Paragraphs 108-110 are also of interest in the statement of facts brief. Should he not have denied these services as well? That part doesn’t fit the narrative and make for good news however.

(August 20, 2018 at 7:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 20, 2018 at 6:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If I recall correctly, he also objected to selling lesbians cupcakes.  Jack Phillips is a very troubled man.

In the previous case, he told them that he would sell them other things. I hadn’t heard of this, perhaps you are mistaking it with something else.

Quote:Stephanie Schmalz and her partner, Jeanine, wanted to get some cupcakes to celebrate their commitment ceremony, the ACLU reports, and like several gay couples before them, they were refused. So Schmalz called up Phillips, telling him she was planning a wedding for her dog: "She told him that the dog wedding cake would need to feed 20 people and should be decorated with the names 'Roscoe' and 'Buffy,'" the ACLU writes. "Without hesitation, Phillips quoted her a price and asked how soon she needed it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc...ns/314490/

You know, I'm pretty sure you have access to google in your country, too, Roadie. Although I must confess to not having visited Dumbfuckistan in several decades.

---

(August 20, 2018 at 6:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 20, 2018 at 6:20 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: He can choose not to make wedding cakes. He can choose not to make birthday cakes. He can't choose to discriminate against a protected class. In the state of Colorado, where he chose to do business, gays and Transgender are among the protected classes.

It really is that simple.

The State of Colorado is telling a guy who makes 48 cakes a year that they have a compelling state interest in deciding who he may or may not serve with bespoke products. This, after the Supreme Court has already ruled that the State of Colorado was targeting this small family-owned business out of malice for his religious beliefs. And now you all are going to tell me that, somehow the person being oppressed is the lawyer who went out of his way to set-up the baker for a second lawsuit. Please. Pick on someone your own size.

As noted previously, the reasons for the specific request and manner of delivery are not really relevant. But I suppose if you can't make an argument based on the merits, anything you can say to discredit the legal issues at stake here is to the good as far as you are concerned. Somehow, I don't recall you whining about when conservative Christians like William Jack pulled the same bullshit against LGBT friendly bakers. This is just more of your partisan whining and bullshit. You obviously haven't even bothered to apply any thinking to the matter but are simply reflexively parroting conservative talking points. And despite being corrected you continue to misrepresent the supreme court ruling in the matter. You're nothing but an ideological shill, Neo.

Well, thanks for the correction I suppose. Seems like the same reasoning.

But Neo’s account of the narrow ruling is correct. That is what the whole discussion of a narrow vs a broad ruling on the issue is about. They ruled not on the case, but a majority ruling on the conduct of the Colorado civil rights commission to dismiss it.

(August 20, 2018 at 11:44 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I read that too and it isn't relevant. No one denies that the Masterpiece Cake shop is a place of public accommodation. No one denies that the State of Colorado considers transgendered people a protected class. That is why those are acknowledged in the Statements of Fact along with the part I quoted.

The part I quoted confirms that as far a Colorado is concerned discrimination occurs if and only if the reason for denying someone service is because they are part of a protected class. According to Colorado law it is NOT discrimination to decline making a bespoke product that expresses an objectionable message. Presumably, Philips would refuse to bake a cake for a straight customer also if the intended meaning of the cakes design was to celebrate a transitioning. If the activist lawyer had simply said he or she wanted a pink and blue cake and left it at that then it would be clear that Philips had indeed discriminated on the basis of the person's gender identity. Alternatively, if the lawyer had stayed silent and Philips baked the cake not knowing the significance of the colors, he would be in the clear, having proved that gender identity, in and of itself, was not for him a reason to deny service. Instead, the lawyer made a point of stating what the design signified, a message he or she knew Philips would find offensive.  In other words, Philips does not object to serving people simply because they are gay or trans. Philips merely would not make, what was in his estimation, an offensive decorative design regardless of the customer's gender identity.

Neo, it never got that far. The actual design of the cake was never even discussed in the first case, so your statement of fact was not even relevant to that case, other than that it perhaps can be used to establish that Jack Phillips has a pattern of discriminating against protected classes. Whether denying someone a blue and pink cake is also discrimination of a protected class is probably for the court to decide. Unless you're arguing that Jack Phillips would have refused to bake any cakes utilizing the colors pink and blue, this appears to be yet another bit of sophistry in the service of defending what is prima facie illegal. You have to go out of your way to construe baking a pink and blue cake as a "bespoke" product whose message was offensive and which he would have refused to any other customer. So your statement of fact turns out to be irrelevant in the first case, and nothing more than disingenuous bullshit in the second. Not that he can't use that as a defense, but I hope supreme court justices have sufficient intelligence to see through that ruse, even if you do not. But thank you for bringing more dishonest arguments to our attention.

