Patterico's Pontifications

6/26/2017

Supreme Court: Masterpiece Cakeshop Appeal Will Be Heard

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:00 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Not on today’s order list, but a case that has drawn a lot of attention from all sides is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case involves a Colorado bakery owner and cake artist whose religious beliefs precluded him from providing a custom wedding cake for the same-sex marriage of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Today the court agreed to hear an appeal from the baker:

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal from a Colorado baker with religious objections to same-sex marriage who had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union.

The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, started in 2012, when the baker, Jack Phillips, an owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts. The couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.

Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment — its protections for free expression and religious freedom — overrode a Colorado anti-discrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake.

In 2015, a Colorado appeals court ruled against Mr. Phillips. “Masterpiece does not convey a message supporting same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law and serving its customers equally,” the court said.

In a Supreme Court brief, Mr. Phillips’s lawyers said “ He is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.” But his faith requires him, they said, “to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs.”

“Thus,” the brief said, “he declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.”

The brief said Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig could have bought a cake from another baker and in fact “easily obtained a free wedding cake with a rainbow design from another bakery.”

Jack Phillips commented on today’s news:

“Regardless of your viewpoint about same-sex marriage, shouldn’t we all agree that the government shouldn’t force us to speak or act in a way that violates our deepest convictions?” Phillips queried in his prepared statement. “Like the one in Colorado will result in kind-hearted Americans being dragged before state commissions and courts, and punished by the government for peacefully seeking to live and work consistent with their beliefs about marriage? The couple who came to my shop that day 5 years ago are free to hold their beliefs about marriage, and all I ask is that I be allowed the equal opportunity to keep mine.”

Lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Michael Farris also commented:

“It’s never been about Jack’s willingness to sell products or services to people based on who they are,” he said. “If an LGBT person came to his cake shop wanting to buy a pre-existing cake, he’d be happy to for any purpose.”

But both Farris and Waggoner said that requiring him to write messages that go against his religious beliefs, including one promoting same-sex marriage, is where he draws the line.

The lawyers for the couple involved, responded:

“[I]t is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

97 Responses to “Supreme Court: Masterpiece Cakeshop Appeal Will Be Heard”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (023079)

  2. this just goes on and on – sweet picklehead all you had to do was bake a cake i’m SO disappointed in your lack of good judgment

    but whatevs

    here’s an awesome piece Chicago Mag put together kind of about what the whirl looks like through the eyes of a cop it is very worth your time

    Domestics are some of the worst calls. You see these kids—they’ve got bedbugs, and they’re living in squalor and sleeping on a filthy mattress that they probably got out of an alley somewhere, and they’ve got nothing to eat. There are cockroaches all over the place. The parents are fighting. These kids, they see this, and they’re numb. Some of them, they walk around with blank stares, just cold. And when you hear about kids dog-fighting or lighting dogs on fire and abusing animals, you can understand. I don’t mean to give them excuses, but how can you have any affection for an animal when nobody’s ever shown you any affection?

    yeah it’s kind of a tough read but for reals it’s very very well done

    some of the context is our popo here in Chicago are committing suicide a lot

    and the rest of the context is how much worse things are gonna get before they get better

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  3. requiring him to write messages that go against his religious beliefs, including one promoting same-sex marriage, is where he draws the line.

    On that point, I agree with him. Should you be forced to write “Happy Abortion Day” on a cake to cheer up a woman who just had an abortion?

    It would have been interesting to set up another case–and I believe these bakery cases are setups–where a Muslim bakery refused to make the wedding cake.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  4. To be aligned with the petition, I removed “written with a specific message” :

    Jack Phillips is a cake artist. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (“CADA”) when he declined to design and create a custom cake honoring a same sex marriage because doing so conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs.

    The Colorado Court of Appeals found no violation of the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses because it deemed Phillips’ speech to be mere conduct compelled by a neutral and generally applicable law. It reached this conclusion despite the artistry of Phillips’ cakes and the Commission’s exemption of other cake artists who declined to create custom cakes based on their message.

