Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I get so sick of bad analogies, and how frequently they are used in religious apologetics.

A bad analogy is like a day without sunshine.

Boru

[RoadRunner79]

So basically you understand what I was trying to say, but twisted it to mean something else. I think that is a better example than defense of what I was getting at.

I didn't twist shit, asshole. I said quite plainly that you were making an inappropriate analogy. How you see that as twisting shit is beyond me. It's a relatively simple and obvious objection. That you think you can make something out of that which it wasn't seems to be just more bullshit on your part. I understood what you were saying and made a relevant objection to it. That you now want to misrepresent that as twisting your meaning is pure unadulterated horseshit. You're neither clever nor correct. So you can take your claim and shove it up your ass.

Sorry, it was late when I responded, and I think I was confusing your post with others. How do you think that it is a weak analogy? I was really making an analogy, but a connection of leaving out information purposely in order to deceive. Why do you think that is incorrect?

---

I didn't twist shit, asshole.  I said quite plainly that you were making an inappropriate analogy.  How you see that as twisting shit is beyond me.  It's a relatively simple and obvious objection.  That you think you can make something out of that which it wasn't seems to be just more bullshit on your part.  I understood what you were saying and made a relevant objection to it.  That you now want to misrepresent that as twisting your meaning is pure unadulterated horseshit.  You're neither clever nor correct.  So you can take your claim and shove it up your ass.

He tried doing that to me several pages back. I think it's his go to. You know, when he fully knows a person understands his points, but doesn't agree, he uses the tactic of "Oh, you're twisting what I said". 

What bullshit.

Its not because you disagree, but how you do it. And not accurately representing others. I’ve made my points, if they are ignored at this point, there is not much I can do.

The facts are that the owner denied the job, because of it’s content, not because of descrimination against the person. He would sell goods and custom goods to this person, but not the specific content he was being asked to create. He has also denied content which demeaning towards the LGBTQ. Colorado law, allows for a business owner to refuse such custom services, when they have issue with the content. No examples have been presented, where a person was refused services because of their sexual preference.

[Divinity]

Christians: We're not bigots! We just take up for them at every chance, and give them money!

[Amarok]

And defend them at ever opportunity and take their side on every issue

[possibletarian]

The facts are that the owner denied the job, because of it’s content, not because of descrimination against the person.  He would sell goods and custom goods to this person, but not the specific content he was being asked to create.  He has also denied content which demeaning towards the LGBTQ.  Colorado law, allows for a business owner to refuse such custom services, when they have issue with the content. No examples have been presented, where a person was refused services because of their sexual preference.

Does any of that matter? he was being asked to do a perfectly legitimate job to do with his trade, he them refused based on the content that he claimed offended his religious sensibilities.   The law is clear on these issues though you cannot refuse service on these particular issues, to do so is discriminatory, he then based on that discrimination refused service to the customer.

It's a bit like refusing to serve a black person because they want a iced representation of two black people getting married and I don't like blacks. And it's the content that i dislike, I have no issue with the person asking me to bake the cake and they are welcome to buy any other kind of cake.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...thank you for bringing more dishonest arguments to our attention.

Jor, I feel no need for insults in order to state my position. I believe there are things on which we can agree. Even if you still do not share my conclusions and we disagree passionately that does not mean I consider you are stupid or dishonest.

First, I think we agree that our thought processes are not immediately apparent. While our minds are adapted to generally present the world to us accurately, it nevertheless makes mistakes. And not just optical illusions. The mind tricks us, often concealing our true motivations from ourselves, misinterpreting others, seeing significance where there is none, etc. That is the human condition, life demands that we try to make sense of the world and our place in it while at the same time the true nature of both external and internal reality are not immediately obvious.

I believe, contrary to the majority opinion on AF, that people have an sensus divinitas and that this inner voice is not false; but rather, truly reflects the presence of the Divine. In my opinion various logical demonstrations, like the 5 Ways, and empirical data, like the Gospel narratives, support this interpretation. These are subjective beliefs that inform my values such as the existential equality of every human being and the inherent dignity of every person. These things were are not immediately obvious within Greco-Roman societies or the surrounding Germanic tribes. Those ideas were latent in Christianity and slowly came to fruition in Western Europe and which I accept as the motivating principles of the American and French Revolutions. This is one of the main reasons why freedom of religion and speech are so highly valued.

