Actually, according to the document that YOU supplied a link to, Neo, it was not proven that the lawyer repeatedly made requests for cakes. It is only alleged that the owner believes this was potentially the same person. That the owner believes it, doesn't make it true.

That's irrelevant in any case. What is clear, and I posted as such, is that in the complaint, the owner contradicts himself and clearly uses his religious beliefs to discriminate.

(August 22, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I fully explained the difference in a very long post further up. TL;DR. No one disputed the argument,as I presented it (in response to you actually) for why the cake indeed serves as a symbol. Communion wafers are food too. I find it hard to believe you would not consider them symbolic in certain contexts. Flags are just pieces of fabric sewn together. Paintings are just dirt and oil daubed on rough cloth. Ever hear of private-labeling? A supplier makes a generic product, like breakfast cereal, and the seller puts his brand name and logo on it. So your basic sugary cereal gets marketed as "Fruity Loops" or something. But a seller could ask to have it branded anything they wanted, like "Queer Cheer O's". Following your line of reasoning, the supplier could not refuse, because, it's just cereal.

If the cake had any important role in the wedding ceremony, I'd agree with you. It doesn't though. At best, it's a tradition for weddings, but you can have a wedding without one. You can't say the same thing about communion wafers, they are an important part of the communion ceremony.

(August 22, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 22, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I've seen this brought up a few times in the thread, that because an activist purposefully tried to get rejected for a cake, means that the rejection is somehow less "not OK". I find the argument confusing at best. The reasoning for the person going there, whether they had an ulterior motive or not, should not be relevant to the outcome. The law is tested by people challenging it. Do you have a problem with the fact that Rosa Parks planned her protest? That she was practically hand-selected to be the face of anti-segregation? You shouldn't, because whether or not she was trying to get arrested to raise awareness is not relevant to the fact that the law was unfair and unjust.

Whether or not it is "not OK" legally remains to be seen. If Philips is indeed within his rights, as many like me believe, then the lawyer is engaged in an act of anti-Christian harassment. My point is not that testing a law is in-and-of itself unacceptable, but the compassion to Rosa Parks is not a fair one. The civil rights movement was against wide-spread government oppression by discriminatory laws enforced by the police. A very small family-owned business hardly constitutes a threat to civil society. Civil disobedience is generally directed at an oppressive government, not other citizens.

The larger point is that there are no heroes in this situation. Philips isn't the most sympathetic character. And the lawyer is a real scum bag. He or she repeatedly made bogus requests knowing that there would be no consequences. True civil disobedience entails risk. Rosa Parks could have gone to jail or worse.

The lawyer would only be engaged in anti-Christian harassment if: (1) she was doing it repeatedly, which remains to be seen, and (2) if she was purposefully targeting him because of his Christian beliefs, as opposed to her actually believing that he was being discriminatory and breaking the law. I'm not saying it's impossible for her to be anti-Christian, by the way, just that it takes far more than what you have suggested to conclude that.

I think your choice of phrase "Civil disobedience is generally directed" is important. Generally doesn't mean exclusively. So yes, sometimes civil disobedience can be directed at other citizens.

(August 22, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 22, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I can see the difference. What I disagree on is that a cake for a gay wedding is promoting a message with which they disagree. A cake isn't a message. I'm not even sure you could call it a symbol. It's a cake. It's food. It gets looked at and then eaten.

I fully explained the difference in a very long post further up. TL;DR. No one disputed the argument,as I presented it (in response to you actually) for why the cake indeed serves as a symbol. Communion wafers are food too. I find it hard to believe you would not consider them symbolic in certain contexts. Flags are just pieces of fabric sewn together. Paintings are just dirt and oil daubed on rough cloth. Ever hear of private-labeling? A supplier makes a generic product, like breakfast cereal, and the seller puts his brand name and logo on it. So your basic sugary cereal gets marketed as "Fruity Loops" or something. But a seller could ask to have it branded anything they wanted, like "Queer Cheer O's". Following your line of reasoning, the supplier could not refuse, because, it's just cereal.

What do you propose should be the test for whether the production of a product is an act of speech, and when it is not? Or are you suggesting that all products and their sale should be protected against anti-discrimination laws.

Btw, this "they could just go down the street to another seller" simply doesn't wash. These laws are enacted to prevent such things as the de facto segregation that occurred during the Jim Crow era. Majorities can and do make products and services inaccessible by implementing de facto networks of discrimination. The free market does not, has not, and cannot address all such ills. That is why we have such laws in the first place. The state has a compelling interest in protecting certain classes from de facto discrimination of this sort. What you are essentially suggesting is that the stae does not have such a compelling interest, and therefore laws of this nature should not be passed. I would ague that you're simply wrong on that point, and so your suggestion that we should instead depend upon free market forces to resolve such problems is simply unacceptable.

So Neo essentially pushing bottom up Jim Crow laws .Now watch him try and blame the government for Jim Crow when in reality such laws were pushed by citizens often in business etc and there is no free market let alone one that can solve this problem and no people should have to go to the next store they should be allowed in any equivalent store.

(August 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What do you propose should be the test for whether the production of a product is an act of speech, and when it is not?  Or are you suggesting that all products and their sale should be protected against anti-discrimination laws.

I've been very clear about the two criteria for permissible denial of service on a 1st Amendment basis:

1) bespoke products or design services
&
2) the intended product or service and/or its use has obvious significance OR, if its significance is otherwise unclear but expressly communicated and understood.

