Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Catholic_Lady]

I fail to understand how people cannot see the obvious  difference between discriminating against a person because of who they are and refusing to promote a message with which they disagree. I guess the pleasure of self-righteousness anger overrides all reason for them.

What was so terrible about the message in this particular case? What was the message? Tell me what the message was.

I don't think he is saying that any particular message is or is not terrible. Just that if it is a message that a person strongly opposes, they should not be forced by the government to promote it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Enough of the "what would you say to this or that" situations. All these individual scenarios are on a case by case basis and all I see here,  is once the answer is given, well, let's nitpick a little more with this situation or that situation simply because one doesn't like the answer that's been given. How many times does one need an answer before realizing that people need to stop being douchenozzles and just get along for humanity's sake?

Bake the fucking cakes or put yourself out of business because you let pride and arrogance cut your nose to spite your face. Jesus fucking Christ. It's a goddamned cake. So you can't handle putting two grooms on top of a wedding cake. Who the fuck cares? Make the cake, deliver it to the venue and let those paying for it put their own cake topper on it and leave the happiness to people who deserve it. How the hell is that personally harming one hair on your stupid head?

It's fucking common sense. If it's illegal to do it, if it oppresses a protected class, if you are clearly using your bullshit religious beliefs to skirt around the law, you are a bigot and you can take your custom cakes and shove em up your ass.

Or find another baker. Just sayin'

[Joods]

Enough of the "what would you say to this or that" situations. All these individual scenarios are on a case by case basis and all I see here,  is once the answer is given, well, let's nitpick a little more with this situation or that situation simply because one doesn't like the answer that's been given. How many times does one need an answer before realizing that people need to stop being douchenozzles and just get along for humanity's sake?

Bake the fucking cakes or put yourself out of business because you let pride and arrogance cut your nose to spite your face. Jesus fucking Christ. It's a goddamned cake. So you can't handle putting two grooms on top of a wedding cake. Who the fuck cares? Make the cake, deliver it to the venue and let those paying for it put their own cake topper on it and leave the happiness to people who deserve it. How the hell is that personally harming one hair on your stupid head?

It's fucking common sense. If it's illegal to do it, if it oppresses a protected class, if you are clearly using your bullshit religious beliefs to skirt around the law, you are a bigot and you can take your custom cakes and shove em up your ass.

Or find another baker. Just sayin'

And if there isn't another one?

You don't get to keep hiding behind your religion to get out of serving your customers if you are a business owner. You are doing business with the public. Learn how to deal with it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't think he is saying that any particular message is or is not terrible. Just that if it is a message that a person strongly opposes, they should not be forced by the government to promote it.

I'll go even further. If I were a baker and if a dude walking in with Swastika tattoos holding the lease to his girlfriend in a dog collar and asked for a cake for their daughter's birthday party, I would make it because even deeply disturbed people have lives. Live and let live. But if those same clients asked for a cake dramatizing a snuff scenario, I would politely decline.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think he is saying that any particular message is or is not terrible. Just that if it is a message that a person strongly opposes, they should not be forced by the government to promote it.

I'll go even further. If I were a baker and if a dude walking in with Swastika tattoos holding the lease to his girlfriend in a dog collar and asked for a cake for their daughter's birthday party, I would make it because even deeply disturbed people have lives. Live and let live. But if those same clients asked for a cake dramatizing a snuff scenario, I would politely decline.

That would be the difference between descriminating against the job, rather than the person.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Or find another baker. Just sayin'

And if there isn't another one?

You don't get to keep hiding behind your religion to get out of serving your customers if you are a business owner. You are doing business with the public. Learn how to deal with it.

Do you honestly believe that the person complaining about Philips actually followed through with another baker because he or she really and truly wanted that particular cake design? Elegant Bake Shop is 1 block away and Azucar Bakery is less than 5 minutes away from Masterpiece. Either one would probably been willing.

[Cod]

What was so terrible about the message in this particular case? What was the message? Tell me what the message was.

I don't think he is saying that any particular message is or is not terrible. Just that if it is a message that a person strongly opposes, they should not be forced by the government to promote it.

What was the sodding message in this case?

[Tiberius]

I fail to understand how people cannot see the obvious difference between discriminating against a person because of who they are and refusing to promote a message with which they disagree. I guess the pleasure of self-righteousness anger overrides all reason for them.

