Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Neo-Scholastic]

No, the state of Colorado is telling everyone who runs a business open to the public that they don't get to discriminate against protected classes. The asshole baker is just too fucking stupid to figure that out. He insists on continuing in discriminatory practices and he's going to continue to get slapped down.

Completely not true. There was no discrimination based on protected class.

From the Statements of Fact of the filed complaint: HERE

“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. In the Masterpiece case, Colorado told the Supreme Court how this general rule applies to cake artists. Colorado said that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes featuring pro-LGBT themes or symbols: “If [a cake artist] would not sell a … cake with a particular artistic theme,” such as a “cake featuring a symbol of gay pride,” “to any customer, regardless of that customer’s protected characteristics, he need not sell one to [anyone].” Colorado further explained that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes with pro-LGBT designs and messages: “Under the Act, [a cake artist] is free … to decline to sell cakes with ‘pro-gay’ designs or inscriptions.” And Colorado announced that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes that they consider offensive: “Businesses are entitled to reject orders … because they deem a particular product requested by a customer to be ‘offensive.’”

Philips has NOT denied service to anyone of a protected class because they are part of a protected class. That is a fact proven by his past practices. However, the baker declines, in general, to make bespoke products expressing messages he finds offensive or which violate his religious beliefs. The State of Colorado is violating its own express standards in order to harass one particular man at the prompting of an activist lawyer with a bogus request motivated by anti-Christian bigotry...the same type that is being clearly displayed here.

[LadyForCamus]

@RR

Thanks! 😃


So, the sample size is one. You can call this a case study.

[The Grand Nudger]

The other one has bells on it, Neo.  Why won't you pull it? It's just a testicle, god will understand. He made em afterall.

[Joods]

No it isn't. I addressed the part of your quote that I wanted to address. That you don't agree with my opinion doesn't have fuck all to do with quoting someone out of context. Again, if you think I broke a rule, report my ass.

I'm not saying that you are quoting me out of context, but that leaving information out intentionally from the story is similar.  It's a mis-characterization.  And has nothing to do with our disagreement.

Yet you were the one who initially mentioned it. So it has plenty to do with our disagreement. 

The sample size would be the number of time a request was made, regardless of who made it, and the refusals that went along with it. It's been mentioned that the lawyer has made numerous requests for other types of cakes only to be continuously shot down. Every time.


See above.

Again, how much data are you basing this on?   And are you including all the information?

Read what I wrote. If it isn't good enough for you, that is your problem. You're the one asking for specifics here. What we do know is that this baker has an obvious problem with anyone who doesn't fit his religious narrative. Refusal to provide goods and services to the LGBT community that he would willingly provide to others who fall outside of that community, is proof of that. The fact that there have been lawsuits about this should be all the samples you need. 

He's a bigot. I guess you're too afraid to admit that because he follows the same god as you do so I guess in your mind you owe him some sort of backing here. I bet he gives fuck all to what is being said about him in these forums. He doesn't need you to have his back here or anywhere else. It just makes you look small minded.

You don't get to set the perimeters for my opinions.

Ok... but your opinion doesn't seemed to be based on the truth of the matter. 

It's based on what the public has access to. And what the public has access to are court documents which clearly show the bigoted nature of this guy. There's your truth. The fact that you are okay with this guy hiding behind his religion to discriminate against others is just sad. I don't think that's what your god meant when he said to love thy neighbor.

I like how you totally ignored being called out for what you said. Dodge much? You can still Fuck off.

It wasn't important to the discussion.

Then you should have left that out entirely. Knowing that I have a daughter with MR, and that you and I were conversing directly with one another, this was a cheap shot and you knew it. You're no Christian. Your god would not want you to behave this way.

(I thought it was a diversion to make this about me actually)

Narcissist. Using a disability that thousands of people have, for your own personal gain is fucking stupid. Shame on you.

  We can call it a cognitive impairment if you like.  I wasn't using it in a derogatory sense, but as a difficulty in understanding and being able to accurately describe the situation. 

How about we not mention it in the first place because it has no business being in this thread. And yeah - you intentionally used it in a derogatory sense. 

I love how when people get called out for doing that, that's the first thing they say. "Oh, but I didn't mean it that way." Yes, you did and so does everyone else who chooses to use it in an argument.

[Ravenshire]

No, the state of Colorado is telling everyone who runs a business open to the public that they don't get to discriminate against protected classes. The asshole baker is just too fucking stupid to figure that out. He insists on continuing in discriminatory practices and he's going to continue to get slapped down.

Completely not true. There was no discrimination based on protected class.

From the Statements of Fact of the filed complaint: HERE

“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. In the  Masterpiece  case, Colorado told the Supreme Court how this general rule applies to cake artists. Colorado said that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes featuring  pro-LGBT themes or symbols: “If [a cake artist] would not sell a … cake with a particular artistic theme,” such as a “cake featuring a symbol of gay pride,” “to any customer, regardless of that customer’s protected characteristics, he need not sell one to [anyone].” Colorado further explained that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes with pro-LGBT designs and messages: “Under the Act, [a cake artist] is free … to decline to sell cakes with ‘pro-gay’ designs or inscriptions.” And Colorado announced that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes that they consider offensive: “Businesses are entitled to reject orders … because they deem a particular product requested by a customer to be ‘offensive.’”

Philips has NOT denied service to anyone of a protected class because they are part of a protected class. That is a fact proven by his past practices. However, the baker declines, in general, to make bespoke products expressing messages he finds offensive or which violate his religious beliefs. The State of Colorado is violating its own express standards in order to harass one particular man at the prompting of an activist lawyer with a bogus request motivated by anti-Christian bigotry...the same type that is being clearly displayed here.