    Dana (023079)

  5. this cake artist concept is lame cause of how it foregrounds cake design and aesthetics

    but a cake is so much more than that, and, in fact, a perfectly moist and balanced cake can be forgiven much in the way of inartful design

    they taste so good you want to share them:

    cakes are primarily about community

    and in the most primal food-sharing-around-the-campfire sense of the word

    they’re meant to bring all kinds of people together for to celebrate what we have in common for an event or a special day

    i don’t think this dickhead understands cakes very well at all

    :(

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  6. @ happyfeet,

    this just goes on and on – sweet picklehead all you had to do was bake a cake i’m SO disappointed in your lack of good judgment

    This “goes on and on” because it is important. Sadly, government has to intervene. If it was no big deal, why didn’t the couple let their dollars speak for them, and support another bakery and its views by purchasing their cake there? Why not let the natural flow of publicity and decisions of consumers determine whether the Christian baker would be put out of business. The couple could have gone elsewhere, given great PR to a bakery that had no compunction about providing them a custom cake. And if subsequent negative publicity put the Christian cake artist out of business, then so be it.

    Dana (023079)

  7. The harm was done when we funded, when we should not have even allowed, AIDS research; and provided government-subsidized anti-retrovirals when we should have outlawed them. God gave us AIDS as the solution to the homosexual plague, like he gave mana to the Israelites, and we spat on His gift. Color me unimpressed with this “God wouldn’t want me to write two men’s names on a wedding cake” posturing.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. the government needs to stay out of it

    the government has no moral authority

    happyfeet (27ec16)

  9. Oh, for fu*k sake, find another bakery, intolerant anti-American bigots!

    Colonel Haiku (f8bfb8)

  10. nk: are you honestly claiming that it was wrong for the United States to *allow* research into AIDS?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  11. the Commission’s exemption of other cake artists who declined to create custom cakes based on their message.

    I am not sympathetic to the “cake artist” (that term deserves some satire of its own)–if you open your business to the public you are agreeing to do with what they want, despite your own personal feelings in the matter–but that fact I quoted from your comment should be the only pertinent fact in this case. The State of Colorado should not be picking and choosing what messages are allowed on cakes.

    kishnevi (2dabdc)

  12. I think tongue is in cheek Mr. aphrael read last sentence again

    happyfeet (27ec16)

  13. I only bake with da herb, mahn.

    Bunny Wailer (31009b)

  14. Happyfeet – it’s possible that nk’s tongue was in his cheek, but it’s not clearly the case. That’s why I’m asking.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  15. Does a printer have to print any book or pamphlet that anyone comes to him to print?

    If he prints most can he make any exception?

    Or is the only exceptionn he is allowed what is illegal. Child pornograohy, no. Any other pornography, he must. What isn’t forbidden is required.

    Maybe it could depend on how he holds himself out.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  16. And when you hear about kids dog-fighting or lighting dogs on fire and abusing animals, you can understand

    Seeing their parents being cruel to cockroaches causes them to be cruel to dogs?

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  17. Somebody has to pull happyfeet’s tail once in a while, aphrael. 😉

    Good post, Dana. It will be an interesting case with two competing Constitutional individual interests. And there really is a “badges and incidents” colorable issue with same-sex marriage after Obergefell v. Hodges, same as there was in the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendment challenges to private racial discrimination, and it also buttressed by a sovereign State interest in Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute.

    nk (dbc370)

  18. it *is* also

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Why not let the natural flow of publicity and decisions of consumers determine whether the Christian baker would be put out of business.

    i think you’d be hard-pressed to find much comment on my part what’s now wholly on consonance with this

    i do think there are instances where people have opened businesses in a timeframe during which they should have known (or inquired as to whether) they were opening up shop in a place what had pre-existing regulations what spoke clearly to this exact business case

    but Masterpiece I think opened in the early 90s so I doubt that applies here

    but he was the captain of his own ship

    hoober doober wanted a lawsuit he got a lawsuit

    i think that’s a dreary way to go about life lawsuits are not fun adventures they’re stressy and expensive

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  20. UGH

    … comment on my part what’s *not* wholly *in* consonance with this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. i like your comment though Mr. nk

    this is such a tepid and passive aggressive way hoober doober chose to express such a deeply held and important, indeed nigh-religious conviction

