U.S. top court's cake case pits gay rights versus Christian faith

[ClutchClark]

On December 2, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Credo said:

You almost got it, but not quite.   Unless they were asking for a specific shape on the cake, such as a penis, the discrimination is against the people, in this case gay people.   

 

If a German walks in and asks for a cake in the shape of a swastika and the baker doesn't do swastika's then it's about what he does and doesn't make.   His problem might become relevant if he made swastika cakes for people who weren't Jewish.   

 

If you sell wedding cakes, then you should sell to any group of people who wants and can pay for it.   You can't decide to discriminate because they are Gay, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim....or....horror of horror's, Atheists.

 

Having the right to refuse service to people needs to have some basis in law, such as 'no shoes, no shirt, no service', which is a standard implemented by health departments.   

 

 

 

He did not refuse them service. He encouraged them to purchase other items from the store. 

 

What he refused to do is use his artistic talents to create something which is against his religious belief. Can an artist be forced to make a specific painting?

 

The example of penis or penis-vagina is not a good one since it is a pornographic image and could be considered reasonably offensive to a majority of society. One would not have to invoke their religion as a reason to refuse.

 

I have not heard what the requested image was but it seems to me that if he refused to create a cake of neutral design with items such as balloons and wedding bells then it is obvious discrimination based on their sexual orientation; however, if the design included two grooms (or two brides) then I can see how the request could cause undue stress similar to the example of a Jewish Baker being forced to draw swatzikas. 

 

I would be curious to learn if either party had attempted to offer or discuss a compromise image that could have satisfied and respected the needs of each group.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by ClutchClark

[gk10002000]

No, the case has nothing to do with Christian Faith.  Every store and restaurant I have ever been in usually has a sign that says:  "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody. "  In this case, the fact the owner was Christian and didn't like gays is irrelevant.  Many people for many reasons don't want to serve many people.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

No, the case has nothing to do with Christian Faith.  Every store and restaurant I have ever been in usually has a sign that says:  "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody. "  In this case, the fact the owner was Christian and didn't like gays is irrelevant.  Many people for many reasons don't want to serve many people.

B.S. -- such casual signs are not legally binding and never supersede anti-discrimination laws. 

[ClutchClark]

On December 3, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Credo said:

I have nothing wrong with people adhering to their religious beliefs, but I don't think in a case like this that belief extends to the making or not making of a cake.   What they are doing is making a political statement.

 

When you open a business, you are required to get a business license and that license means you have met certain criteria.  A part of that is a contract between the public and the provider.   Someone wants a cake, they should be provided with the cake, regardless of whether someone likes them or not.   

 

It's discrimination against a group of people.   That's not permitted and should not be permitted.   If a KKK member opens a coffee shop, do you think he can refuse to serve Blacks?

 

The baker does not have to attend the ceremony, he is not a witness and is not participating in anything other than making a cake.  

 

 

Either you or I are not seeing the specific argument of this court case.

You are under the impression he refused to sell them any cake. The article indicates he offered to sell them other items from the store but it does not say whether that included other cakes.

 

If he refused to design them even a cake with a traditional bride-groom then it is obvious discrimination.

 

Secondly, I understand this to be a case about artistic expression and not the actual object. You make a few references to the effect that its just a cake. The bakers argument is that he creates a work of art so instead of trivializing his effort to downplay its importance...lets look at it as some other type of art so the argument can be more easily understood. What if he were a sculptor and they wanted a lifesize statue made of marble? Would it be reasonable to insist the artist create a statue depicting two grooms? 

 

Will the Court see him as an artist first or as a business owner?

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by ClutchClark

[Credo]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

He did not refuse them service. He encouraged them to purchase other items from the store. 

 

What he refused to do is use his artistic talents to create something which is against his religious belief. Can an artist be forced to make a specific painting?

 

The example of penis or penis-vagina is not a good one since it is a pornographic image and could be considered reasonably offensive to a majority of society. One would not have to invoke their religion as a reason to refuse.

 

I have not heard what the requested image was but it seems to me that if he refused to create a cake of neutral design with items such as balloons and wedding bells then it is obvious discrimination based on their sexual orientation; however, if the design included two grooms (or two brides) then I can see how the request could cause undue stress similar to the example of a Jewish Baker being forced to draw swatzikas. 

 

I would be curious to learn if either party had attempted to offer or discuss a compromise image that could have satisfied and respected the needs of each group.

 

You need to quit trolling and making things up.   The case has nothing to do with 'artistic' design.   It has to do with refusing service to people he doesn't like.  The brief does not cover artistic differences.   