And what fucking message was he asked to put on the birthday cake? Or, on the wedding cake for that matter? I don't believe either one asked for pro-anything messages. Or, are you claiming that the cake is the message?

That "statement of facts" reads like an opinion piece from faux news.

Please tell us Neo, how refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding isn't about the customer being gay or refusing to bake a birthday cake (which the asshole claimed in his previous defense that he would do) for a transgender isn't about the gender identity of the customer. Please, at least try. The laughs would make it worth it.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not saying that you are quoting me out of context, but that leaving information out intentionally from the story is similar.  It's a mis-characterization.  And has nothing to do with our disagreement.

Yet you were the one who initially mentioned it. So it has plenty to do with our disagreement. 

Again, how much data are you basing this on?   And are you including all the information?

Read what I wrote. If it isn't good enough for you, that is your problem. You're the one asking for specifics here. What we do know is that this baker has an obvious problem with anyone who doesn't fit his religious narrative. Refusal to provide goods and services to the LGBT community that he would willingly provide to others who fall outside of that community, is proof of that. The fact that there have been lawsuits about this should be all the samples you need. 

He's a bigot. I guess you're too afraid to admit that because he follows the same god as you do so I guess in your mind you owe him some sort of backing here. I bet he gives fuck all to what is being said about him in these forums. He doesn't need you to have his back here or anywhere else. It just makes you look small minded.

Ok... but your opinion doesn't seemed to be based on the truth of the matter. 

It's based on what the public has access to. And what the public has access to are court documents which clearly show the bigoted nature of this guy. There's your truth. The fact that you are okay with this guy hiding behind his religion to discriminate against others is just sad. I don't think that's what your god meant when he said to love thy neighbor.

It wasn't important to the discussion.

Then you should have left that out entirely. Knowing that I have a daughter with MR, and that you and I were conversing directly with one another, this was a cheap shot and you knew it. You're no Christian. Your god would not want you to behave this way.

(I thought it was a diversion to make this about me actually)

Narcissist. Using a disability that thousands of people have, for your own personal gain is fucking stupid. Shame on you.

  We can call it a cognitive impairment if you like.  I wasn't using it in a derogatory sense, but as a difficulty in understanding and being able to accurately describe the situation. 

How about we not mention it in the first place because it has no business being in this thread. And yeah - you intentionally used it in a derogatory sense. 

I love how when people get called out for doing that, that's the first thing they say. "Oh, but I didn't mean it that way." Yes, you did and so does everyone else who chooses to use it in an argument.

I had no idea about any personal connection. And only meant it as I explained, which is the truth. 

And yes, you have two cases which you are trying to make a larger pattern out of, while conviently leaving out information which doesn’t fit the false narrative you wish to spew

[Amarok]

Bigots never want to to own their bigotry because deep down they know it's indefensible as Road and Neo are clearly demonstrating

[Joods]

No, the state of Colorado is telling everyone who runs a business open to the public that they don't get to discriminate against protected classes. The asshole baker is just too fucking stupid to figure that out. He insists on continuing in discriminatory practices and he's going to continue to get slapped down.

Completely not true. There was no discrimination based on protected class.

From the Statements of Fact of the filed complaint: HERE

---

“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. In the  Masterpiece  case, Colorado told the Supreme Court how this general rule applies to cake artists. Colorado said that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes featuring  pro-LGBT themes or symbols: “If [a cake artist] would not sell a … cake with a particular artistic theme,” such as a “cake featuring a symbol of gay pride,” “to any customer, regardless of that customer’s protected characteristics, he need not sell one to [anyone].” Colorado further explained that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes with pro-LGBT designs and messages: “Under the Act, [a cake artist] is free … to decline to sell cakes with ‘pro-gay’ designs or inscriptions.” And Colorado announced that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes that they consider offensive: “Businesses are entitled to reject orders … because they deem a particular product requested by a customer to be ‘offensive.’”

Philips has NOT denied service to anyone of a protected class because they are part of a protected class. That is a fact proven by his past practices. However, the baker declines, in general, to make bespoke products expressing messages he finds offensive or which violate his religious beliefs. The State of Colorado is violating its own express standards in order to harass one particular man at the prompting of an activist lawyer with a bogus request motivated by anti-Christian bigotry...the same type that is being clearly displayed here.

---

In order to fully understand Colorado's public accommodation law, you need to show what it is, as it is presented in the "Complaint" you cited here. You jumped all the way to number 64 and didn't even include the entire paragraph, with all of its citations. Interesting that you did it that way. Since you felt it necessary to exclude relevant information, including this bit under "Statement of Facts", starting with Number 28, I've provided it below. Let it be shown that the "Statements of Fact" in that document, actually start with paragraph 28, which reads, with citations:

Defendants enforce Colorado’s public-accommodation law.


28. Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) makes it “unlawful for a person,“directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of …creed … , sex, [or] sexual orientation,” “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.” Colo.Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

29. That law defines “[p]erson” as “one or more individuals, limited liability companies, partnerships, associations, corporations, [or] legal representatives.” Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 24-34-301(5)(a).

30. That law defines “place of public accommodation” as “any place of business 
engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages,or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1).

31. Colorado considers Masterpiece Cakeshop a place of public accommodation under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1).

32. The public-accommodation law defines “[s]exual orientation” as “an individual’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another individual’s perception thereof.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-301(7).

33. That law exempts some organizations from its requirements. For example, it does not apply to “a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1). The law does not define “place that is principally used for religious purposes.”

[LadyForCamus]

All he’s gotta do is hang a cross from the door handle of his shop and he’s all set!

Crosses have the same effect on the gays as garlic has on vampires, didn’t you know? 😏

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.