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  22. I think the baker has a better freedom of speech argument than a religious freedom argument. Much better. “F*** you, you can’t tell me what to say!” Or could have had. Is this the case where the baker didn’t ask what the couple wanted written on the cake before he turned them away?

    nk (dbc370)

  23. who writes on a wedding cake?

    nobody!

    maybe Prince Harry and leggy meggy but he probably just want to make sure he remembers her name

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  24. I don’t think happyfascist understands freedom very well

    Patterico (8d3eae)

  25. freedom i won’t let you down i will not give you up

    my whole life i’ve never advocated legal repercussions for the likes of this hoober doober or his ilk

    i think he should be free to be as tacky and poopy as he wants

    but i think he’s a disgrace to the cake artist community

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  26. “I think the baker has a better freedom of speech argument than a religious freedom argument.”

    Perhaps he has just as good argument with a freedom of association argument as well….

    tonicman (76bdd5)

  27. Given today’s per curiam ruling on President Trump’s executive order, I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will take the proper decision when the time comes. If it should happen that Justice Kennedy retires as this term ends, then I would be more optimistic still. Should it happen that Justice Ginsburg decides that, whatever her political feelings might be, she needs to retire now due to health considerations, I shall applaud her courage, and be tremendously optimistic!

    Judge Gorsuch is already validating the opinions of those who didn’t think too highly of Donald Trump, but voted for him anyway, due solely to Supreme Court appointments.

    The optimistic Dana (1b79fa)

  28. It’s ironic that when Philips originally said no to the gay couple in Colorado in 2012, gay marriage wouldn’t be legal in the state for another two years.

    Dana (023079)

  29. Well you know him best, is he really David spade?

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. Dana @28. That would have lowered the weight of the State’s interest in my courtroom. And it should have in the Colorado proceedings. I don’t know whether it will matter in the SCOTUS. They usually look at the big picture and make law for future cases, and now same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Whenever this has come up, I give the following as a hypothetical to consider.

    Fred is gay. He lives in a small town, and runs a print shop where he makes a comfortable living printing invitations, signs, etc., including signs for local events, political campaigns and so on.

    One day, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church comes in, and places an order for 100 signs that say “GOD HATES F-GS,” for use in their next protest rally. Horrified, Fred refuses the order. “I’ll print up a sign for them for a yard sale or carnival, but not that hateful message.”

    The member brings suit for religious discrimination. Fred’s printing shop is a “public accommodation” under state law, and he is discriminating against a religious group based on their message.

    How should this case be decided? Does Fred have a First Amendment defense? How is this case different than the common wedding-cake-for-gay-marriage case?

    Bored Lawyer (fe5e63)

  32. both should be free to refuse Mr. Bored Lawyer but the Baker’s only refusing cause he be all tacky ignant and poopy

    the Printer’s refusing cause of he’s NOT tacky

    so that is a big difference!

    the sophistry what underlies the bigoted baker’s argument is that baking a cake for a gay marriage is tantamount to participating in a gay marriage or condoning a gay marriage – and that’s a special bigot way of thinking – it’s the same logic bigots used when they decided people shouldn’t swim in the same pool or go to the same school as black people

    but you the same person if you swim in a pool with black people

    you the same person if you bake a cake for gay people for example corrupt womanish FBI turd James Comey and his gay male lover Oswald Copernicus “Rod” Rosenstein

    you the same person if you take Algebra with a black person

    it’s all about floating on untouched by the phony divisive hatred people try to force upon you

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. Fred has a First Amendment right to refuse to print “Have A Nice Day”, in my opinion.

    I read the Colorado appellate court opinion that this case is being appealed from. They blew off the freedom of speech argument in a very dishonest and specious way. Hopefully, SCOTUS will address it honestly. It does not help, however, that the baker, according to the record, did not ask what the couple wanted written on the cake before turning them away.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. There are parallels with saul of tarsus:
    biblehub.com/exodus/23-2.htm

    narciso (d1f714)

  35. I support people’s rights to not serve anyone/anything so long as they do it in their own establishment.

    We have perverted the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It should be re-examined.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  36. I made a cake for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Fairy Cake stuffed with Chick-fil-a.

