Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Tiberius]

Part of me though, wants that to be allowed so the baker's racism can be exposed and his busyness boycotted and go down in flames.

This didn’t happen in the past though, and there’s no reason to think it would happen today. Racists have their supporters, and often people won’t care or can’t boycott. If you live in small town America and there is one grocery store, owned by a known racist, it’s difficult to depend on any white families to boycott his business, because they unfortunately rely on it. The civil rights act was brought about to try and prevent this kind of behavior in the first place, and it worked. Business owners cannot legally discriminate towards people based on skin color anymore.

But...there’s no fundamental difference between a same-sex wedding and a hetero wedding either. It’s only an issue of the sex of the partners.

What if the baker’s religion told him that graduation ceremonies for blacks were against God? Does that change the issue for you?

I’m trying to understand what difference there is. At some point in your mind it becomes not ok. What is the differentiator?

I need to get going, but do definitely want to come back and talk about this bc I am on the fence about it and can see pros and cons and arguments to both sides, depending on which extreme is taken.

Maybe a real quick response would be that marriage itself is considered a religious sacramental ceremony to a lot of people, and so they have certain beliefs surrounding it. Particularly that it is a union between one man and one woman, and that's it. Graduation doesn't have ties to any sort of deep seeded sacramental or religious beliefs, neither does it make sense that it would. So I would call BS on the person who tried to pull that card.

The problem is marriage is considered a religious ceremony by every religion, and it has deep societal ties that predate most religions. Whether you approve of it or not, marriage is now a legal institution as well. You can get married without having to set foot in a religious building.

Now, wedding cake doesn’t have any religious connotations to my knowledge. Why should providing a wedding cake, or any catering for that matter, even come close to entwining with a potentially sacred ceremony?

Or to put it another way, how is the ceremony legitimized in the eyes of a believer who opposes the religious / sacred nature of the event by the presence of a cake.

To add to your point about it being a religious ceremony. Should this baker be allowed to refuse a cake to a straight couple who are atheists? Or who have married before (assuming he is Catholic)? Also, if he does provide cake to atheist couples, or non-Catholic couples, does it change your opinion if he still refuses to provide cake to gay couples? That is, if he is clearly only discriminating against gay couples, should that be legal?

I can understand a minister/pastor being allowed to deny the actual service by the way. I don't think anti-gay priests should be forced to perform same-sex marriages, nor do I think Catholic priests should be forced to perform marriages of previously married people. However there is a gargantuan difference between a priest, who performs a vital role in the ceremony, and a baker, who provides the fucking dessert.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wonderfully, in the US at least, priests and pastors are wholly protected from being forced to provide those services that the religious seem to think would be okay to deny to others. Protected, mind, by the same laws that religionists seek to undermine and/or remove. The public accom clause doesn't apply to them even if they are, in effect, a business that relies on providing those services (and they are).

I'm not sure they've thought this through. : shrugs :

Is cake a sacrament, now? Lemme check catechism.

I sometimes wonder if people..like..lots of them..aren't well informed concerning our system of governance and what it is people are referring to when they make the oath "this..we'll defend". That people take advantage of that to dupe otherwise well meaning people into saying and thinking totally fucked up shit......

[robvalue]

If you let someone break the law on religious grounds, then you have to let them break the law on any grounds. I can make up any religion I want, with whatever "beliefs" I want.

That's the whole purpose of secular government. It's sad that you even need to have a law protecting certain classes from bigoted assholes, but here we are.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's the US governments position that you can, indeed..make up any religion on any ridiculous grounds that you want (we offer no comment)..and that regardless of that, we have a compelling interest.

[Cecelia]

The idea of freedom, in the eyes of the religious right, only extends as far as they want it to.

The right to discriminate against gays and transgenders? ABSOLUTE!
A woman's right to an abortion? NO WAY!
A man's right to smoke marijuana? NO HOW!
A woman's right to prostitute herself? WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT!

Apparently 'freedom is absolute! Except when it goes against our religious beliefs."

Anyone okay with discrimination is a morally abhorrent person in my book, and not someone I'd want to associate with.

[SaStrike]

The baker won round 1's case in the supreme court. No point arguing. You can decide what's right and what's wrong when you're chief justice.

[The Grand Nudger]

A misremembrence of the recent past amenable to the dominionist right.  The baker lost his case. He won a different case, instead. Lightning is unlikely to strike twice, in that regard. ADF should have picked a different person, at least.

[Tiberius]

The baker won round 1's case in the supreme court. No point arguing. You can decide what's right and what's wrong when you're chief justice.

Read the ruling in the case. It was not determined that he can discriminate, only that the commission that investigated and ruled against him in Colorado was unfair and biased. It was a narrow decision, such that 2 of the liberal justices voted in concurrence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which was hilarious on it's face...since the evidence refered to were the comments of an equally "christian" official.

One christian telling another christian to stop using christianity as an excuse to be a bigot is animus...now, in these united states...according to a bigoted christian. The state of american christianity, folks.

[bennyboy]

I don't think I fully understand the issue.

Was the cake ultimately refused because of the identity of the person, or something about the cake that expressed trans pride?

I have to say, there are some perfectly legal things that I, if I were a cake maker, wouldn't be willing to write on a cake. "Congratulations on your son's circumcision," maybe, since I think that's a barbaric practice. If pedophilia was somehow legalized (say if it was conducted under the auspices of a Church as "religious expression"), and I knew a cake was intended to be served at a pedophilia party, I might say, "Fuck you guys, you assholes don't get any of my delicious cake!"

What I don't understand is how any of this comes up in this particular case. The gay wedding I get-- the baker is likely being asked to put two grooms on the cake, and the baker doesn't want to do it. But in this case, how does the trans issue come up? It seems to me very likely that someone, knowing the religious proclivities of the baker, is baiting him/her by injecting sexuality into a business transaction that wouldn't require it.

My question would be this: should a cake maker be allowed to refuse to write a message ON the cake if they want? Can they just bake a generic cake, and give the person ordering a tube of stuff to write with?