Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[robvalue]

A baker could presumably refuse to sell any cake at all to a nazi who says they are going to take it to a rally. It's not a protected class.

Also, this cake doesn't have a message or symbol on it. It's two different colours. The baker is objecting to what the cake means specifically to the person buying it, because he thinks they are a liar on religious grounds to call themselves transgender.

I wonder if he could get out of this on a technicality here, because his reasoning is that he won't bake the cake because transgender people don't exist, not because the person happens to also be transgender. It doesn't make any sense as a reason not to bake a cake, but I suppose it doesn't have to.

[The Grand Nudger]

He got out of the last one on a technicality, and the court refused to grant him any exemption, then, too. The man is... very simply.... a repeat offender.

On background, it's not a tricky case.  It's been tried before, alot.  Every reasonable permutation of why a person should be allowed to discriminate in their business has been tried since the passage of the civil rights act and failed.  

It's been tried on religious ground.  Denied.

It's been tried on ground of a proprietors right to choose his clients.  Denied.

It's been tried on grounds of having exceeded federal authority.  Denied.

Hell, Bob Jones U got shit on 8-1 as recently as '83 with their christian moral character song and dance. In each instance, the decisions have been taken to be some indication of how religion is being oppressed in america..but in each case, the decisions have revolved around the compelling interest of the state -regardless- of the religious or social convictions of the person seeking exemption. There's been about a case a year since it became the law of the land and it's still here, still the law of the land.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You do realize that he's being used as a proxy by the ADF?  They picked him specifically because he was willing to be their legal guinea pig.  The activists aren't picking on him, he's an activist.

Christians suddenly have a problem with people bringing a repeat offender to the attention of the authorites, though?  WTF is that all about?  A man pleading for a right to discriminate is..somehow, the victim of discrimination?  

Pull my other one, lol.

Oh come now you evil atheist.... can you think of anything more evil, more despicable, more un-american than asking a baker to bake cakes for money ?

Unamerican is using government power to compel labor from people and forcing them to express values violating their conscience.

[robvalue]

It's not surprising that the bible has no understanding of being transgender since it was written 2000 years ago, and many people today don't even understand it. I highly doubt it mentions who you should bake cakes for, though. It's more to do with who to kill.

[The Grand Nudger]

The really twisted bit, in all of this, imo anyway, is this.  There is some disagreement over whether there should even be civil rights laws.  I don't agree with the argument that there shouldn't be..but acknowledged clearly and without obfuscation this is, at least, a respectable disagreement of opinion.  The truth is that the only way to remove the civil rights of these groups that bigoted christians feel religiously compelled to discriminate against is to completely nullify them.  Unless we're willing to remove article one (article one, lol) and the fourteenth amendment from the constitution....these guys are going to have to find some other way to get right with jesus.  

This, ultimately, is the aim of christian dominionism in the first place.  Their cynical attempt to use civil rights laws and other federal guarantees in order to strip some devalued class of the same needs to be put under a burning white spotlight. All the more so when they obfuscate that fact for reasons of finding it's confrontation unutterable.

Just..fucking..say it. Say that you support religious discrimination. You do. Then the discussion can be had out in the open and in earnest.

---

Unamerican is using government power to compel labor from people and forcing them to express values violating their conscience.

Did the state mandate his job assignment as a baker?  Did the state force him to open a cake shop instead of a church?  If he refuses to bake this cake, will they hold him at gunpoint...or send some guys over to hold his hands and force him to stir the batter?

No...no..no..and no.  

Wanna do business in the US of A?  Follow the damned laws.  Don't wanna follow the laws..pay the fines. It's not that difficult. There's all sorts of illegal shit I'd -love- to do for a living..but I don't. Is it wholly beyond the realm of reasonable that a person look at applicable laws before they open up shop and ask themselves the question "can I follow these laws?"..? Is there some point that "but -my- religion" is a compelling reason to deprive someone -else- of their rights? Do these people think that their rights are wholly unrestricted and sacrosanct even in the case of a conflict between anothers? Do they think that our rights are a suicide pact?

What?