    Pinandpuller (4f8515)

  37. I think it will take brilliant and sensitive hearts and minds to decide this case in the best interests of all concerned.

    Is the SCOTUS capable of this? Or are we asking too much of the law.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  38. Other SCOTUS news
    https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/supreme-court-rejects-gun-rights-appeal-133833522–politics.html

    The headline is a bit misleading: they refused to hear two cases. In one case, the appeals court ruled for the Brady bunch. In the second, the appeals court ruled (sort of) against the Brady bunch. Note ye, the Trump administration was defending the Brady bunch side of the argument in the second case.

    kishnevi (b4162e)

  39. the correct outcome is for the bigoted baker to win and the dipstick fascists at the colorado tranny council to lose

    This is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  40. This is, and never has been about a cake, or even a gay couple, or gay marriage, or hurt feelings. It is and always has been about compelling a business owner to push a message, and endorse and enable an event with which violates his beliefs. It’s about using the heavy hand of government to force his religious hand. This is light years from selling a person an item.

    Dana (023079)

  41. So Dana, can you find it in yourself to admit that Trump got at least one thing right or close to it?

    Go on, it won’t hurt, all you have to do is mutter: “OK, OK, you filthy Trumpkins, I admit that Trump is not the anti-Christ.”

    Fred Z (05d938)

  42. What does this have to do with Trump? Trump is probably the most genuinely gay-friendly President we’ve had, and he’d tell the bakers: “Money has no sexual orientation. Bake them the cake.”

    nk (dbc370)

  43. Nk,

    You have no clue what he’d say. Stop making stuff up.

    He would make the cake because he doesn’t even pretend to be religious, but he’s given no indication that he supports anti-religious bigotry.

    NJRob (94ef6d)

  44. Trump is probably the most genuinely gay-friendly President we’ve had, and he’d tell the bakers: “Money has no sexual orientation. Bake them the cake.”

    If they were his employees, sure.

    But he’s pretty cool about letting the rest of us have our freedomz.

    Daryl Herbert (7be116)

  45. As with berlusconi , trump knows what side be has to live up, the left wing stirs like Jacobin still haven’t gotten over machine grande

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. @ Fred Z,

    So Dana, can you find it in yourself to admit that Trump got at least one thing right or close to it?

    Go on, it won’t hurt, all you have to do is mutter: “OK, OK, you filthy Trumpkins, I admit that Trump is not the anti-Christ.”

    I’m unclear how President Trump fits into this. Exactly what is it that he got right??

    Dana (023079)

  47. Further, when have I ever denigrated Trump supporters as being “filthy”? Your comment has left me confused.

    With that, I’ll just throw in that I don’t believe President Trump holds to any religious beliefs that would prevent him from baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, nor do I think he has any feelings about gays, one way or the other.

    Dana (023079)

  48. Touche, NJRob. Nobody knows what Trump will say.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. Why does every fershluginner thread have to be about Trump?

    nk (dbc370)

  50. Dana: Appointing Gorsuch. It let the lefties on the court know that their days of supremacy were over.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  51. He would make the cake because he doesn’t even pretend to be religious

    Actually, he does pretend to be religious. In amazingly crass and shameless (even for him) ways.

    I sympathize with the baker, and opposed giving state sanction to gay marriage, but I am uneasy about the appearance of discrimination too.

    He may be required by law to serve them but what if he just does a crappy job and burns the cake such that whatever message is illegible, or (in the example of the gay sign-maker) prints the signs illegibly? The customers would then be entitled to ask for refunds, which could be cheerfully offered.

    Otherwise, maybe acts of commerce cannot and should not be treated as protected political/religious expression, but rather viewed by the law as something more mundane. Just thinking out loud.

    Dave (711345)

  52. Dave,

    so you’re all for a Westboro Baptist going to a gay print shop demanding they print “God hates @#$@” and then a gay bakery for a damnation cake?

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  53. so you’re all for a Westboro Baptist going to a gay print shop demanding they print “God hates @#$@” and then a gay bakery for a damnation cake?