Likewise, many people passionately, believe that the experience of strong sexual desires accurately reflect particular deep seated truths about the psyche that are not necessarily connected with one’s biology, specifically, that the subjective feeling of being a man or woman is not connected to the binary sexual biology they share with all other mammals. Another belief is that sexual desires are indicative of an inflexible part of personal identity. Some people support the veracity of this subjective feeling with various medical studies of brain structures, cultural acceptance in various society, self-reports & personal testimonies, etc. As with sensus divinitas, the sense of one’s own sexual nature is not obviously related to the conclusions about reality drawn from it.

In both cases what is immediately apparent, the sensus divinitas and the sense of one’s sexual nature, may or may not accurately reflect what is really going on. At the ends of Orwell’s 1984, we find the protagonist, Winston, being asked to deny what he knows to be true. The torturer holds up four fingers and insists that Winston say that there are five fingers. Even when Winston capitulates and says there are five fingers, just to end his pain, his tormentor continues the torture until Winston’s mind is so broken that he starts to actually see five fingers instead of the four he percieves. Most people see in this story an accurate depiction of how totalitarian systems attempt to inculcate conformity of thought, even if it is contrary to one's perceptions of reality, to maintain power. Fascism demands that people deny the equality and dignity of out-groups. Communism demands that people deny their individuality and personal agency.

According to cherished American values, citizens do not demand conformity of thought nor do we expect others to behave contrary to the convictions that inform their values and give meaning to their lives. It is an interesting and telling fact that the motto on the very first coins minted in the United Stated was “Mind Your Business.”

As I see it, the strong feelings of both the sensus divinitas and sexual identity make the subsequent apparent beliefs about them both sincerely held convictions. And just as the principles of human dignity and equality are latent in Christianity so also the principles of inflexible sexual identity and the separation of gender from biological sex inform particular principles of gender equality. IMHO the political question is not which sincerely held beliefs better represent the underlying reality; but rather, how as a nation we can balance the interests of both. I believe the wrong way to approach the problem is to demand that one party deny their perception of reality to conform to the political aims of the other. That is the clear path to tyranny presented in Orwell’s 1984.

In my estimation, conservative Christians have come to accept that some people truly believe that their gender is distinct from their biological sex and that how they live their lives is their own business. I also believe that the radical left has yet to accept that other people are entitled to their own opinions about the relationship between Mankind and its Creator and to live accordingly. They go beyond the reasonable request for tolerance and demand affirmation. That is the specific issue at hand in the most recent Masterpiece Cake issue; can you compel someone to affirm things contrary to their perception of reality, i.e. like saying there are five fingers when they see only four.

How so?

I think we both agree physical things have no inherent meaning. As such color has no gender but by mere convention our culture considers blue masculine and pink feminine. As such a pink cake with blue frosting has no inherent meaning. Nevertheless colors can convey meaning, just as lighting a flag on fire or kneeling during the national anthem do. Even the simplest of acts, like the choice of a font, can be enormously significant. What things mean, regardless or how subtle they are conveyed is important. To deny that is to minimize the role of how meaning informs our actions.

Although we cannot know for sure, if the lawyer, who by all appearances was transgender, had asked for the exact same cake design, but said that it was for his or her nephew and that the design would reflect the boy’s preferences for pastel colors, then presumably, Philips would have made the cake according to specifications and as such be compliant with Colorado law. Or not, in which case he would have been declining service based on the person, not on the design, and run afoul of the law.

But that is not what happened.

The lawyer asked for a specific design and assigned meaning to that design, a meaning intended to offend the baker. Fulfilling the lawyer’s request would have required the Christian baker to accept the lawyer’s meaning and participate in expressing it. Having been made aware of the intended meaning the baker cannot back away back away from it and tell himself that it is just insignificant pink and blue frosting. That would be self-deception, i.e. the same as saying that five fingers when you see four.