(August 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: These laws are enacted to prevent such things as the de facto segregation that occurred during the Jim Crow era.  Majorities can and do make products and services inaccessible by implementing de facto networks of discrimination.

Even when the specific concerns of LBGTQ activists are wholly legitimate, any comparison between those struggles and the oppression and indignity of African-Americans living under segregation belittles the significance of the civil rights movement and is both inappropriate and shameful.

(August 22, 2018 at 5:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The lawyer would only be engaged in anti-Christian harassment if: (1) she was doing it repeatedly, which remains to be seen...

All the evidence seems to point in that direction. Or at least Philips has very good reasons for believing that the same individual asked for a wide variety of bizarre and offensive requests - marajauna cakes, pentagrams, a dildo topper, etc.

(August 23, 2018 at 10:46 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What do you propose should be the test for whether the production of a product is an act of speech, and when it is not?  Or are you suggesting that all products and their sale should be protected against anti-discrimination laws.

I've been very clear about the two criteria for permissible denial of service on a 1st Amendment basis:

1) bespoke products or design services
&
2) the intended product or service and/or its use has obvious significance OR, if the significance is otherwise unclear but expressly communicated.

I agree, but would add, if participation in the event is required. The only exception may be if police attendance is required.

I also think that there is a disconnect between those talking generally about the liberties of the business owner, vs the specifics and their opinions on the specifics.

As to if the pink/ blue cake contains a message or symbol. If the baker delivered the cake, and explained that they made a mistake in making a just blue cake, so they also made a pink cake and would sell both for half price. That people would not be ok with that. If it’s just a cake without a message, then they could simply change the design, to what they both can agree on. I can also see the outrage, (I believe from many who say it’s just a cake) of the Baker is later found to be saying that he was making his own statements with two separate pink and blue cakes.

What the bible says about cake
Biblical cake
Cake in the bible

I don't see nothin' about being forbidden to make a cake for the gays.

(August 23, 2018 at 10:46 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What do you propose should be the test for whether the production of a product is an act of speech, and when it is not?  Or are you suggesting that all products and their sale should be protected against anti-discrimination laws.

I've been very clear about the two criteria for permissible denial of service on a 1st Amendment basis:

1) bespoke products or design services
&
2) the intended product or service and/or its use has obvious significance OR, if its significance is otherwise unclear but expressly communicated and understood.

This tells us nothing. You've simply substituted one unclear term with an equally unclear term. How do we determine if something has "obvious significance" or not. Is this another Meese-like "I'll know it when I see it"? You really haven't answered the question. For a simple example, let's take the case under consideration. Different people disagree on whether a pink and blue cake is obviously symbolic. And your criteria give us no idea of how to resolve that situation. I would hope you would be in favor of laws and precedents which can be unambiguously applied so that we don't have to depend upon the whims of the court to determine whether the law or precedent has been correctly applied. Your criteria do nothing to this end. In addition, there are problems with your criteria. All products are essentially bespoke products as if nobody orders them, they don't get made (with the possible exception of producers who sell directly to the public). So, one could argue that a mass produced car is a bespoke product. Moreover, it's unclear how being made to order necessarily implies that a product is an example of speech. Cars ordered with specific accessories and colors are also bespoke products in that they may be made to order, that doesn't make them acts of speech. I don't see that this "bespoke" business is anything more than you parroting yet another talking point. Some bespoke products are acts of speech, and some aren't. Your criteria is simply inappropriate for the task given to it. Which leaves us with your "it's obvious" criterion, which is essentially useless.

Try again.

(August 23, 2018 at 10:46 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: These laws are enacted to prevent such things as the de facto segregation that occurred during the Jim Crow era.  Majorities can and do make products and services inaccessible by implementing de facto networks of discrimination.

Even when the specific concerns of LBGTQ activists are wholly legitimate, any comparison between those struggles and the oppression and indignity of African-Americans living under segregation belittles the significance of the civil rights movement and is both inappropriate and shameful.

So now you're belittling the suffering of LGBT people and calling comparing their experiences to those suffered by blacks under segregation shameful. Well, you're obviously an asshole, it's just we now know what kind of asshole you are. Prior to Stonewall, LGBT people suffered discrimination and lack of civil rights equally as significant as blacks suffered under Jim Crow. Need I remind you that in some parts of the world homosexuals are being thrown off rooftops simply for the crime of being homosexual? Monday I had the pleasure of discussing immigration with an Iranian refugee who is gay. Under Iranian law, he could face the death penalty if his immigration to this country is denied. And prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, gay people were denied many things that were reserved for straight couples by law in at least 13 states, and federal discrimination against same-sex couples was a fact of law. So either you're simply ignorant about what you speak, or this is yet another example pointing to the fact that you're a reprehensible cunt.

Quote:Matthew Wayne "Matt" Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998) was an American student at the University of Wyoming who was beaten, tortured, and left to die near Laramie on the night of October 6, 1998. He was taken to Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado, where he died six days later from severe head injuries. Perpetrators Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson were arrested shortly after the attack and charged with first-degree murder following Shepard's death. Significant media coverage was given to the killing and to what role Shepard's sexual orientation played as a motive in the commission of the crime.

Wikipedia || Matthew Shepard

By conservative logic, it'd be okay for a restaurant to kick out a gay couple out on a date because they disagree with the act.

Of course that's what they want. They hate gay people and want to see them discriminated against.

(August 23, 2018 at 11:54 am)Cecelia Wrote: By conservative logic, it'd be okay for a restaurant to kick out a gay couple out on a date because they disagree with the act.

Of course that's what they want.  They hate gay people and want to see them discriminated against.