    Like letting the Nazis march in Skokie, it may be the only approach consistent with our values.

    I think it is reasonable to ask whether acts of commerce, performed for hire, deserve the same (ultimate) protection as manifest political and religious self-expression.

    Dave (711345)

  54. Now who’s making things up? Dave said nothing like that.

    If you live in a society, there are some things you have to do even if you’re doing them for the Devil himself, and if you can’t, find yourself a monastery or an Amish community to live in. I, personally, think that the definition of “public accommodation” has been stretched to the point of abuse, far beyond its original meaning. It should, at the very least, be limited to businesses that provide necessities and not luxuries. However, if you are going to be a “public accommodation” as the law currently defines it, then the state has the right to keep you from discriminating against members of the public who lawfully try to purchase your goods and services.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. Ok, I didn’t see that Dave had already spoken for himself. My apologies.

    nk (dbc370)

  56. However, if you are going to be a “public accommodation” as the law currently defines it, then the state has the right to keep you from discriminating against members of the public who lawfully try to purchase your goods and services.

    In addition to the public accommodation/commerce angle, another thing that troubles me about lining up with the baker is: are the courts going to hold an inquiry into every claimed religious belief or taboo, to determine whether it is genuine “enough” to allow (in effect) discrimination?

    This type of theological micro-scrutiny is at odds with all the Establishment Clause jurisprudence that I’ve read (IANAL, as Beldar will no doubt be around to remind me soon, but I used to follow the creationism cases and remember the “Lemon test”, one of whose prongs is that a statute violates the Establishment Clause if it creates “excessive government entanglement” with religion). Do we want to make the courts determine that Mr. Cakebaker’s abhorrence of gay marriage is a sincerely held religious belief, but that Mr. Innkeeper’s abhorrence of (say) inter-racial marriage is not?

    The constitution itself even recognizes a yawning gulf between commerce on one hand (which congress now has essentially unlimited power to regulate) and political/religious expression on the other (“Congress shall make no law…”).

    Dave (711345)

  57. Yup. There’s no First Amendment case extending religious freedom to the degree asked for here. Hobby Lobby was RFRA which only applies to the federal government. On the other hand, I do believe that there is a decent freedom of speech argument.

    nk (dbc370)

  58. Anyway, once you find out that Lassie has always been portrayed by a boy dog, you just stop taking this stuff too seriously, you know?

    nk (dbc370)

  59. Was a guest at a gay wedding last week. The couple spent $35,000.00 on Flowers.
    They were beautiful.
    The flowers. The couple was handsome.

    mg (31009b)

  60. Pansies, mg? Or orchids?

    nk (dbc370)

  61. cake artist says look at my pretty cake it is so lovely

    but it’s not for everyone!

    please to fill out this application

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  62. #2 ….. My parents grew up without shoes, no running water, no electric, no welfare, no healthcare, no heating, no running water, no sewars, etc.

    My mother belonged to a single mommy household before it was cool. My father was an indentured servant b/c his parents could not fee him nor his two other brothers. So off to work at 5 years old as a shepard is what they did those days.

    Add to that a three year Civil War further impoverishing and being surrounded by dead bodies.

    BUT THEY HAD GOOD MORALS AND VALUES

    Heck, travel Asia and Africa if you want to see poverty.

    So I have not one ounce of concern because I know poverty does not create that problem. Degeneracy does. So the only solution is some Chrissshun Values, not more Leftism and Poverty Pimping.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  63. Freedom means the freedom to be racist, bigoted and homophobic without Gubmint coming into your business and telling you what to do.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  64. “Freedom’s just another way of tellin’ ya what you’ll do”

    — “Me and Bobby McFlea”, Kris Kristopperman

    Colonel Haiku (796ffc)

  65. Absolutely. And when some black, gay, atheist shoots you for being racist, bigoted and homophobic, the paramedics should have the right to refuse to give you first aid, and should you manage to drive yourself to the emergency room it should have the right to turn you away. Freedom!

    nk (dbc370)

  66. i just think it’s gross to have to see that stuff in the course of your job plus going into bed bug houses

    ugh

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  67. I liked your comment at 62, Blah. This is like so First World Problem, I can taste the 2% milk in my Starbucks tall Amricano when I specifically asked for skim.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. So, if a black person goes into a restaurant in 1966 and demands something that’s not on the menu and his request is refused, that’s racism? Ok.
    I don’t think that is a fair and accurate comparison.