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, Credo said:

You need to quit trolling and making things up.   The case has nothing to do with 'artistic' design.   It has to do with refusing service to people he doesn't like.  The brief does not cover artistic differences.   

 

It seems every time your positions are shown to be weak that you have to fall back on personal attacks. 

 

If you cannot grasp the complexity of this court case then I understand but that does not give you the right to accuse me of trolling. 

 

Furthermore, you edited my post when you quoted it by making something Bold and this is against TVF rules. I found out about this rule the hard way so you might want to refrain from the practice.

 

And the article clearly states the shop owner encouraged them to purchase other items in his store. He did not refuse them service.

Edited December 9, 2017 by ClutchClark

[Credo]

Nope, not edited by me.  Maybe the software or the browser, but not by me.   

 

Read up about the case and then come back with factual arguments.  Making things up doesn't make them real.

 

 

[Credo]

Here's a little snippet for you:

 

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins attempted to order a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. But in a 30-second interaction, without any discussion about the cake's possible design, owner Jack Phillips declined, saying it would violate his religious beliefs.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/what-the-legal-issues-are-and-arent-in-the-gay-wedding-cake?utm_term=.urL3OBVzr#.dgbWqmlYw

[ClutchClark]

34 minutes ago, Credo said:

Nope, not edited by me.  Maybe the software or the browser, but not by me.   

 

Read up about the case and then come back with factual arguments.  Making things up doesn't make them real.

 

 

 

Credo,

 

I am a resident of the State of Colorado and have been following this since the day it first made the news and before it ever saw a courtroom. 

 

The obvious thing about court cases is they have two opposing parties with two opposing views. I have attempted to provide the position of atleast one side and just because I disagree with you does not entitle me to call you a troll or flamer or demean you in any other way (espeically since I give value to your opinions and views). 

 

Here is the rather lengthy brief from the American Bar Association (a Supreme Court Preview) and not just some Op/Ed "snippet" if the topic really interests you:

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

the forum keeps attempting to embed it rather than post a link.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-2017-2018/16-111-amicus-pet-us-senators-and-representatives.authcheckdam.pdf

 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

And a Conservative interpretation of the Arguments from "The Nation":

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-christian-legal-army-behind-masterpiece-cakeshop/

 

Personally, I do not think a shop owner has a right to deny service to someone any more than a surgeon has the right to deny medical care. 

 

I am disappointed in both parties for not attempting to find middle ground because that is long standing cultural tradition in my State, in my Culture as a Coloradan. To find compromise. 

 

As a Religious man I sympathize with the Baker in his desire to protect his faith and which actually has federal protections as well; however, as a Consumer, I am concerned with such practices. Personally, I don't see the gay angle as having any relevance to my opinion, the safeguards of anti-discrimination laws are to protect ALL Americans against discriminatory practices. 

 

However, the argument of whether an artist can be forced to create a piece that promotes a message against his/her beliefs is equally compelling. Can the Government force a person to pick up a pen or paintbrush or knife (or frosting dispenser) and create something against their will and which spreads a message they oppose at the core of their beliefs? 

 

Should Jewish artists be forced to paint a positive likeness of Hitler? 

Should a black sculptor be forced to create a positive likeness of a KKK leader such as David Duke if he walks into their studio and requests such? (Granted this last example does not fall under religious protection.) 

 

Obviously, this is something I have given much thought to and that is why it is even more insulting to me that you attempt to discredit my position as trolling. I see no reason why we can't respectfully disagree.

Edited December 9, 2017 by ClutchClark

[FreddieRoyle]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

A clever tactic by the religious right to attack gay civil rights. They've been open about their plans for years now. 

It's easy to get suckered into seeing their POV as reasonable. That's why this tactic is so INSIDIOUS. 

 

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/12/08/clueless_straight_white_guys_excuse_religious_homophobia.html

As you are an expert on this case can you clarify?

1)was this Christian bakery the closest bakery to the gay couple's residence?

2)is it normal for gay couples, when they go to a bakery, to bring along a news crew and lawyers?

3)If the gay couple went to a muslim owned bakery and asked them to bake a mohammed cartoon cake, and the bakery refused, who should be charged with the hate crime?

 

 Thank you for your well considered answers. 

 

 

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

1)was this Christian bakery the closest bakery to the gay couple's residence?

 

Irrelevant.  Discrimination laws aren't waved in cases of proximity between the defendant and the plaintiff.

 

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

2)is it normal for gay couples, when they go to a bakery, to bring along a news crew and lawyers?

 

No, and I'm not sure why that's relevant.

