you sue?! And why claim religious or artistic freedoms? I wonder if there are any underling economics involved - what if he primary serves ultra-conservative weddings and doesn't want to be band from their word-of-mouth recommendations.

If this is the case then no court can overrule capitalism it will be a continuing problem for small business. Do the photographers covering the pipeline protesters get hired on by the oil companies? If an adult video production company tries to hire a videographer are they going to be forced to take the job? There are so many what ifs...

I personally don't have enough clients to turn anyone away especially not upper end clients that would be happy to pay premium costs. But it seems if I had so many clients I could just have a business policy not to use a religious freedom excuse.

p.s. Just to set the record straight I'd have no problem working for anyone, lgbt, Halliburton, Exxon, as long as they paid me my rate.

archfotos wrote in post #18511005
First I never understand how these cases that seem so petty end up in a court case, someone doesn't want to cook your food, (that you and your friends are going to eat) so you sue?! And why claim religious or artistic freedoms? I wonder if there are any underling economics involved - what if he primary serves ultra-conservative weddings and doesn't want to be band from their word-of-mouth recommendations.

It's not an issue of capitalism, it's an issue of protected classes. If a baker denies service to a couple because they don't want to make cakes for black people, would that be OK? No, because in this instance, race is a protected class.

The problem gets murky when a class of people is protected by government but vilified by a religious group. Does the religious group's right to ostracize a class of people supersede that group's protections afforded by the government?

archfotos wrote in post #18511005
If this is the case then no court can overrule capitalism it will be a continuing problem for small business. Do the photographers covering the pipeline protesters get hired on by the oil companies? If an adult video production company tries to hire a videographer are they going to be forced to take the job? There are so many what ifs...

That's not the right slippery-slope, because "Photographer" is not a protected class.

Please allow me to direct you to a more relevant slippery-slope:
What if a religious group decided that they didn't want to serve black people?

archfotos wrote in post #18511005
First I never understand how these cases that seem so petty end up in a court case, someone doesn't want to cook your food, (that you and your friends are going to eat) so you sue?!

The case may seem petty on first thought, but the issues behind it aren't. The page that the OP linked to has a long section of comments attached. Some of the discussion there clarifies what the underlying conflict is.

The Colorado couple could go to another bakery for their cake. That'd be much easier than going to court. Or the baker could decide that overriding his beliefs just this one time and making the cake was easier on him than going to court. But both sides want to establish that the right they're claiming should be upheld.

nathancarter wrote in post #18511110
It's not an issue of capitalism, it's an issue of protected classes. If a baker denies service to a couple because they don't want to make cakes for black people, would that be OK? No, because in this instance, race is a protected class.

The problem gets murky when a class of people is protected by government but vilified by a religious group. Does the religious group's right to ostracize a class of people supersede that group's protections afforded by the government?

That's not the right slippery-slope, because "Photographer" is not a protected class.

Please allow me to direct you to a more relevant slippery-slope:
What if a religious group decided that they didn't want to serve black people?

It could get a lot more complex. Does anyone in business have the right to refuse service to anyone else for whatever reason? If someone comes to you and requests that you shoot their <inset the most vile group you can think of> meeting, can you say no? Unfortunately, this case will have a winner and a loser. There is no middle ground and to properly discuss, it's going to get very political which is a big nono here.