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  69. Freedom also means not giving up what you believe to be the moral foundations of your Christian faith because some leftist atheist judge and murder of lawyers says so. Freedom similarly means not being forced into involuntary servitude to assuage the white homophobic guilt of these same heathens. No judge, no court has the right to enforce slavery on a citizen. And that entire concept of *public accommodation* was dreamt up by malevolent people looking to force others to do their bidding. As soon as I see a term like that I know there is a leftist lawyer in the fuel supply. Both of these ridiculous ideas are there to undermine Christianity and the family. And ultimately the culture and very concept of America. You know, like everything else the left does. Being a homosexual is not a civil rights issue, it’s a mental health issue. Allowing the left to make it into a civil rights issue destroys the very idea of civil rights and raises sexual perversion to the moral level of racial hatred.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  70. The concept of public accommodation predates the Manger at Bethlehem. But it has been abused in recent times to include almost every business.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. I just think no matter how awful I may find someone’s belief, I don’t think they should be forced to serve me just cuz I got money and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Freedom means freedom to do as you wish in your place of business (if it is yours) and your home. This is not PUBLIC in any way. It is private and anyone other than the Owners are Guests.

    Now Government or Public Entities is another story. That is Public Accommodation. I get it there. No discrimination, even if the person is a Conservative.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  72. Nk,

    then the issue is to fix the language to only include what is a public accommodation. Not to just throw the baby out with the bath water and include every business because the left hates Christians.

    Dave,

    do you not see the difference between the government in Skokie trying to restrict freedoms and a private business trying to exercise their own?

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  73. 61 – “cake artist says look at my pretty cake it is so lovely

    but it’s not for everyone!

    please to fill out this application”

    Actually this is wrong. “Look at my pretty cake” implies it’s already been baked and decorated.

    Cake dood has stated numerous times he sells his ready-made cakes to anybody.

    It’s when the law says that he must decorate the cake in a theme which he feels is against his faith that he objects.

    harkin (536957)

  74. Still trying to find the liberal jurisdiction which has a law that says Muslim bakery must provide paying customers a Mohammed Cake.

    harkin (536957)

  75. I think so too, NJRob, and the place to do it is the U.S. Supreme Court, where they first started it as it related to Constitutional rights in the Heart of Atlanta Motel case in 1964. Now, if a motel is not a public accommodation nothing is, but then local governments appropriated the term for just about everything. I’m still waiting for a case out of a Nevada county with legalized prostitution that involves a prostitute turning away a same sex customer, if you know what I mean.

    nk (dbc370)

  76. SCOTUS would be well served by uber defining things like Public Accommodation, General Welfare Provision and other nettlesome abuses imposed on us by our “betters” in the legal profession.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  77. what if you want a gay wedding cake just cause of it is so lovely and you want to support your local cake artist but you not really gonna do a gay wedding

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. I’m still not sure how refusing the gay couple is different from refusing a black couple, other than that few, if any, religions have prohibitions against interracial marriage. Is there more to this than that?

    I understand the general libertarian position against forcing any business owner to violate his beliefs, religious or otherwise. But I’ve noticed that Iibertarians generally shy away from taking a position on whether discriminating on the basis race (for religious reasons or otherwise) should be permitted. There seems to be a bit of a bait and switch — a boldly-proclaimed demand for total unqualifiec “freedom” — which soon morphs into a very narrow exception granted only to those business owners who have particular religion-based objections to sexual orientation.

    Proud Prolifer (e6adc2)

  79. 78.I’m still not sure how refusing the gay couple is different from refusing a black couple, other than that few, if any, religions have prohibitions against interracial marriage. Is there more to this than that?

    On a related note, during the Jim Crow era(s), were there not laws in several US states/counties mandating that businesses *had* to racially segregate their establishments? And by extension, businessmen who provided equal service to black and white customers were breaking those laws?