To enshrine self-deception into law is textbook tyranny. In a famous example, the Chinese Communists forced USAF prisoners to repeatedly write things like “Communism has made China a great nation,” and “American is an Imperialist oppressor.” At first the POW’s said, sure I’ll write whatever you want, I’ll just know in my heart that those things aren’t true. However, the insidious nature of the discrepancy between what they were forced to profess and what they actually believed broke them down until ultimately they started to believe the things they wrote.

Jor, your point is technically correct. The SCOTUS only found that the State of Colorado violated Philips civil rights by acting out of malice towards his sincerely held religious conviction. They punted on the 1st amendment issue. Ultimately, I believe, the case will turn on a truly philosophical issue about how meaning is assigned and politically whether or not people must affirm and profess messages contrary to their sincerely held convictions.

[RoadRunner79]

The facts are that the owner denied the job, because of it’s content, not because of descrimination against the person.  He would sell goods and custom goods to this person, but not the specific content he was being asked to create.  He has also denied content which demeaning towards the LGBTQ.  Colorado law, allows for a business owner to refuse such custom services, when they have issue with the content. No examples have been presented, where a person was refused services because of their sexual preference.

Does any of that matter? he was being asked to do a perfectly legitimate job to do with his trade, he them refused based on the content that he claimed offended his religious sensibilities.   The law is clear on these issues though you cannot refuse service on these particular issues, to do so is discriminatory, he then based on that discrimination refused service to the customer.

It's a bit like refusing to serve a black person because they want a iced representation of two black people getting married and I don't like blacks. And it's the content that i dislike, I have no issue with the person asking me to bake the cake and they are welcome to buy any other kind of cake.

Yes, he refused service, based on the content of what he was being asked to do, not on the basis of who was asking for it.   In the fact sheet, that Neo linked to previously, it stated, that this is a right within the laws of Colorado for a business to refuse service for specific content they are being asked to custom make.  In general, I don't really find this to be only an issue of religion, and I don't see why certain people should have extra privileges over others in this regard.

[Amarok]

Bigot Christians unite in your pathetic griping

[Catholic_Lady]

I am curious to know what everyone's opinions are about what the law should be, regarding the whole cake baking thing....

Should it always be illegal for a bakery owner to refuse services for an event/cause he disagrees with? Should it always be legal? Should it depend on which event/cause is being refused? And if so, how to identify which causes can be legally refused and which cannot?

[possibletarian]

I am curious to know what everyone's opinions are about what the law should be, regarding the whole cake baking thing....

Should it always be illegal for a bakery owner to refuse services for an event/cause he disagrees with? Should it always be legal? Should it depend on which event/cause is being refused? And if so, how to identify which causes can be legally refused and which cannot?

The law is already clear on the issue of gender identity, this is the whole point of what is going on now.

I'm sure both you and I could think up some scenarios that have not been tested yet, but that would not mean that we should withhold judgement on other issues that have already been legally clarified.

If it turns out the message he was asked to convey was full of hate and vitriol, then I'm sure he would have support for his refusal. If it is simply one of love from one person to another and his problem is with the gender of the people involved then it is likely he has broken the (already existing) law.

For instance if you were to walk in and ask for a cake with 'happy birthday to my lovely husband' I'm sure he would happily bake it. If the next day a man walks in and says can you bake a cake for me with the message for my husband ' happy birthday to my lovely husband' and get refused, then how is that any other than discrimination ?

---

So far as I can tell in the case mentioned in the O.P. the baker had an issue with what the cake symbolised to the customer.

He was asked to bake a cake with pink and blue, the customer said that this was to celebrated the anniversary of becoming transgender.

So far as I can tell he was not asked to inscribe any message on the cake, this makes the refusal even more senseless, I'm sure if for instance they represent a footballs team colours and that was the reason given he would have baked it.

This refusal seemed purely based on what it meant to the customer, there is nothing about a pink and blue cake that could possibly offend.