If a person is going into a bakery and buying a cake off the shelf without the baker doing anything, that's one thing. But they wouldn't have to talk to the baker for that. It's by talking to the baker, asking for a cake to be specifically created or designed for this specific occasion that is problematic. That's the point where you are asking the baker to become a participant in the preparation of the event that their faith requires that they not participate in.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:59 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: The racist prostitute hypothetical Brad: Tell me why is the wedding cake which I pick up at your bakery and take to my wedding any different than the rental tux I pick up, the flowers I bring to the wedding, or the limo I rent. Or, if I buy the car for the wedding party, how is the cake any different than the car I bought at the dealer. Can the liquor store refuse to sell me wine for the wedding reception? Or for the ceremony itself? If the parties take communion before the ceremony, can the liquor store owner refused to sell wine? ************************************************* Paul Finkelman Senior Fellow Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism University of Pennsylvania and Scholar-in-Residence National Constitution Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (p) 518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com <http://www.paulfinkelman.com/> ************************************************* _____ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Brad Pardee [bp51...@windstream.net] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:41 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: The racist prostitute hypothetical Let me clearer. There is a difference between saying you won't serve certain people and saying you won't be a participant in a certain event. A wedding cake is part and parcel of the event, same as providing the floral settings and taking the photographs, although I realize don't agree with that. That's why the baker, florist, or photographer should have the freedom to choose not to be a part of events that their faith forbids them to take part in. If the condition of their remaining in business is that they abandon the tenets of their faith, then they don't have any religious freedom that has any meaning. The problem with comparing a same sex wedding with an interracial wedding is that the color of a person's skin is no different than the color of a person's hair or the color of a person's eyes. I don't think anybody would say that the difference in genders is a strictly cosmetic distinction. Brad From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James Oleske Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:27 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: The racist prostitute hypothetical "Refusing to bake a wedding cake for [interracial] couples is about not taking part in a specific event. Refusing to bake bread for someone who is [black] is about not serving a specific type of person. Two very different things." Brad -- with those bracketed alterations, do you stick with what I perceive to be your view that the baker should have a right to refuse to bake the wedding cake? If not, I would suggest that bakers making wedding cakes for the general public do not fall within the intimate sphere of privacy that Eugene is trying to identify with his hypothetical. Like Eugene, I think for-profit ministers and freelance writers present more difficult cases, though I disagree with him that most wedding photographer situations present difficult cases. - Jim
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