 

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

3)If the gay couple went to a muslim owned bakery and asked them to bake a mohammed cartoon cake, and the bakery refused, who should be charged with the hate crime?

 

Leading question.  Why are you assuming that anyone should be so charged?  As long as the baker refused the same request regardless of who it came from, they are not being discriminatory.  But if they refused the request from an atheist after honoring the same request from a christian, then they are being discriminatory.

[ClutchClark]

edit

Edited December 10, 2017 by ClutchClark

[thaihome]

As it came out in oral arguments, that the plaintiff think that a baker's custom made cake ( and the invitation printer) is an artistic protected free speech but the make-up artist and the hair stylist are not shows the absurdity of the protected artistic freedom of speech in this case.

 

If you are in the  business to provide a service or goods, you can't claim a freedom of speech or religon protection to deny that service or goods. To do otherwise, just opens aPandora's Box of obvious problems.  

TH  

 

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjvlPmZ4v7XAhUHM48KHbGeD6MQFggjMAA&usg=AOvVaw1sI5kjHQxl4oQ5MVe4b1Z4

JUSTICE GINSBURG: -- you mentioned -­ you brought up Hurley, but in Hurley, the
 parade was the event. It was the speech, a
 parade. At a wedding ceremony, I take it, the
 speech is of the people who are marrying and

perhaps the officiant, but who -- who else
 speaks at a wedding?

MS. WAGGONER: The artist speaks,
 Justice Ginsburg. It's as much Mr. Phillips's
 speech as it would be the couples'. And in
 Hurley, the Court found a violation of the
 compelled speech doctrine.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Who else then? Who
 else as an artist? Say the -- the person who
 does floral arranging, owns a floral shop.
 Would that person also be speaking at the
 wedding?

MS. WAGGONER: If the -- if they are
 custom-designed arrangements and they are being
 forced to create artistic expression which this
 Court determines is a message -­ JUSTICE KAGAN: So could -­ JUSTICE GINSBURG: How about the
 person who designs the invitation?
 MS. WAGGONER: Yes.
 JUSTICE GINSBURG: Invitation to the
 wedding or the menu for the wedding dinner?

MS. WAGGONER: Certainly, words and
 symbols would be protected speech, and the
 question would be whether the objection is to

the message provided or if it's to the person.
 JUSTICE KAGAN: So the jeweler?

MS. WAGGONER: It would depend on the
 context as all free-speech cases depend on.
 What is the jeweler asked to do?
 JUSTICE KAGAN: Hair stylist?
 MS. WAGGONER: Absolutely not.
 There's no expression or protected speech in
 that kind of context, but what it -­
JUSTICE KAGAN: Why is there no speech
 in -- in creating a wonderful hairdo?

MS. WAGGONER: Well, it may be
 artistic, it may be creative, but what the
 Court asks when they're -­
JUSTICE KAGAN: The makeup artist?
 MS. WAGGONER: No. What the Court
 would ask -­
JUSTICE KAGAN: It's called an artist.
 It's the makeup artist.
 (Laughter.)
 

[gk10002000]

• Quote

20 hours ago, Jingthing said:

B.S. -- such casual signs are not legally binding and never supersede anti-discrimination laws. 

I have rarely if never seen or heard of a case where a cop was called because a would be customer was told to leave and wouldn't, where the cop then didn't remove the person.  Discrimination laws do NOT apply to individual people.  You are free to discriminate, on any criteria you want against anybody you want.  You may not like Jews, or Muslims, or Christians, you may not like Blacks, or Asians, or whatever.  The government absolutely can not stop you from doing that.  It is an exercise of your right to free speech which is guranteed.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, gk10002000 said:

• Quote

I have rarely if never seen or heard of a case where a cop was called because a would be customer was told to leave and wouldn't, where the cop then didn't remove the person.  Discrimination laws do NOT apply to individual people.  You are free to discriminate, on any criteria you want against anybody you want.  You may not like Jews, or Muslims, or Christians, you may not like Blacks, or Asians, or whatever.  The government absolutely can not stop you from doing that.  It is an exercise of your right to free speech which is guranteed.

Not about individual people. About businesses offering stuff and services to the public. In your personal life you can do anything. That isn't the question.

[gk10002000]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not about individual people. About businesses offering stuff and services to the public. In your personal life you can do anything. That isn't the question.

Not correct.  Have you read the CIvil Rights Act?  It specifically address government funded things, and I past here Title 2.  Not the words "engaged in interstate commerce".  Of course the law at that time didn't mention gay, lesbian, transvestite or whatever, and there has been some subsequent legislation at various state and federal leveles

 

Title II

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[44]

[Jsinbkk]

Divided court will punt the ball and keep it a very narrow ruling. Perhaps they will rule you can have your cake and sodom too?

