Fox panel argues that a Colorado baker should be able to refuse service to gay couples

Colorado's anti-discrimination law prohibits anti-LGBTQ discrimination

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published

A Fox News panel, including the host and two guests, argued that a Colorado baker, whose case the Supreme Court decided to accept next term, was within his rights to refuse service to a gay couple based on his personal religious objection to same-sex marriage. The baker lost his case in the Colorado Court of Appeals, which found that he was in violation of the state’s nondiscrimination law. Guests Carrie Severino of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and Edward Whelan of the right-wing Ethics and Public Policy Center ignored the Colorado state law, with host Julie Banderas adding that, “as a private business owner, you do have the choice to make decisions regarding your own personal business.”

From the June 26 edition of Fox News’ Happening Now:

JULIE BANDERAS (CO-HOST): I want to switch gears a bit. Another one. Another case the court agreed to hear. It’s the story of a baker who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds and refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. This is not the first time since same-sex marriage became law in many states. There are people who believe their Christianity and the bible indicates that being a homosexual is a sin. And, so, therefore, by baking a wedding cake for a gay couple, that goes against their right to express their free speech, and in this case, it would be expressing their defense of religion. Carrie, what do you think?

CARRIE SEVERINO: Well I think it's important to note that this cake artist was happy to make cakes and had made many cakes for this couple before. It was simply they didn’t want to make a cake that expressed celebration of something that they thought – they felt they could not celebrate, which was their same-sex marriage. So this isn’t about excluding homosexuals in general. They were happy to work with them, and they were of course able to find a cake somewhere else. I think they even got a free cake. So it’s really just about are we going to allow a minority, but an important group of people to say, my religion dictates something. We don't need to have people excluded and blocked out of their livelihoods as has happened to cake artists, florist, photographers, even t-shirt designers and pizzerias. This is a real problem when our society is trying to make this an “either-or” decision.

BANDERAS: Edward, does this set up a precedent though? Now it’s a gay couple, then eventually it’s going to be a black couple, and -- you know where I’m going here.

EDWARD WHELAN: Well, first, there’s no precedent. The case has simply been granted for argument. But more broadly, what we’re talking about is the precedent of First Amendment rights, free expression. The ability of Americans not to be dragooned to deliver messages that they don't believe in. So I sure hope that sets a precedent. And have in mind here, the couple ended up with a cake with a rainbow design. You can imagine lots of other designs where a conscientious cake artist would say you’re forcing me to deliver a message that I don’t believe in and I don't want to endorse. How is that consistent with free speech principles?

BANDERAS: And you know what? These are privately-owned businesses. It’s not a government-owned business. And so as a private business owner, you do have the choice to make decisions regarding your own personal business.