Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Angrboda]

I don't recall transgenderism or transexuallism being against Christianity. I guess when you conflate your prejudices with those of God, you can justify anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see both sides of the argument, and have usually leaned towards the right of a bakery owner to not create a cake for an event that he/she does not morally agree with.

This is an extreme example, but the way I see it is, if I owned my own bakery and someone came in and asked me to make a cake with a swastika on it and write "White Supremacy" on it, for some sort of rally they were having, I would absolutely refuse. And I would hope I wouldn't be legally forced by the government to do it.

I'm willing to discuss this and have my mind changed, though, if someone brings up a good point.

Nazis aren't a protected class, nor are white supremacists. That would be a disgusting inversion of the purpose of antidiscrimination laws and..in point of fact, the government wouldn't and couldn't make you bake the cake. The government can't even force this particular bigoted baker to bake the cake. They can only fine him for deciding his deeply held christian bigotry was worth it. This was tried and shot down right at the start. OFC, all of this was tried and shot down last time..too.

[Javaman]

That's the thing though. It doesn't matter what the cause is. As far as the law is concerned, either a Baker is allowed to refuse to bake a cake for an event he is morally opposed to, or he isn't.

If you have to start creating equivalencies between someone being a Nazi or a white supremicist, and someing being transgendered, then I'd say your moral compass is severely askew.

[Catholic_Lady]

I love how Christians always compare Transgender people to White Supremacy.

I wonder how many of those Christians would be okay if they were the ones being refused service because they're Christian. Oh right.. .they already bitch constantly about businesses not saying "merry Christmas" so we can tell how they'll react.

Personally, I think being a Christian is more comparable to being a White Supremacist than being transgender is. Especially since being a Christian is a choice, and a lot of Christians are white supremacists.

Lol, I'm not comparing the 2 at all, but ok. I'll know to ignore your posts to me on this.

---

That's the thing though. It doesn't matter what the cause is. As far as the law is concerned, either a Baker is allowed to refuse to bake a cake for an event he is morally opposed to, or he isn't.

The law is not based around "whatever", but instead on deeper meanings such as discrimination.

The baker should be entitled to bake. That alone is the point. When the baker includes politics, he includes his prejudice.

So does the law say a Baker is allowed to refuse services only to some causes/events and not others, and then list all the acceptable ones?

[vulcanlogician]

I can see both sides of the argument, and have usually leaned towards the right of a bakery owner to not create a cake for an event that he/she does not morally agree with.

This is an extreme example, but the way I see it is, if I owned my own bakery and someone came in and asked me to make a cake with a swastika on it and write "White Supremacy" on it, for some sort of rally they were having, I would absolutely refuse. And I would hope I wouldn't be legally forced by the government to do it.

I'm willing to discuss this and have my mind changed, though, if someone brings up a good point.

That's the difference.

You're not supporting "Hitler".

How is that relational to a baker refusing a cake for a gay couple?

Are you stating with what you have posted that the both are comparable?

The law cannot differentiate between Hitler or anything else. A law can tell you that you can't refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation (as well it should).

But, upon reflection, I'm beginning to see CL/RR's point here. How can you differentiate reasonable moral concerns from bigotry concerning a custom-made image?

On the surface, the baker is obviously motivated by prejudice, but how can a law address this without crossing a line?

[Silver]

So does the law say a Baker is allowed to refuse services only to some causes and not others, and then list all the acceptable ones?

The baker should have sense to not refuse any service, but that is just me.

[Tiberius]

The case is a tricky one for sure. Ideally people shouldn’t be forced to do things they find immoral, however at the same time if someone provides a service, society has an expectation that the service should apply to everyone equally.

Baking a wedding cake for a hetero marriage is the same as baking a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, at least according to the law and basic baking knowledge. If the baker offers the cake to one person but not another because of some moral opposition, it seems to me that this should be discrimination.

One could argue that the gay couple go somewhere else, which is a solution if they have another place to go to, but one could imagine a small isolated town with only one baker, what do they do then? Go without cake because the baker is a bigot?

I find some nice parallels with the justice system. The constitution gives defendants the right to a lawyer, even if they cannot pay. What would happen if public defenders could refuse to defend a person on moral grounds?

