Colorado Orders Baker to Make Gay Wedding Cakes; Also Ordered to File Reports and Reveal Customer Names

A baker in Colorado who became
a center of controversy over his refusal (on religious grounds) to
bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding has been told he may not
engage in such discrimination. This decision from the state’s civil
rights panel today affirms a ruling from a judge, so it’s not
actually a new thing. However, what is new is the rather insulting
and problematic additional demands from the panel. From
The Denver Post:

In its decision, the panel required [baker Jack] Phillips to
submit quarterly reports for two years that show how he has worked
to change discriminatory practices by altering company policies and
training employees. Phillips also must disclose the names of any
clients who are turned away.

By what legal authority does the panel make these demands of
Phillips? I’m not even speaking philosophically. I disagree with
Colorado’s public accommodation discrimination laws, but at least
they are actual laws. The Colorado
Civil Rights Commission is a made of unelected appointees from
the governor. I looked through the commission’s
list of rules (pdf), and while the 56-page document is full of
all sorts of guidelines on how discrimination hearings should take
place and pages upon pages of rules regarding employment
discrimination, it doesn’t actually have a lot to say about what
sort of remedies the commission is able to enforce, other than
giving plaintiffs clearance to sue. But I am not a lawyer and could
have missed all sorts of stuff in my skimming. (Also of note: It is
against the law in Colorado to put up a sign in a business that
says anything similar to “We reserve the right to refuse service to
anyone”). By what right does Colorado claim to be able to demand
the names of Phillips’ non-clients? Doesn’t that violate the
privacy of a third party completely unconnected to this case?

Also of note: The Civil Rights Division offers the kind of

training they’re trying to force Phillips to provide (even
though employee training had nothing to do with this case), so
that’s a nice bit of potential make-work for themselves.

We’ve written extensively about the how these public
accommodation laws violate the freedom of association rights of
businesses and the religious freedoms of their owners.
Jacob Sullum wrote most recently in our June issue about how
such laws (and laws mandating businesses pay for birth control for
their employees) are essentially a form of conscripted private
service.