[Tiberius]

Oh come now you evil atheist.... can you think of anything more evil, more despicable, more un-american than asking a baker to bake cakes for money ?

Unamerican is using government power to compel labor from people and forcing them to express values violating their conscience.

So the 6th amendment is un-American? The constitution compels labor from attorneys and forces them to express values violating their conscience by defending criminals.

[The Grand Nudger]

Article one, section eight, clause three of the constitution establishes the authority of the government to

regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I see plenty up above that would inevitably go against a great many peoples conscience, particularly in benefit of hindsight, lol.

Was that unamerican?  Or has it simply become inconvenient to christian dominionists and bigots?

How about the fourteenth amendment, section one

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It was certainly against many law enforcement officers and agents of the court conscience to provide equal protection. Still is, in too many cases. They even tried that line to the supreme court shortly after the passage of the civil rights act...........

While the history of our state and it's people may offer strong arguments to the contrary...the position of our foundational documents is deafening. It's the one good thing the US has done that needs no qualifier whatsoever. We fail to live up to their promise routinely..but the promise is still there, waiting on us. Unless, I guess.."jesus" disapproves of the constitution of the united states of america and demands that his adherents break the law....

In which case, fuck that guy..who cares?

[Joods]

That's why I keep saying, what exactly is the law here? Is a Baker allowed to refuse services to an event/cause that he is morally opposed to? The answer is either yes or no. It makes no sense to say "well, you are allowed to refuse for this event, but not for this other event..."

Another much less extreme example is a cake that says "Pro Choice" on it for a pro choice fundraiser. I would absolutely refuse. Because it is a cause I am morally opposed to and I want no part in it. I either have the legal right to refuse, or I don't. Just like with the white supremacist example.

Likewise, if you are an atheist and you are strongly morally opposed to the "indoctrination of children" or whatever you wanna call it, you should be legally allowed to refuse to bake a cake for an infant baptism or a 2nd grade first communion.

It doesnt matter what the cause is, as far as the law is concerned. If you are morally opposed, you either should or should not have the right to refuse taking part in it by creating and providing a cake for it.

You make some good points, however there are people in this country who absolutely take advantage of a situation and intentionally oppress certain groups or classes of individuals. This is why there are anti-discrimination laws in this country that specifically protect certain groups of people. There are going to be people who don't agree with the causes of others and that's fine. But when people show their hate and disdain for someone because of who they were born as or the for the color of their skin, for example, that's not okay. It's bigotry and against the laws of this country.

To put it another way; If someone found records from the baker that proved he refused to sell cakes to gay people, then that's arguably blatant discrimination against gay people. And he could be sued for that.

Conversely, if a gay couple went in looking for a cake and told the baker when the cake was needed by and the baker said he was already booked for another venue that day, that's not discrimination because he simply doesn't have the time to bake the cake on the requested day.

[Tiberius]

Yes. And vice versa if the Baker is Muslim or whatever and refuses to make a cake for a Christmas celebration.

Are there any limits? If so, what are they?

Should a white racist baker be able to refuse a cake to black people, celebrating their daughter’s graduation, because he doesn’t believe in the “education of lesser races”?

The fundamental problem here seems to be equating speech with symbolism. Baking a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding doesn’t mean the baker supports the concept. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

If a hetero couple request a cake from the baker, and then after receiving it give it to their gay friends, who were actually getting married, does that mean the baker now supports gay marriage? Is what the couple did wrong?

[LadyForCamus]

I wonder if he bakes wedding cakes for people who are on their second marriage. After all, divorce is expressly forbidden in the NT, and any woman who remarries commits adultery, so says Jesus.

Why do I get the feeling he only takes a moral stand against the queers and weirdos?

I doubt that people ordering a cake for a second marriage bother to tell him that it's for a second marriage.

This person went out of the way to say it had to do with being transgender. They're trying to stir up shit.

Then perhaps, in order to maintain his status as a Good Christian in the eyes of the Lord, he should be screening all potential customers before consenting to provide his services.  I’m sure he’d be aghast at the thought that he was unknowingly complicit in sending out any kind of message that didn’t comport with his religious values, yeah?