Author Topic: Colorado Gay Wedding Cake Case: Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Discrimination  (Read 2714 times)

Offline Shiranu

Quote from: Gilgamesh
He does. He doesn't make wedding cakes with certain messages.

Right, certain messages; such as, "...the LGBT+ community are equal citizens and deserve to be treated with respect, even if I have a moral problem with them.". And by that, I mean, "Happy Wedding!" on a cake that will be at a gay couples wedding that only differs in who is eating it and not what is on it.

Now, if his argument was, "Look, I don't have the materials to make this cake. I don't keep male/male toppers in stock." or whatever... that would be 100% acceptable and I would be on his side. But that's not his argument; his argument is, "I don't like group x, so I refuse to serve group x!", and I'm sorry... but that's some 1960's segregation bullshit.

It's literally no different than if someone came in and said, "I want a cake that celebrates my femininity, or African American heritage, or physical disability!" and they were turned down. None of those situations are acceptable either; you can hide behind it's "the message" all you want, but at the end of the day he is turning them down because he finds them to be lesser beings.

I don't think for a second anyone would buy, "Look, you honor... I am not doing this because they are black, I am doing it because I think black culture is abominable!" or, "Look your honor, it's not that I am doing it because they are autistic... it's because I find autism morally disgusting!".


The fact that people think free speech is more important than human dignity and preventing re-implementing segregation is, frankly, pathetic. Oddly enough, it (generally) tends to be the same people who insist they are an asshole because they have the right to it... which is also, frankly, pathetic.

Quote from: pr126
If it was a Muslim shop owner refusing the order, would it be made such a brouhaha about the case right up to the supreme court, or would it have disappeared down the MSM memory hole?
Assuming that the happy couple would have even reported it.

2/2 with the identity politics. Really not doing yourself any favours.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 02:06:14 AM by Shiranu »
I've Got Love, Fuck Your Money.

Don't feed the douche-trolls.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the shop was owned by a Muslim, the case would have never got to the courts.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It would still be bigotry coming from a Muslim. Enough with your strawmen.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Offline pr126

Bigotry? How can a Muslim be bigoted?

Strawmen? Seriously?

What happened to the free exercise of his religion?
Islam forbids homosexuality.

By making the writing on the cake he will be condemned by his peers. 
 
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 02:15:29 AM by pr126 »
"Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their free will."
 - Joseph Goebbels

Offline Shiranu

Quote
Bigotry? How can a Muslim be bigoted?

3/3.
I've Got Love, Fuck Your Money.

Don't feed the douche-trolls.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right, certain messages; such as, "...the LGBT+ community are equal citizens and deserve to be treated with respect, even if I have a moral problem with them.". And by that, I mean, "Happy Wedding!" on a cake that will be at a gay couples wedding that only differs in who is eating it and not what is on it.

There you go spinning again. What you are doing is called sarcastic paraphrasing. It's the epitome of intellectual laziness, and also a type of strawman fallacy.

Quote
Now, if his argument was, "Look, I don't have the materials to make this cake. I don't keep male/male toppers in stock." or whatever... that would be 100% acceptable and I would be on his side. But that's not his argument; his argument is, "I don't like group x, so I refuse to serve group x!", and I'm sorry... but that's some 1960's segregation bullshit.

Nope. You've already been called out on inaccurately describing these events so any further attempts are just you being disingenuous. He refused to create a cake that had a pro-gay message. Since he'd refuse to bake this cake no matter who ordered it, it is objectively NOT sexual discrimination. You have nothing.

Quote
The fact that people think free speech is more important than human dignity and preventing re-implementing segregation is, frankly, pathetic. Oddly enough, it (generally) tends to be the same people who insist they are an asshole because they have the right to it... which is also, frankly, pathetic.

You are creating a false dichotomy out of a topic that doesn't even relate here. Stop equivocating. Nobody here is arguing that human dignity and segregation are better than free speech, and further you are making a false dichotomy by pitting these (completely irrelevant) concepts against eachother at all. Being for one doesn't necessitate that you are against the other.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 02:21:04 AM by Gilgamesh »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He refused to create a cake that had a pro-gay message.
"pro-gay message" = wedding cake for gay couple.
I'm curious, if the cake maker belong to a religion that prohibited miscegenation, so he refused to make a wedding cake for a mixed race couple (because it would be a "pro-miscegenation message") would you support that?
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"pro-gay message" = wedding cake for gay couple.
I'm curious, if the cake maker belong to a religion that prohibited miscegenation, so he refused to make a wedding cake for a mixed race couple (because it would be a "pro-miscegenation message") would you support that?

It's hilarious. No matter how many times you people repeat it it doesn't change the fact that what you are repeating is a false description of reality.

The cake that the couple were asking for physically and objectively would have depicted a pro-gay theme. He is, was, and forever will be so long as he lives under just rule, exercising his right in refusing to bake that cake, so long as he holds it as a universal standard for all customers.

Christian dude: has stated that if they ordered a cake with a theme that he wasn't fundamentally opposed to, he would've served them. Offered to do just that.
Also christian dude: has stated that he would've refused to create the cake that they were asking for, no matter who was ordering it.