I can see the difference. What I disagree on is that a cake for a gay wedding is promoting a message with which they disagree. A cake isn't a message. I'm not even sure you could call it a symbol. It's a cake. It's food. It gets looked at and then eaten.

That's the crux of the matter for me. If the baker is fine baking a cake for a hetero wedding, they should have no problem baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. As far as I can see, unless the baker requests detailed background checks against both the bride and groom, there could be any number of reasons he might object to their union. This only seems to happen to people who he feels fine discriminating against though (i.e. gays and transgenders).

And if there isn't another one?

You don't get to keep hiding behind your religion to get out of serving your customers if you are a business owner. You are doing business with the public. Learn how to deal with it.

Do you honestly believe that the person complaining about Philips actually followed through with another baker because he or she really and truly wanted that particular cake design? Elegant Bake Shop is 1 block away and Azucar Bakery is less than 5 minutes away from Masterpiece. Either one would probably been willing.

I've seen this brought up a few times in the thread, that because an activist purposefully tried to get rejected for a cake, means that the rejection is somehow less "not OK". I find the argument confusing at best. The reasoning for the person going there, whether they had an ulterior motive or not, should not be relevant to the outcome. The law is tested by people challenging it. Do you have a problem with the fact that Rosa Parks planned her protest? That she was practically hand-selected to be the face of anti-segregation? You shouldn't, because whether or not she was trying to get arrested to raise awareness is not relevant to the fact that the law was unfair and unjust. Same goes with the Scopes trial; John Scopes was paid by the ACLU to purposefully break the law in order to challenge it.

[Joods]

And if there isn't another one?

You don't get to keep hiding behind your religion to get out of serving your customers if you are a business owner. You are doing business with the public. Learn how to deal with it.

Do you honestly believe that the person complaining about Philips actually followed through with another baker because he or she really and truly wanted that particular cake design? Elegant Bake Shop is 1 block away and Azucar Bakery is less than 5 minutes away from Masterpiece. Either one would probably been willing.

Doesn't matter. If they were in a remote town another baker wouldn't be an option. What then? How about you address that which was already asked, instead of dodging with yet another scenario.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I can see the difference. What I disagree on is that a cake for a gay wedding is promoting a message with which they disagree. A cake isn't a message. I'm not even sure you could call it a symbol. It's a cake. It's food. It gets looked at and then eaten.

I fully explained the difference in a very long post further up. TL;DR. No one disputed the argument,as I presented it (in response to you actually) for why the cake indeed serves as a symbol. Communion wafers are food too. I find it hard to believe you would not consider them symbolic in certain contexts. Flags are just pieces of fabric sewn together. Paintings are just dirt and oil daubed on rough cloth. Ever hear of private-labeling? A supplier makes a generic product, like breakfast cereal, and the seller puts his brand name and logo on it. So your basic sugary cereal gets marketed as "Fruity Loops" or something. But a seller could ask to have it branded anything they wanted, like "Queer Cheer O's". Following your line of reasoning, the supplier could not refuse, because, it's just cereal.

Do you honestly believe that the person complaining about Philips actually followed through with another baker because he or she really and truly wanted that particular cake design? Elegant Bake Shop is 1 block away and Azucar Bakery is less than 5 minutes away from Masterpiece. Either one would probably been willing.

I've seen this brought up a few times in the thread, that because an activist purposefully tried to get rejected for a cake, means that the rejection is somehow less "not OK". I find the argument confusing at best. The reasoning for the person going there, whether they had an ulterior motive or not, should not be relevant to the outcome. The law is tested by people challenging it. Do you have a problem with the fact that Rosa Parks planned her protest? That she was practically hand-selected to be the face of anti-segregation? You shouldn't, because whether or not she was trying to get arrested to raise awareness is not relevant to the fact that the law was unfair and unjust.

Whether or not it is "not OK" legally remains to be seen. If Philips is indeed within his rights, as many like me believe, then the lawyer is engaged in an act of anti-Christian harassment. My point is not that testing a law is in-and-of itself unacceptable, but the compassion to Rosa Parks is not a fair one. The civil rights movement was against wide-spread government oppression by discriminatory laws enforced by the police. A very small family-owned business hardly constitutes a threat to civil society. Civil disobedience is generally directed at an oppressive government, not other citizens.

The larger point is that there are no heroes in this situation. Philips isn't the most sympathetic character. And the lawyer is a real scum bag. He or she repeatedly made bogus requests knowing that there would be no consequences. True civil disobedience entails risk. Rosa Parks could have gone to jail or worse.