Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[possibletarian]

I wonder if he bakes wedding cakes for people who are on their second marriage. After all, divorce is expressly forbidden in the NT, and any woman who remarries commits adultery, so says Jesus.

Why do I get the feeling he only takes a moral stand against the queers and weirdos?

Second marriage could be okay if the previous partner died, but you are right, the very clear NT rule to not re-marry while the previous partner is alive is often conveniently forgotten by the christian masses.  And it would show clear discrimination if it is shown that he would bake cakes for second marriages, or at least demand an explanation of why he obeys one religious rule and ignores another for profit. If that can be shown then clearly they are picking and choosing what rules in the bible are suitable for them and have moved beyond the realms of religious conscience already.

---

It seems that for the left lately, that they are not against discrimination at all.  It is all about who is being discriminated against.  They even promote it, when it is against someone that they don't like.  They point to the law only when it is on their side, and condemn it when it is not.  You say you are for freedom of speech, but despite the false narrative, that is what this baker is claiming.   That it is not about who, but what and why he is refusing a specific job, that conveys a specific message.

Either law is broken and there is discrimination or it is not broken and there is no discrimination.  Law's are always challenged when people make a stand against as in the case of a black woman who refused requests to give up her seat on a bus because she was black.

Rights are not won by giving in to discrimination, the baker runs a business the law states that all genders must be treated equally, so how does one fight for these rights?   They show the bigotry in plain sight of those involved, especially when it conflicts with the law.  The other matters you mention are not their fight, in fact I doubt there is anyone who fights for every perceived discrimination and to bring a whole host of lists of possible discriminations up really is just a red herring and to bring white supremacy up as discrimination shows a complete lack of understanding for the fight for justice.

To say you are wrong to fight for the thing that most affects you because you don't fight every fight, is like saying don't give to a starving man, unless you are willing to feed everyone who is hungry.

[Divinity]

I like how Roadrunner will stick up for white supremacists in order to stick it to Transgenders. Shows you what he's really about.

[LastPoet]

I like how Roadrunner will stick up for white supremacists in order to stick it to Transgenders.  Shows you what he's really about.

Well, I am bad, real bad making cakes, but If I could bake, I would sell them to everyone with cash.

Business. Its not hard to understand. I think everyone should have cake.

[vulcanlogician]

If that can be shown then clearly they are picking and choosing what rules in the bible are suitable for them and have moved beyond the realms of religious conscience already.

Isn't it rather impossible not to pick and choose? I've always said the Bible is too damn big for its own good. There are actually some good moral imperatives in there (stuff that Martin Luther King and Gandhi picked up on), but they do little to no good because they are buried in page after page of "Glorify God!" and "Anything weird is sexually immoral." When faced with that Holy Text Wall, there isn't really much of a choice for modern Christians but to pick a few things and roll with them. The real shame is that those powerful, world-changing moral imperatives often wind up in the waste bin, while the aggrandizement of the religion itself takes front and center.

The question I'm asking myself isn't whether it "can be shown" that the baker willfully ignores one of Jesus commands... it's the fact that he willfully ignores one to begin with. I don't care what can be publicly demonstrated. If he did indeed insist on turning away people who were on their second marriage (when the former spouse still lives) that would cut into his profits, that would earn him some animosity from some of his fellow Christians, and that would demonstrate genuine moral courage. The issue for me isn't whether such-and-such moral position ought to be protected legally, but does such-and-such moral position really amount to shit to begin with. My theory is: no. Christian morality is but a garment that these people wear when they want to be bigots, and they'll take those garments right off the minute they become inconvenient.

[robvalue]

You're right. It's a huge contradictory mess. It's impossible to follow it accurately at face value. Decisions must be made about interpretation.

I don't think it legally makes any difference why the baker refuses a service to someone solely on the grounds that they are transsexual. It just matters that this discrimination was made. He doesn't get to ignore the law because he has a religious reason for his actions.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's been the opinion of the court in those cases that it's heard before.  OFC, you never know, the point of packing benches is to have a chance at a different outcome the next go round.

[RoadRunner79]

I like how Roadrunner will stick up for white supremacists in order to stick it to Transgenders. Shows you what he's really about.

I will support freedom of speech, even for those who I disagree with what they are saying as well. It doesnt mean that I’m supporting what they say.

---

So many here seem to default to attacking the person, rather than having a discussion. It’s sad.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then go find some free speech to support, and stop supporting discrimination as free speech?

[Joods]

I will support freedom of speech, even for those who I disagree with what they are saying as well. It doesnt mean that I’m supporting what they say.

---

So many here seem to default to attacking the person, rather than having a discussion. It’s sad.

When you understand the difference between actual free speech and hiding behind a religious belief so that you can break discrimination laws while claiming free speech, then we can have a discussion. Until then, no.

[The Grand Nudger]

The bit is as transparent as it could possibly be.  The public accommodations clause doesn't say that you can't be a bigoted dirtball..it doesn't even say that you can't scream bigoted shit to their face.  It simply says that you have to pretend that they're human beings long enough to take their money.  It's a phenomenally low bar to meet.

Any person seeking exemption from that clause on account of their religious beliefs is explicitly pleading for the ability to legally discriminate.  If they aren't, they have no case to seek exemption from discrimination law on account of their religion.  Kindof right there in the open.

My personal fave, about this one..is that his new complaint entirely eradicates his defense of the previous run of discrimination. Is it a coincidence that somebody came in and asked for a birthday cake? No, ofc not..he swore up and down he wasn't discriminating, last time, because he'd bake birthday cakes even if he wouldn't bake wedding cakes. Turns out that was utter horseshit. Who could have seen it coming, lol.