---

(August 21, 2018 at 12:32 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Well, thanks for the correction I suppose. Seems like the same reasoning.

But Neo’s account of the narrow ruling is correct. That is what the whole discussion of a narrow vs a broad ruling on the issue is about. They ruled not on the case, but a majority ruling on the conduct of the Colorado civil rights commission to dismiss it.

No, Roadie, it isn't. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn't "target" Jack Phillips, they didn't choose the case to be adjudicated. That action was taken by the plaintiffs. And you, Neo, and the ADF's continued insistence on misrepresenting that point is simply ideologically motivated bullshit. The CCRC was ruled to have exhibited hostility towards his religious beliefs in the process of arbitrating the dispute. Period. It goes no further than that. The supreme court did not rule against the CCRC because they arbitrated a case involving Jack Phillips or any person holding similar beliefs. That's simply not how it works. The CCRC doesn't go around sniffing for people to persecute, they just deal with the cases that are brought to them. So this idea that the supreme court admonished the CCRC for targeting Phillips' religious beliefs is nothing more than yet another false conservative talking point. But then, we already knew which side your bread was buttered on, didn't we?

(August 20, 2018 at 8:17 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: If he going bake a WEDDING CAKE for straight he should also have to to do it for gays end of story the waffling and bitching of the Christians of this site is unbelievable

Quoted for truth!

And complete lies, no matter how many times the simple facts are presented.

I'm surprised no one has pulled the, "It's only cakes!" argument yet. Maybe I missed it. But cases like these are so important, because if the court gives bigots just a tiny bit of ground, they'll exploit it to the maximum on all issues.

On the issue of the government deciding what is and isn't a "proper religion", the only instance I can think of is when you get given tax breaks. Going from memory, it requires you to have a minimum number of adherents or something (in USA). Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm genuinely hurt that someone could consider my instantly made-up religion not a sincerely held belief.

(August 20, 2018 at 11:44 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I read that too and it isn't relevant. No one denies that the Masterpiece Cake shop is a place of public accommodation. No one denies that the State of Colorado considers transgendered people a protected class. That is why those are acknowledged in the Statements of Fact along with the part I quoted.

The part I quoted confirms that as far a Colorado is concerned discrimination occurs if and only if the reason for denying someone service is because they are part of a protected class. According to Colorado law it is NOT discrimination to decline making a bespoke product that expresses an objectionable message. Presumably, Philips would refuse to bake a cake for a straight customer also if the intended meaning of the cakes design was to celebrate a transitioning. If the activist lawyer had simply said he or she wanted a pink and blue cake and left it at that then it would be clear that Philips had indeed discriminated on the basis of the person's gender identity. Alternatively, if the lawyer had stayed silent and Philips baked the cake not knowing the significance of the colors, he would be in the clear, having proved that gender identity, in and of itself, was not for him a reason to deny service. Instead, the lawyer made a point of stating what the design signified, a message he or she knew Philips would find offensive.  In other words, Philips does not object to serving people simply because they are gay or trans. Philips merely would not make, what was in his estimation, an offensive decorative design regardless of the customer's gender identity.

He also does the following: 

Quote:93. In addition to being a cake artist, Phillips is a follower of Jesus Christ who bases his religious beliefs on the Bible.

94. Phillips’s religious beliefs are central to his life, his identity, and his understanding of goodness, truth, beauty, morality, and existence.

95. Phillips believes that everything he does, including how he operates his business,should be done to glorify God. See  1 Corinthians 10:31; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Colossians 3:17;1 Peter 4:11.

96. Phillips runs Masterpiece Cake shop based on his religious beliefs.

97. Phillips’s operation of Masterpiece Cakeshop is an exercise of his religion.

98. Because of his faith, Phillips hosts Bible studies at Masterpiece Cakeshop.

He intentionally hides behind his religion to oppress potential customers simply because they don't fit his religious narrative. He attempts to skirt the law by doing so. There is nothing specific in the bible that discusses transgendered individuals. He's simply making up what he wants to, in order to discriminate against people who he has bigoted views of. 

This one really got me because he contradicts himself in his own complaint and how he conducts his business: 

Quote:101. Phillips serves all people—individuals of all races, faiths, sexual orientations, and gender identities—and will design and create custom cakes for anyone.

bold mine. (Bottom of page 15 of Neo's link, for the curious.)

No he won't. He's clearly refused to design and create custom cakes for a number of people - all of whom happen to belong to the LGBT community. Several items in his "statement of facts" start with the phrase "Because of Phillip's religious beliefs....." 

