On December 28, 2017, Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined (technically “confirmed as being fined”) $135,000 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Now, I don’t have a problem with homosexuality. I don’t have a problem with gay marriage. I was raised not to hold things people can’t control against them. I was raised to be tolerant.
But this? This bothers me, and not just because $135,000 in “emotional distress” is the kind of penalty I would expect for a verbal hate crime of the highest order, rather than a refusal to bake a luxury edible product.
Let’s start by considering an analogous situation.
If a singer who practiced Islam were asked by a Christian church to sing as part of a Christmas celebration, and she declined on the grounds that the festivities did not align with her worldview – and that it would be disingenuous of her to participate – I don’t think anyone would bat an eye. I certainly wouldn’t. Not every cause for celebration for one group needs to be mandatory for members of other groups.
The ability to say “no” politely is one of the most crucial factors in a society that both values diversity and contains members of mutually exclusive beliefs.
Now let’s consider what our response would be to a white supremacist group requesting a cake from a bakery owned by a Jewish couple for their upcoming fiftieth anniversary extravaganza. (The anniversary in question, of course, being that of the white supremacists, and not of the Jewish couple. Any white supremacist requesting a cake to give to a fifty-year-old Jewish couple would undoubtedly be the kindest and most atypical white supremacist ever to have lived.)
I imagine that the majority response to this situation would be “No, the Jewish couple does not have to make the white supremacists a cake.”
So, if we wouldn’t fine a Muslim singer for declining a Christmas celebration, and we wouldn’t fine a Jewish baker for refusing to serve a white supremacist party, we can’t fine a Christian couple for turning down a same-sex wedding cake request.
We must conclude that businesses have a right to withhold their services.If we view this situation through the lens of employment, I wouldn’t want to work for a company I knew had hired me against its own wishes. I also wouldn’t want anyone to only begrudgingly make me a cake, and not just because “Don’t piss off the people who prepare your food” is a survival rule that certainly predates the Roman Republic.
“But Hayden!” you might say, “Isn’t there a difference between a Christian couple refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and a Jewish couple refusing to make a cake for a white supremacy party?” If you’re like most people in this city, I’m sure your gut tells you there is a huge difference. But that reaction is rooted in your opinions. In terms of what we can verify and implement into law, there isn’t a difference. Just two cases where a business operator is forced to make a choice between fulfilling the duties of his or her occupation and adhering to the stances he or she has embraced as part of his or her worldview. Trying to alter our legal system so as to account for which opinions are “acceptable” and which are not would get us rapidly into “thoughtcrime” territory, which is hopefully something that everyone reading this wants to avoid.
Now, this doesn’t mean that people with absolutely heinous beliefs are unimpeachable. One of the benefits of a free market is that consumers collectively choose which businesses survive and which businesses die. A bakery owned by thoroughly racist and unpleasant patrons would likely not survive very long.
But this goes both ways: businesses that are truly good at what they do, and tolerated by consumers for this reason, have a right to exist. Most of the time, quality will trump the opinions of management. We’ve seen this right here in the greater Seattle area, with several Chick-fil-A restaurants thriving in an LGBTQ-affirming community despite the company founder’s notably non-affirming views. And no one cares because Chick-fil-A makes damn good chicken. I imagine that Sweet Cakes by Melissa made damn good cakes. But it wasn’t the market or the community that killed Aaron and Melissa Klein’s small, family-owned business. It was a lawsuit.
Seven years ago, when the debate over same-sex marriage was much more intense and even than anyone else seems to remember, I argued in favor of legalization. I didn’t think it was anyone else’s business what consenting adults did behind closed doors. But for Aaron and Melissa Klein, it was exactly their business. Not because they tried to shut down or illegalize the celebration, but because they weren’t comfortable participating in it.
I’m sure Portland had no shortage of fine bakeries that would have been more than happy to make a cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. But when one specific bakery declined, they didn’t just seek out another one. They had the offending party shut down.
Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer destroyed another couple’s livelihood over a cake.
Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer deprived another couple of its lifestyle because it didn’t align with theirs.
Sound familiar?
We, as a community, a country, and a culture, need to remember what “tolerance” really is.
“Tolerance” does not mean everyone is obligated to support and affirm your lifestyle.
“Tolerance” means acknowledging that we’re going to have disagreements, and that these disagreements are okay. “Tolerance” means that we don’t force each other to approve every aspect of our lives. “Tolerance” means that we can go about our business as we see fit, just like everyone else.