This kind of case is not about denying service, in all the other cases there was a denial of basic…
Louis Weeks
22

there is a requirement of the business to become deeply and intimately involved in the wedding even itself.

Bullsiit. They provide a service: Baking a cake. Period. In most cases, the baker is not AT the wedding. At most, they show up a few hours before, deliver the cake to a specific table, and LEAVE. They’re not “involved” in the wedding and more than the maid that cleans up afterward is.

Photographers are also not “involved” in the wedding. They’re taking the same shots every photographer takes at every wedding. Shots of the couple at the altar. Pictures of them exchanging rings. Pictures of the flower children spreading flowers. Pictures of friends dancing and eating and talking at tables afterward. They’re not reciting vows, or taking an active role in the wedding. They’re not “approving” of it, or “sponsoring” it in any way. They’re standing several yards away, taking pictures of specific scenes common to almost every wedding. In a few years robots will be able to do this job, it’s such a formulaic thing.

The fact that they’re denying making said cake/pictures is a basic denial of service. Tell me, if this bakery was to refuse service because it was a Jewish ceremony, or a Wiccan ceremony, or a Muslim ceremony, would that be valid? What if they refused service because the couple was of mixed race, and they believe God speaks against that in the Bible? All still valid, since it’s against their religious beliefs, right? Why is is bigoted to be against all of the above, but not against another group?

If someone finds doing what the law requires of them as a business owner to be “like celebrating murder”, then they should get out of that business. My tax dollars go to support these businesses. They have personal liability protection, so the shop going bankrupt doesn’t mean THEM going personally bankrupt (ala Trump). They have lower taxation than an individual, and get tax-free purchases on products they intend to markup and sell. They get thousands of protections that a home hobbyist doesn't. Who pays for those protections? The tax payers. Yet they should be free to take my tax dollars, but then not provide a service they provide to everyone else, simply because they believe God disagrees with something I do? No. That’s not how the law works.

You want to be a bigot and sell cakes to just WASPs, do it on your own dime. Do it as a hobby, and you get a legal pass on this, because you aren’t legally a business and don’t have to follow the same laws. But they also don’t get the protections either, so the first time someone chokes on over-hard frosting and sues, they sue the person, not the business.

Like what you read? Give woody14619 a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.