    JP (f1742c)

  80. Jennifer Aniston did a movie called Cake and won a golden globe award and she’s not prejudice at all on anybody

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  81. @Proud Prolifer:I’m still not sure how refusing the gay couple is different from refusing a black couple

    Refusing to make a Confederate flag cake is not “refusing white people”, refusing to make a cake celebrating the cop-killing of Assata Shakur is not “refusing black people”, and refusing to make a cke celebrating a gay wedding is not “refusing gay people”.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  82. A Man Called Horse sang MacArthur Park but nobody believes it when you tell them.

    Someone put a rainbow on my cake
    I don’t know if I can take it
    Cause it looks like I baked it
    And I’ll never get to Heaven with that sin
    Oh, no.

    Just kidding. Really. LA’s finest tried to shoot at a dog eight or ten times and only managed to wound him but they managed to kill a 16-year old kid nearby with one of their wild shots. And nothing’s going to happen to them because “it was just a tragic accident”. That’s a case I’d like to see the Supreme Court take and apply Sharia law to the cops — let the kid’s family gun them down like dogs.

    nk (dbc370)

  83. ugh here’s a link for that Mr. nk

    Two of the five sheriff’s deputies shot six to eight rounds at the pitbull. None of them appear to have hit the dog.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  84. Slightly different story, here. LA Sheriff’s, not LAPD. There’s a difference. The LAPD worked for Jack Dragna; the LA Sheriff’s worked for Mickey Cohen.

    nk (dbc370)

  85. I’m still not sure how refusing a plural-marriage trio is different from refusing a gay couple.

    I’m still not sure how refusing a father-daughter union is different from refusing a plural-marriage trio.

    I’m still not sure how refusing a non-consensual arranged marriage between an adult and a minor child is different from refusing a father-daughter union.

    Now are you beginning to see?

    ThOR (c9324e)

  86. SURELY there is a difference between a cake-maker being forced to create a decoration for a “homosexual marriage” that goes against his religious beliefs, and a surgeon who refuses to operate on an HIV-positive homosexual for the same stated reason.

    For one thing, the cake-maker’s job does not have life-or-death consequences. For another, there are doubtless OTHER cake-makers in town who would be happy to earn the happy couple’s money by providing the cake.

    I just DO NOT SEE that a “duty to serve the public, all the public, and /or any individual member of the public, in any fashion they demand” can be upheld as constitutional.

    The Lib-Prog lawyers stand up and say “It’s illegal to discriminate”. Well, “discrimination” is the process of evaluating the merits/demerits of {whatever thing} and choosing Thing A over Thing B based on that evaluation. Everybody discriminates and evaluates and chooses something
    over another thing EVERY DAGGONE DAY. “Nah, those bananas look a little overripe, think I’ll
    buy the apples today.” “I hear the food is really good at Chez DeJaVu, but I’d have to drive
    through a … sketchy neighborhood to get there. Not worth it to me.” “This toilet handle replacement kit is $8 but it’s mostly plastic; that one is $15 but has metal fittings. Besides
    it’s Made In America. OK, I’ll spend the $15 bucks.”

    Despite some black-robed twit’s (or should that be, “twits'” to show the plural?) discovery of weird emanations and strange penumbras in our Constitution, “discrimination” is alive and well and ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in a functioning society.

    Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah (20ba30)

  87. The key is whether the cake was clearly characteristic of a gay ceremony, or whether it was legitimately a generic cake that could be for a straight or gay event. As to the point that the baker declined before knowing what they wanted on the cake, if past practice in that geographic area could reasonably suggest that such a cake would be clearly characteristic of a gay event, then the baker was OK. If the couple really wanted to have a generic cake, they could make that clear. I think in all these cases, the proprietors had shown by their past practices that they would sell to gay customers if they were buying ready made items that had no intrinsic connection to a gay event. The toughest call would be if the gay couple said they wanted a generic cake, but the baker still didn’t want to do it because he knew he’d be doing it for a gay event (because they told him).

