Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Angrboda]

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?

The lawyer requesting the cake explicitly noted that it was going to be used in association with a transgender celebration when she ordered the cake, and Phillips explicitly told her that the reason for his refusal was because of the nature of the celebration involved. People seem to capitalize on the idea that the lawyer was intentionally bringing the issue up, but at the same time, Phillips didn't have to give a reason for the refusal either. So I think that cuts both ways. It really doesn't matter, though. Requesting a cake in the way that the lawyer did does not violate any law, and such "test cases" are floated all the time. The legal issue isn't changed by how the issue came about. At the time of the original ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, there were already similar cases in the pipeline to test such laws with respect to businesses providing other products and services. The case of William Jack was referenced in the Supreme Court decision in which Jack went around to various known LGBT friendly bakers asking for a cake with anti-homosexual bible verses on them and was refused on the grounds that the content was "offensive" (whether the state is entitled to rule on what constitutes an offensive message hasn't really been adjudicated, but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission denied his suit against the LGBT friendly bakers). At the time that William Jack was doing this, he was advertising on Youtube just exactly what he was doing in trying to generate similar discrimination cases, and it hasn't affected any ruling on the matter.

[RoadRunner79]

It is not about discriminating against the person but the service that they are being asked to do.

Then he needs no exemption from the law, on religious grounds or any other... and has no case to plead before the courts....and yet....

So, does he..as a cake baker, have a moral objection to baking cakes......?

LOL.... no I don't think that he has a moral objection to baking a cake. And in the other case, he specifically said that he would sell them something else, so it is not about the person either (I'm unsure if this was the case here, but I would assume).

[SaStrike]

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.

Even in that case, the Christian prohibition is against same-sex acts, not against same-sex unions. The bible didn't foresee that development, and so it is silent on that score. Given that the bible is silent on whether same-sex marriage is or isn't a valid sacrament, it seems rather obvious that the baker was originally objecting to the homosexual orientation of the customers. One can infer that Christianity condemns same-sex marriage, but it's not a direct and obvious reading of the bible, anymore than that God approved of chattel slavery can be directly read in the bible. One has to take the sanction about homosexual acts in the bible and extrapolate from that to reach an opposition to the sacrament being applied to same-sex unions. Similar problems hold with a Catholic conception of the sacrament, as natural law is a philosophical position, not a biblical one. The Catholic church can, and an individual baker also can believe whatever they want regardless of whether it's biblical or not, but then you have to open up the whole can of worms as to what is protected in terms of religious objections. If I claim to be a religion of one person, can I use that to exempt me from any law I see fit just by changing my beliefs to suit?

A union or marriage is an act! Also that's a lot of words for semantics that wouldn't fly in court at all.

---

I feel sorry for the people being discriminated against but hey the court has spoken.

I wouldn't want to go to a store and be denied service or products because of who I am or because my views are different. Why should trans people? But I guess there will always be ignorance and stupidity. I know for a fact that forcing the fools by law to serve me wouldn't actually change their negativity towards me. (In fact might make it worse!)

So might as well go elsewhere

[The Grand Nudger]

The courts -have- spoken....in favor of those who others wouldn't discriminate against others......I can't lay down my head at night unless people realize that that the US is not that asshole.

These People™, as much as Some People™ might want that to be the US....it's not. We've sided otherwise for almost 60 yrs.........

[Ravenshire]

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.

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 Grand Nudger]

-as simple as heating a hotdog to the state minimum temp.  Christers are assholes.

[SaStrike]

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

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.

Yes, exactly. But still people wanna compare trans and homesexual people to pedophiles and racists. Is it that hard to be wrong? Where people try to justify their stance with this kind of example.

[Angrboda]

So if anyone tried to say they were refusing to make a cake for a black person's graduation party on the grounds that "black graduations" (which isn't even a thing) is somehow against their moral and/or religious beliefs, I would call BS. I would say that baker is discriminating against the person, and not the event itself, since there is no association between graduation and religion.

Perhaps the best way to handle completely off the wall scenarios like the ones above would be to take them to court and let them figure out whether there is legitimate religious and or moral beliefs behind it. 

Are you suggesting the government should be in the business of deciding what is and isn't a legitimate religion? Because I can see all kinds of wrong with that.

---

Then he needs no exemption from the law, on religious grounds or any other... and has no case to plead before the courts....and yet....

So, does he..as a cake baker, have a moral objection to baking cakes......?

LOL.... no I don't think that he has a moral objection to baking a cake.  And in the other case, he specifically said that he would sell them something else, so it is not about the person either (I'm unsure if this was the case here, but I would assume).

If I recall correctly, he also objected to selling lesbians cupcakes. Jack Phillips is a very troubled man.

[The Grand Nudger]

........these people..............

[Angrboda]

Even in that case, the Christian prohibition is against same-sex acts, not against same-sex unions.  The bible didn't foresee that development, and so it is silent on that score.  Given that the bible is silent on whether same-sex marriage is or isn't a valid sacrament, it seems rather obvious that the baker was originally objecting to the homosexual orientation of the customers.  One can infer that Christianity condemns same-sex marriage, but it's not a direct and obvious reading of the bible, anymore than that God approved of chattel slavery can be directly read in the bible.  One has to take the sanction about homosexual acts in the bible and extrapolate from that to reach an opposition to the sacrament being applied to same-sex unions.  Similar problems hold with a Catholic conception of the sacrament, as natural law is a philosophical position, not a biblical one.  The Catholic church can, and an individual baker also can believe whatever they want regardless of whether it's biblical or not, but then you have to open up the whole can of worms as to what is protected in terms of religious objections.  If I claim to be a religion of one person, can I use that to exempt me from any law I see fit just by changing my beliefs to suit?

A union or marriage is an act! Also that's a lot of words for semantics that wouldn't fly in court at all.

---

I feel sorry for the people being discriminated against but hey the court has spoken.

I wouldn't want to go to a store and be denied service or products because of who I am or because my views are different. Why should trans people? But I guess there will always be ignorance and stupidity. I know for a fact that forcing the fools by law to serve me wouldn't actually change their negativity towards me. (In fact might make it worse!)

So might as well go elsewhere

If your posts in this thread are any indication, you know fuckall about what the law and the courts have to say on the matter.

So I'm going to take your opinion with a huge grain of salt.

(And no, the bible sanctioned homosexual sex specifically, not all acts by homosexuals, so your bullshit about it being a semantic argument is just that: bullshit.)