You retards:



"uh me think this sexual discriminashun????"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The cake that the couple were asking for physically and objectively would have depicted a pro-gay theme.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Christian dude: has stated that if they ordered a cake with a theme that he wasn't fundamentally opposed to, he would've served them.
Yes, but the theme he was opposed to was "gay wedding" as that was the only detail he knew about their cake; that it was for a gay wedding:

Quote
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding.  Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.  Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.   
[. . .]
The parties did not dispute any material facts.  Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"uh me think this sexual discriminashun????"
Yes, I think that the ALJ and Colorado court of appeals got it right saying
Quote
We conclude that  the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and Mullins’ sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece’s refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA.
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They sue him (rightly) for discrimination, the Supreme Court rules in favour of religious bigotry over sexual discrimination.
In the US we hold in high regard the inalienable right to be a dickhead.  I'm not being silly here.  Refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is just being a dickhead.  OK, so you disprove of gay people.  Does your Bible say don't bake them a cake?  No it tells you it's a sin to have a homosexual relationship.  Then don't have a homosexual relationship, but you don't go to Hell for baking a gay couple's cake.

Judge not less ye be judged, and according to the Bible, you will be... by God, not by some baker with a personal grudge.  And before a Christian starts judging other's sins, he  ought to stop his own sinning, because according to the Bible, everyone is a sinner.  You are born a sinner, and you die a sinner, and the only thing that matters is if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, which a lot of gay people do anyway.

I wouldn't have filed the law suit, but I'm happy someone was willing to test the case, and legally, all that matters is what the court says.  Ethically is something else entirely, but courts don't deal in ethics.

Offline trdsf

It's a murky decision at best.  It doesn't quite open the door to unbridled religious discrimination—and I'm just waiting for the first non-Christian creator to decline to create an explicitly Christian cake or whatever under the auspices of Masterpiece and the howling and yowling from the Talebangelicals will be as music unto my ears, especially if it's a non-theist who refuses to create an explicitly religious cake (or whatever) on the basis of their beliefs.

My reading of the opinion—obligatory I Am Not A Lawyer here—is that it hinged more on Masterpiece's treatment by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission rather than on the act of discrimination itself, and on the difference between public business and personal craft.  It would not have been permissible to deny the couple the right to buy an off-the-shelf wedding cake, but the creator of custom work has the right to refuse individual commissions based on personal beliefs.  I'm on board with that part, at least up to a point—as a writer, there are articles I definitely would not write, regardless of the commission… but an article with my name on it is not a commodity like a wedding cake, which is a necessarily temporary object and isn't going to carry its creator's signature down through the years.

There are a LOT of holes in this approach, though.  I quite doubt the couple who brought the suit would have found an off-the-shelf cake there with two grooms on it, and it's not clear if, under those circumstances, Masterpiece would have been protected to refuse to offer to sell them a two groom topper.

It's less a bad decision than it is a not good decision; I consider it merely wrong, not actually horrible.  There's something in it for everyone to hate, and that it came down 7-2 on such a divided court means it's a much narrower decision than commentators on both sides are spinning it.  The Court seems to have gone out of their way to avoid ruling on the discrimination itself.  They definitely didn't make it permissible for religious extremists to hang up a 'We do not serve gay customers' sign on the door, even though that's what some of them will try to find a way to do.

Basically, it has the earmarks of an opinion inviting a clarifying case further down the road, something without the side issues introduced by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

And I look forward to reading Notorious RBG's dissent.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the US we hold in high regard the inalienable right to be a dickhead.  I'm not being silly here.  Refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is just being a dickhead.  OK, so you disprove of gay people.  Does your Bible say don't bake them a cake?  No it tells you it's a sin to have a homosexual relationship.  Then don't have a homosexual relationship, but you don't go to Hell for baking a gay couple's cake.

Judge not less ye be judged, and according to the Bible, you will be... by God, not by some baker with a personal grudge.  And before a Christian starts judging other's sins, he  ought to stop his own sinning, because according to the Bible, everyone is a sinner.  You are born a sinner, and you die a sinner, and the only thing that matters is if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, which a lot of gay people do anyway.

I wouldn't have filed the law suit, but I'm happy someone was willing to test the case, and legally, all that matters is what the court says.  Ethically is something else entirely, but courts don't deal in ethics.

"but courts don't deal in ethics" or in morality either.
שלום

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It would still be bigotry coming from a Muslim. Enough with your strawmen.

Britain would defend the Muslims, no matter what (oil money in BoE).  Would the US?  Certain parts would, because chadors are so liberal.
שלום

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mm. That's why your entire argument revolves around, "Their identity makes them different! They need to be treated differently!"?

That's identity politics, mate.

Identity politics = Final Solution.

Yes, semi-Catholic, I know the Pope was in favor of that too.  And Fascism in general.
שלום

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He refused the type of service they were asking for on the basis that he doesn't provide that sort of service. He's said multiple times that had they ordered a kind of cake that he does create, that he would service them in the making of it.

The ruling was just and protects the rights that are owed to him.

The OP is a cut-and-dry spin-job driven by an ideologically possessed SJW.

He was set up as a test case ... like the Black lady at the back of the bus ... was a deliberate test case.  Of course people like that a brave or crazy to be the focus of controversy.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 07:22:39 AM by Baruch »
שלום

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk