Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

New Masterpiece Lawsuit: Cakes, Religion & Speech, Round 2–this time, a transgender birthday cake


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I agree.  Red and Blue could mean a lot of things.  

The Chinese flag has red and blue in it. It probably had white in it too. Clearly it is celebrating a Chinese intelligence operation aimed at the destruction of the USA. I say we haul in those who ordered it on treason charges.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And the seller could have ignored the whole “what it was for” thing and sold the cake.

The really cool thing about freedom of conscience is that it protects the rights of people whose consciences actually differ to yours ...

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you were to give me millions in donations I could still work too. In fact, can we make this happen. Maybe I can start a cupcake that refuses to serve to blacks and Jews because of my deeply held religious beliefs. I would not feel bad taking donations from White Supremacists bravely supporting me to further the cause of fascism. I would probably go to hell for it though.........worth it?

Do you want a check, or fake money, because neither would be worth the paper they are printed on. Such are my finances. :rofl: 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

If she really wanted the cake, she shouldn't have said anything more than just to describe what colors she wanted.  If she just had to say something, maybe she could of waited until the cake was finished, paid for and in her possession. 

I was thinking the exact same thing, lol.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Even given ALL my experience with and knowledge of Masterpiece's history, I admit I myself was surprised that they chose to interpret a red cake with blue frosting as controversial enough to be a violation of their religious beliefs.

A red cake.  With blue frosting.  As some sort of "pro-trans" statement he could not, in good conscience, make.

Really?

Really..........?????

Stunned? 

Yeah.

From the WaPo (emphases added):

Quote

Autumn Scardina, a Denver attorney whose practice includes family, personal injury, insurance and employment law, filed the Colorado complaint — saying that Phillips refused her request for a gender transition cake in 2017.

Cardina said she asked for a cake with a pink interior and a blue exterior and told Phillips it was intended to celebrate her gender transition.

Why did Phillips "interpret" Scardina's request as being for a "pro trans" cake?  Because she went out of her way to tell him she was ordering "a gender transition cake ... intended to celebrate her gender transition."

I said this before, but it merits attention: 

What do Adele, The Rolling Stones, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, R.E.M., Elton John, Luciano Pavarotti, Queen and George Harrison have in common?

They are all musicians who, either directly or through representatives, have told Donald Trump to stop using their music at his campaign rallies and events.

The songs being used by Donald Trump are "exactly the same" as they are when used in other venues, and yet these various artists do not want Donald Trump to use their music in his campaign rallies.  Now why is that?  Well...

  • "People think I'm endorsing you here.  I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying."
  • "[Using Aerosmith songs at Trump rallies] gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid."
  • "[Pavarotti's values] are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump."
  • "Queen does not want [its music] ... to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump."
  • "[H]is political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years."

The use of these artists' "speech" in a particular venue (a Trump rally) is - as you put it "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues.  

More to the point, it's their music.  It's their artistic expression.  It's their speech.  Since when are Americans in Group X in the habit of coercing other Americans in Group Y to speak in ways that contravene the beliefs and values of Group Y?

If Elton John doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Elton John recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a Trump rally gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

Likewise, if Mr. Phillips doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Mr. Phillips recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a gay wedding gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

We're all supposed to like the concept of equal rights, correct?  And yet there are some folks who would deprive Mr Phillips of his right to the use of his artistic speech that is claimed by Elton John and all the other artists quoted above.  These folks cheer the government coercing and punishing Mr. Phillips for refusing the use of his artistic speech at in ways that do not reflect his values, and which use may give the false impression of his endorsement. 

But for some reason, nobody's in a rush to sue Elton John into oblivion because he declines to let his artistic skills be utilized in a particular way and in a particular venue.

But when a Christian baker is involved, well, he must be destroyed.  Root and branch.

That's the way of world being crafted by the gay rights crowd.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The really cool thing about freedom of conscience is that it protects the rights of people whose consciences actually differ to yours ...

No, it doesn’t. Not absolutely. The Civil Rights movement occurred for a reason and defied the freedom of conscience (and religion) of many who raised a big stink about it and fought it.

And if the religious in this country are going to raise a stink about this petty stuff then I fully expect them to ignore the boys who cried wolf once real violations of religious freedom start cropping up. And we will, in a sense, deserve it.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Chinese flag has red and blue in it. It probably had white in it too. Clearly it is celebrating a Chinese intelligence operation aimed at the destruction of the USA. I see we haul in those who ordered it on treason charges.

Pink and blue...I happened to read that part first, just caught my eye (description of the colors) and was thinking it was going to be about a baby shower where the gender wasn't known.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

From the WaPo (emphases added):

Why did Phillips "interpret" Scardina's request as being for a "pro trans" cake?  Because she went out of her way to tell him she was ordering "a gender transition cake ... intended to celebrate her gender transition."

I said this before, but it merits attention: 

What do Adele, The Rolling Stones, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, R.E.M., Elton John, Luciano Pavarotti, Queen and George Harrison have in common?

They are all musicians who, either directly or through representatives, have told Donald Trump to stop using their music at his campaign rallies and events.

The songs being used by Donald Trump are "exactly the same" as they are when used in other venues, and yet these various artists do not want Donald Trump to use their music in his campaign rallies.  Now why is that?  Well...

  • "People think I'm endorsing you here.  I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying."
  • "[Using Aerosmith songs at Trump rallies] gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid."
  • "[Pavarotti's values] are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump."
  • "Queen does not want [its music] ... to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump."
  • "[H]is political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years."

