Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[The Grand Nudger]

Come now..they don't hate gay people.  God hates gay people.  They're just pious devotees.  

In modern parlance-

"My dads a bigot, so I can't let you sit at this lunch counter and I won't make you a sammich."

[RoadRunner79]

By conservative logic, it'd be okay for a restaurant to kick out a gay couple out on a date because they disagree with the act.

Of course that's what they want. They hate gay people and want to see them discriminated against.

I wouldn’t agree to that, and that is not what the counter suit is about.

---

I also think that if the same cake shop was asked to sell cookies and brownies for the reception, that they should do so.

[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.

[Joods]

These laws are enacted to prevent such things as the de facto segregation that occurred during the Jim Crow era.  Majorities can and do make products and services inaccessible by implementing de facto networks of discrimination.

Even when the specific concerns of LBGTQ activists are wholly legitimate, any comparison between those struggles and the oppression and indignity of African-Americans living under segregation belittles the significance of the civil rights movement and is both inappropriate and shameful.

Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. The fact that you can't put your bigotry aside simply because you don't like who the laws protect, speaks more about your lack of morals than anything else.

The lawyer would only be engaged in anti-Christian harassment if: (1) she was doing it repeatedly, which remains to be seen...

All the evidence seems to point in that direction. Or at least Philips has very good reasons for believing that the same individual asked for a wide variety of bizarre and offensive requests - marajauna cakes, pentagrams, a dildo topper, etc.

Read the complaint. I know you like to ignore me when I make valid points, but there was nothing in that 52 page pile of bullshit that proved she alone was solely responsible for all the requests he denied. The fact that you keep insisting that she was, goes to show you don't even bother properly reading the links you provide.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. The fact that you can't put your bigotry aside simply because you don't like who the laws protect, speaks more about your lack of morals than anything else.

I agree that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. All the opinions I have expressed with respect to denial of service based on 1st Amendment objections are neutral with regards to the messages or identity of the parties involved. It just so happens that this particular case-study prompting this discussion involves a religious objection to a pro-transgender message. But it could be anything. IMHO Aryan Nation Bakers could legally refuse to make Barmitzvah cakes but not refuse making birthday cakes for Jews.

---

I know you like to ignore me when I make valid points, ...

I'm sure you think all of your points are valid. IMO most are not worthy of reply.

[possibletarian]

I agree that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. All the opinions I have expressed with respect to denial of service based on 1st Amendment objections are neutral with regards to the messages or identity of the parties involved. It just so happens that this particular case-study prompting this discussion involves a religious objection to a pro-transgender message. But it could be anything. IMHO Aryan Nation Bakers could legally refuse to make Barmitzvah cakes but not refuse making birthday cakes for Jews.

How can asking for a cake that celebrates  what happened to an individual be a pro-transgender message ?

As I understand it no one is promoting or asking anyone else to become transgender.

[Joods]

I'm sure you think all of your points are valid. IMO most are not worthy of reply.

Well fuck you too.

[Ravenshire]

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.

Bakeries, and the people who want their products, are not exclusive to high population density, metropolitan areas. For people who live in Yuma, Co. and the surrounding area, the pickings are mighty slim. Since they're in a very red part of the state, I'm betting the very few (two that I could find) bakery owners are religious nuts who will gladly trample LGBT rights if the asshole in Lakewood continues to get away with it.

These laws apply to all of Colorado, rural and urban. "Just go to another bakery" would work, in and around Denver. Out in the sticks, not so much.

[Amarok]

And i repeat that should not have to go to another baker any baker should do .

[Joods]

And i repeat that should not have to go to another baker any baker should do .

Which was like, the point I was making.