Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jor, I am continuing to give you the benefit of the doubt and taken your points seriously. I suggest you model your responses after Tiberius, who obviously disagrees with me, but has managed to do so respectfully without resorting to insults or maligning my motives.

This tells us nothing.  You've simply substituted one unclear term with an equally unclear term…How do we determine if something has "obvious significance" or not.  Is this another Meese-like "I'll know it when I see it"?  You really haven't answered the question.  For a simple example, let's take the case under consideration.  Different people disagree on whether a pink and blue cake is obviously symbolic.  And your criteria give us no idea of how to resolve that situation.

I don’t know what to make of your apparent lack of understanding about semiotics. I cannot tell if you are motivated by ideology, have an intellectual blind-spot, hold naive ideas about signifiers, or simply have a nuanced position that eludes me. It is the nature of symbols to shift meaning over time and in various contexts. It is very easy to see hidden meanings where none are intended or have the significance of something go over one’s head. Such fluidity; however, does not exclude the ability of people to discern symbolism when it is clearly present, subtle, obscure, or somewhere in between.

I have indeed answered your question. I gave two criteria both of which must be met. Your rebuttal focused on each criteria in isolation. Those criteria were 1) made to order and 2) expressive. Symbols, like crosses and swastikas, are obvious because there is wide cultural knowledge of those signs and their meanings. Both the creator and the audience know and share an understanding of their significance. And yes, symbolisms, such as color choices, are not always obvious. In such cases, a shared meaning must be known to both the creator and the intended audience. That was the case with respect the cake in question. Both criteria were met. The cake is question was made to order. The lawyer told the baker the significance of the color choices.

I would hope you would be in favor of laws and precedents which can be unambiguously applied so that we don't have to depend upon the whims of the court to determine whether the law or precedent has been correctly applied.  Your criteria do nothing to this end.

If things were always so clear cut we wouldn’t need judges. And they do it all the time, such as when they determine whether a crime was involuntary manslaughter or homicide. Or whether a statement is slanderous, instigation, or “fighting words”. Nevertheless, I believe the criteria are sufficient to decide the majority of cases for people who are interested only in quibbling, like you seem to be doing now.

Matthew Wayne "Matt" Shepard …Significant media coverage was given to the killing and to what role Shepard's sexual orientation played as a motive in the commission of the crime.
Wikipedia || Matthew Shepard

There was more to that specific event: The Guardian

“A new twist came last year with the publication of another book, this one by investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez, who has spent 13 years interviewing more than 100 people with a connection to the case. His conclusion, outlined in The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard, is that the grotesque murder was not a hate crime, but could instead be blamed on crystal meth, a drug that was flooding Denver and the surrounding area at the time of Matthew’s death.”

I am not saying the journalist refuted the entire role of Shepard’s homosexuality, just that what happened was more complex and not the clear-cut example some activists made it out to be.