[thaihome]

5 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

• Quote

I have rarely if never seen or heard of a case where a cop was called because a would be customer was told to leave and wouldn't, where the cop then didn't remove the person.  Discrimination laws do NOT apply to individual people.  You are free to discriminate, on any criteria you want against anybody you want.  You may not like Jews, or Muslims, or Christians, you may not like Blacks, or Asians, or whatever.  The government absolutely can not stop you from doing that.  It is an exercise of your right to free speech which is guranteed.

Nothing to do with cops. The gay couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission which ruled in their favor. The baker filed suit  against the commission and lost in lower courts. This final appeal.

 

The baker is not paying legal fees, he is backed by a right wing legal assistance group ( Alliance Defending Freedom). The Trump administration has filed a brief in support of the baker.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-gay-wedding-cake-case_us_5a25925ee4b03350e0b8a7e0

TH 

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, thaihome said:

Nothing to do with cops. The gay couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission which ruled in their favor. The baker filed suit  against the commission and lost in lower courts. This final appeal.

 

The baker is not paying legal fees, he is backed by a right wing legal assistance group ( Alliance Defending Freedom). The Trump administration has filed a brief in support of the baker.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-gay-wedding-cake-case_us_5a25925ee4b03350e0b8a7e0

TH 

 

I think the response about the police was a follow-up originally introduced by someone else. You are correct that the Police were never involved in this Bakery incident at any time. 

 

I don't believe either party is paying their own legal fees.

 

 

[mrwebb8825]

3 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

I don't believe either party is paying their own legal fees.

You can bet neither party is paying their own way. If they had to it would have been; "We want a gay cake.", "Screw you, it's against my religious beliefs.", "BOOHOO. WAAWAA." "Let's go somewhere else." and the whole thing would have been over in a few moments.

[thaihome]

52 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You can bet neither party is paying their own way. If they had to it would have been; "We want a gay cake.", "Screw you, it's against my religious beliefs.", "BOOHOO. WAAWAA." "Let's go somewhere else." and the whole thing would have been over in a few moments.

The gay couple are not party to the case. They made a complaint that was approved and the baker was fined according to Colorado state law. The case is between the baker appealing the lost suit against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to reverse the fine.  

 

The Commission is represented by the Colorado Solicitor General. 

 

From my earlier link to the transcript of oral arguments 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL.,)
 Petitioners, )
1

v. ) No. 16-111 COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ) ET AL., ) Respondents.

TH

[Dagnabbit]

I thought this was timely: 

 

[pedro01]

And great news is that this man has the right to decide which works he takes on and which he doesn't.

 

A win for common sense. 

 

Shame he lived through 5 years of hell, death threats to his family etc. - all at the hands of LGBTQ zealots.

[Chomper Higgot]

It’s interesting to see who in this thread is defending religious beliefs over the civil law.

 

’Enjoy what beliefs you have but keep them to yourself’ goes out of the window when the opportunity to discriminate against gay men arises.

[lannarebirth]

On 12/10/2017 at 9:54 AM, Jsinbkk said:

Divided court will punt the ball and keep it a very narrow ruling. 

 

Good call.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 2:39 PM, webfact said:

Mullins and Craig did get to celebrate their marriage with a cake made by another bakery.

Pity they didn't just do that in the first place without having a hissy fit and causing a lot of disruption to someone just trying to run a business and survive.

If they tried that sort of thing in LOS they'd get laughed out of court.

 

However, it's a pity that the cake guy didn't be more diplomatic and just say he'd make a cake, but they'd have to put the "gay" related decorations on themselves, as he didn't stock any.

[lannarebirth]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s interesting to see who in this thread is defending religious beliefs over the civil law.

 

 

Those would be the people who have read and understand the Constitution. And it is not the belief people are defending, but the right to hold and practice that belief. If that right is considered to infringe on the rights of others then court cases are brought that set precedents for how the civil law will be interpreted in the future.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Those would be the people who have read and understand the Constitution. And it is not the belief people are defending, but the right to hold and practice that belief. If that right is considered to infringe on the rights of others then court cases are brought that set precedents for how the civil law will be interpreted in the future.

I doubt many here have read the constitution and fewer understand it.

 

But I look forward to you offering a similar argument the next time the issue of religious beliefs and civil law come up.

 

In the meantime, where does it say in the bible ‘Thou shalt not sell wedding cakes to gay men’?