He says this: 

Quote:104. Neither Phillips nor any staff member at Masterpiece Cake shop asks customers about their protected characteristics, such as their race, faith, sexual orientation, or gender identity, because those characteristics do not matter to Phillips in deciding whether to accept a custom-cake order.

bold mine. 

Yet he says this further down: 

Quote:124. Phillips also believes as a matter of religious conviction that sex—the status of being male or female—is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed

bold mine. 

So he does discriminate where sexual orientation or gender identity is concerned. How? See below for that. 

He lists this in his complaint: 

Quote:129. When customers request a custom cake, Phillips or his staff asks them about the kind of cake they want, the desired content, colors, themes, words, and styles, and what event, if any, the cake will celebrate.

bold mine.

Sure. He won't ask about protected characteristics and conveniently gets around asking about that when he inquires about the event surrounding the cake. Once he learns of the nature of the event, he can then use his religious beliefs as a way to decline the request. So the attorney didn't surprise him with anything. He fucking asked her all of the things listed in #129, because that's what he states he specifically does. He also admitted in 128 that he personally reviews every single custom cake order. How convenient.

(August 20, 2018 at 7:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems that people keep leaving out why he rejected the order, and making it all about the person.   This seem equivalent (to me) to proof-texting or quoting out of context. An important detail is being left out, in order to make it appear that something else is being said; which is not being stated.  Perhaps this is out of ignorance, and the people need to educate themselves on what is going on (before sticking their foot in their mouth), but at this point it kind of appears to be more of an intellectual dishonesty (or perhaps just a severe mental handicap).  It seems that people have trouble discussing accurately with this.

What you are saying is your opinion on the matter. That you conflate your opinion with fact is hardly surprising to me (or probably anyone else). The idea that having an opinion at odds with yours is akin to proof texting is just making a bogus analogy. How to properly determine whether the refusal in the case was on account of their status as members of a protected class or not cannot be decided by simply appealing to an inappropriate analogy. There are arguments to be made from both perspectives. Given that in the first case Jack Phillips and the customer had not even discussed the design of the cake, it appears rather relevant to his refusal that the customers in question were of the same sex. As noted, in this case, he was only being asked to bake a pink and blue cake. One can make the argument that he was only discriminating against people requesting pink and blue cakes, but it's rather weak. The fact is that the cake likely was refused on account of both factors, the class status of the customers as well as his religious views in the matter. What the court previously did not appear to recognize was that you could refuse service to members of a protected class on those bases alone. What was not resolved was whether there was a free speech argument to be made on Phillips' behalf. However, since Phillips wasn't asked to express any specific message with the design of the first cake, since the design was never discussed, and whether he has a case against being compelled to express a message consistent with blue and pink cakes is another issue. But that, too, appears to be a weak argument. So thanks for the analogies, but they don't offer any enlightenment in the matter under discussion.

Your still ignoring the fact that the customer gave the significance of the pink and blue colors and what they wanted to convey. And what the cakeshop denied. You can call that opinion, bit you still are creating lies to slander a person. If he had subsequently denied a cake without this symbology, then you may have a point, and I would stand with you in descriminating against a person. Bit that is not the case.

Also it’s not about having an opinion at odds with mine; that I am comparing to prooftexting and quoting out of context. I don’t think that this is difficult to understand.

Quote:“Phillips declined to create the cake with the blue-and-pink design because it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex — the status of being male or female — is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed,” the complaint stated.

From the original post. Is this not the wording presented by the baker himself or his lawyer? I'm sorry if I got confused and misrepresented this. Or is this what the opposing lawyer is assuming?

(August 21, 2018 at 1:09 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Your still ignoring the fact that the customer gave the significance of the pink and blue colors and what they wanted to convey. And what the cakeshop denied. You can call that opinion, bit you still are creating lies to slander a person.  If he had subsequently denied a cake without this symbology, then you may have a point, and I would stand with you in descriminating against a person. Bit that is not the case.

I'll simply refer you to Neo's "point of fact" in the prior case about what is considered discrimination of a protected class and what is not. To quote, "Colorado has announced the general rule that expressive business owners, including cake artists, do not violate the public-accommodation law if they decline to create a custom item expressing a message that they would not communicate for anyone." Your opinion, apparently, is that Phillips declined the cake because of a specific message. Whether he did so is a matter of fact which is not decided simply by your say so. And whether he also discriminated against a protected class is also a matter to be decided. He may have been doing both. The facts in the matter are neither completely clear, nor univocal. So, no, I'm not creating lies to slander anybody. And yes, you're still confusing your opinion with fact. If you're going to throw similar accusations against me in the future, I suggest you get your ducks in a row first. You seem to have skipped that step in this case. The only person here who appears to be making shit up is you. But I suppose we're all used to that by now, so by all means, carry on.