C_L, do you think businesses should be able to refuse to bake, say, a Kwanza cake if they have moral objections to the celebration of religions other than Christianity?

[Catholic_Lady]

That's the difference.

You're not supporting "Hitler".

How is that relational to a baker refusing a cake for a gay couple?

Are you stating with what you have posted that the both are comparable?

The law cannot differentiate between Hitler or anything else. A law can tell you that you can't refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation (as well it should).

But, upon reflection, I'm beginning to see CL/RR's point here. How can you differentiate reasonable moral concerns from bigotry concerning a custom-made image?

On the surface, the baker is obviously motivated by prejudice, but how can a law address this without crossing a line?

Exactly. That's why I keep saying, what exactly is the law here? Is a Baker allowed to refuse services to an event/cause that he is morally opposed to? The answer is either yes or no. It makes no sense to say "well, you are allowed to refuse for this event, but not for this other event..."

Another much less extreme example is a cake that says "Pro Choice" on it for a pro choice fundraiser. I would absolutely refuse. Because it is a cause I am morally opposed to and I want no part in it. I either have the legal right to refuse, or I don't. Just like with the white supremacist example.

Likewise, if you are an atheist and you are strongly morally opposed to the "indoctrination of children" or whatever you wanna call it, you should be legally allowed to refuse to bake a cake for an infant baptism or a 2nd grade first communion.

It doesnt matter what the cause is, as far as the law is concerned. If you are morally opposed, you either should or should not have the right to refuse taking part in it by creating and providing a cake for it.

---

The case is a tricky one for sure. Ideally people shouldn’t be forced to do things they find immoral, however at the same time if someone provides a service, society has an expectation that the service should apply to everyone equally.

Baking a wedding cake for a hetero marriage is the same as baking a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, at least according to the law and basic baking knowledge. If the baker offers the cake to one person but not another because of some moral opposition, it seems to me that this should be discrimination.

One could argue that the gay couple go somewhere else, which is a solution if they have another place to go to, but one could imagine a small isolated town with only one baker, what do they do then? Go without cake because the baker is a bigot?

I find some nice parallels with the justice system. The constitution gives defendants the right to a lawyer, even if they cannot pay. What would happen if public defenders could refuse to defend a person on moral grounds?

C_L, do you think businesses should be able to refuse to bake, say, a Kwanza cake if they have moral objections to the celebration of religions other than Christianity?

Yes. And vice versa if the Baker is Muslim or whatever and refuses to make a cake for a Christmas celebration.

[RoadRunner79]

I love how Christians always compare Transgender people to White Supremacy.

I wonder how many of those Christians would be okay if they were the ones being refused service because they're Christian. Oh right.. .they already bitch constantly about businesses not saying "merry Christmas" so we can tell how they'll react.

Personally, I think being a Christian is more comparable to being a White Supremacist than being transgender is. Especially since being a Christian is a choice, and a lot of Christians are white supremacists.

I don’t think that anyone is comparing transgendered people to white supremicists. What is being compared is an instance where the person should be able to refuse a job; because they have an objection to the content or what they are being asked to do. It is not about discriminating against the person but the service that they are being asked to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly. That's why I keep saying, what exactly is the law here?

The public accommodations clause of the civil rights act.

Is a Baker allowed to refuse services to an event/cause that he is morally opposed to?

Yes.  

Yes. And vice versa if the Baker is Muslim or whatever and refuses to make a cake for a Christmas celebration.

Full throated support of religious discrimination, also against the very same law.

---

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......?

---

One could argue that the gay couple go somewhere else, which is a solution if they have another place to go to, but one could imagine a small isolated town with only one baker, what do they do then? Go without cake because the baker is a bigot?

This one, at least, isn't unhinged. 

I would say nevermind how many other bakers bake cakes.  Should a person have to go to another baker just because he can't trust the law to be followed or enforced?  Shhould he have to go to another town?  Another county?  Another state?  Another country?  How far should a person have to go to find equal protection under law, also a constitutional guarantee... two blocks or two hundred miles? The bigoted baker is protected by the very same law he seeks to deny in others. Maybe he should have to go somewhere else to bake cakes. Iraq or something...

Right?