    Ken in Camarillo (298048)

  88. Frederick #81: I think you’ve made the breakthrough observation that should make this whole thing easier to analyze.

    Ken in Camarillo (298048)

  89. 82. nk (dbc370) — 6/27/2017 @ 9:51 am

    That’s a case I’d like to see the Supreme Court take and apply Sharia law to the cops — let the kid’s family gun them down like dogs.

    No, with sharia law, they maybe can get the death penalty – or nothing – but if he is sentenced to death, it can be avoided if he reaches a financial settlement with the kid’s father, or brother or closest male relative.

    In Saudi Arabia, in many cases the government puts enormous pressure on the family to agree. Other times, they want somebody executed.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  90. 85. ThOR (c9324e) — 6/27/2017 @ 11:03 am

    I’m still not sure how refusing a plural-marriage trio is different from refusing a gay couple.

    The first is not legally recognized in the United States and also against public policy; the second now is.

    I’m still not sure how refusing a father-daughter union is different from refusing a plural-marriage trio.

    The first is one of the prohibited relationships in Leviticus Chapter 18 and 20 and still against U.S. law; the seond isn’t one of the prohibited relationships in Leviticus, unless the two proposed plural wives are sisters, although it is against U.S. law for now, but mostly in the form of not being recognized. Bigamy doesn’t really get prosecuted any more.

    I’m still not sure how refusing a non-consensual arranged marriage between an adult and a minor child is different from refusing a father-daughter union.

    The first, although not explicitly prohibited is generally understood to be from Genesis 24:57-58, and followed by most or all religions, or anything that pretends to be a religion – even when not followed, it’s understood to be unjustifiable and it is not legal under the laws of any state in the Union; the second is prohibited (to Jews anyway, but it’s implied this wasn’t OK with the inhabitants of Canaan either) by a kal v’chomer [argument a fortiori] from Leviticus 18:10 and is also included in the prohibited relationship mentioned in Leviticus 18:17. And it’s still illegal in the United States as of 2017 (except maybe if the daughter was adopted by somebody else, so shes not legally his daughter, or the father doesn’t know she’s his daughter, with nobody lobbying for a change. and it’s also illegal if the daughter is merely adopted. Woody Allen never adopted Soon-Yi Previn.

    This may be one of those things that nobody is even tempted to do, at least openly. Well, almost nobody, since there’s nothing I guess that nobdy wants to do.

    Sammy Finkelman (03c829)

  91. A comment was made that gay marriage was not even legal at that time in Colorado – so we are imposing a crushing fine on a person for not supporting a concept which was not even recognized by the government! Further, it wasn’t really a wedding cake after all (unless you believe that this couple was going to transport a cake all the way to Massachusetts where their wedding may or may not have taken place) What a farce.

    RangerJAGC (85a769)

  92. Perhaps the only way to fight this is to make the liberals realize how absolutely insane this is. Go to a staunchly liberal baker and demand they make a cake which celebrates the birthday of the KKK or disparages Barack Obama or demeans woman. Then sue their pants off when they won’t do it.

    RangerJAGC (85a769)

  93. Decal. When they went after the huntress, hung her in efigee, and burned her church , it was because she spoke up in favor of propositions 8 and 4

    narciso (d1f714)

  94. Go to a staunchly liberal baker and demand they make a cake which celebrates the birthday of the KKK or disparages Barack Obama or demeans woman.

    There’s no law against refusing to make cakes for the KKK, or for people who don’t like Barack Obama, or for Trump. In a lot of states, there’s no law against refusing to make cakes for gays. No federal law, either.

    It’s not a philosophical question. It’s a legal question — Colorado’s statute vs. the First Amendment. But I think you’re saying what I said above. It’s a freedom of speech issue more than it is anything else.

    nk (dbc370)

  95. Of course it is,obliging behavior that is,against ones moral code.

    narciso (d1f714)

  96. you are forcing me to bake a cake of evil

    I AM A CAKE ARTIST

    i will never submit

    NEVER!!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  97. “This may be one of those things that nobody is even tempted to do, at least openly. Well, almost nobody, since there’s nothing I guess that nobdy wants to do.”

    – Sammy Finkelman

    LOL

    ThOR (c9324e)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3095 secs.