The use of these artists' "speech" in a particular venue (a Trump rally) is - as you put it "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues.  

More to the point, it's their music.  It's their artistic expression.  It's their speech.  Since when are Americans in Group X in the habit of coercing other Americans in Group Y to speak in ways that contravene the beliefs and values of Group Y?

If Elton John doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Elton John recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a Trump rally gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

Likewise, if Mr. Phillips doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use.  That's not bigotry.  That's Mr. Phillips recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a gay wedding gives the impression that he is endorsing that event.

We're all supposed to like the concept of equal rights, correct?  And yet there are some folks who would deprive Mr Phillips of his right to the use of his artistic speech that is claimed by Elton John and all the other artists quoted above.  These folks cheer the government coercing and punishing Mr. Phillips for refusing the use of his artistic speech at in ways that do not reflect his values, and which use may give the false impression of his endorsement. 

But for some reason, nobody's in a rush to sue Elton John into oblivion because he declines to let his artistic skills be utilized in a particular way and in a particular venue.

But when a Christian baker is involved, well, he must be destroyed.  Root and branch.

That's the way of world being crafted by the gay rights crowd.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Wait, are you seriously arguing that stolen songs are comparable to this? You should realize if you bring copyright law in you are comparing apples and bricks and trying to imagine an analogy?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The whole transgender thing is insane but whatever.  As long as people don't demand that I play along with it, I am ok with it. 

It is more then insane. I can’t figure out why doctors who take oaths about this kind of stuff can, in essence, mutilate the human body. Not only that but we allow minors to make this decision now. What?

Oh, and just an FYI, there could be a big explosion about LDS not being nice to a transgendered individual hitting the news soon. Stay tuned.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's the easiest thing in the world to proclaim your principles when observing them doesn't involve bringing down the wrath of the gay rights lobby and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on you.

 

Standing for Christ does not count when the stance is popular or goes along with the crowd.  That is easy and carries no risk.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Protecting the rights of people who already think like you do is so noble ... and pointless.

And protecting the rights of those who want to strip others of their rights is how you get Nazis and slavery.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Sometimes, a real-life example is even better than a hypothetical.

My answer to your question above to that is that I am in full agreement with the following ruling:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-company-does-not-have-to-make-gay-pride-t-shirts-kentucky-appeals-court-rules-183406/

Did that answer your question?  If not, I'm happy to ask any follow ups you have.

Can you explain why the ACLU and the Lexington Civil Rights Committee are appealing this ruling and why the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear it? Why many gay rights  advocates  claim the Appeals court got it wrong?  That's the part I don't understand. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is more then insane. I can’t figure out why doctors who take oaths about this kind of stuff can, in essence, mutilate the human body. Not only that but we allow minors to make this decision now. What?

Oh, and just an FYI, there could be a big explosion about LDS not being nice to a transgendered individual hitting the news soon. Stay tuned.

Working in health care myself, one can not medically treat men as women and vice versa as there are for example different normal ranges of certain things that are different between the sexes.  It would be absurd for a doctor to treat a man as a woman if lab results are normal for a man but abnormal for a woman.   

As to LDS not being nice to a transgendered, we are nice enough but there are some things we can not budge on.  A transgendered man is not going to get the priesthood.  Transgendered people are not going to use the wrong bathroom in ward buildings.  People are free to think what they want about themselves but the Lord knows who is male and who is female and he is not going to alter things because someone wants to be something else.   I want to be 25 again but has hard as I desire and self identify myself as a 25 year old, I am still 48.  Transageism is no more valid than transgenderism.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Working in health care myself, one can not medically treat men as women and vice versa as there are for example different normal ranges of certain things that are different between the sexes.  It would be absurd for a doctor to treat a man as a woman if lab results are normal for a man but abnormal for a woman.   

As to LDS not being nice to a transgendered, we are nice enough but there are some things we can not budge on.  A transgendered man is not going to get the priesthood.  Transgendered people are not going to use the wrong bathroom in ward buildings.  People are free to think what they want about themselves but the Lord knows who is male and who is female and he is not going to alter things because someone wants to be something else.   I want to be 25 again but has hard as I desire and self identify myself as a 25 year old, I am still 48.  Transageism is no more valid than transgenderism.

The resurrection is transageism and should be banned.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, are you seriously arguing that stolen songs are comparable to this?

I'm not talking about stolen songs per se. Elton John won't even license his music at all to Donald Trump. He refuses to allow his Musical or artistic speech to be used in the way and in the venue that Donald Trump is requesting. That is the the comparative value of the  artistic expressions  of the artists I referenced above in relation to the artistic expression of Mr. Phillips.

Quote

You should realize if you bring copyright law in you are comparing apples and bricks and trying to imagine an analogy?

I am not speaking about copyright law.  Let's assume that copyright laws should be fully observed.  Let us further hypothesize that the Westboro Baptist Church wants to use a series of songs by Elton John at an anti-gay rally. Let us further hypothesize that Elton John wants to have the right to refuse the use of his songs in that way and in that venue. Do you think you should have that right?

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not talking about stolen songs per se. Elton John won't even license his music at all to Donald Trump. He refuses to allow his Musical or artistic speech to be used in the way and in the venue that Donald Trump is requesting. That is the the comparative value of the  artistic expressions  of the artists I referenced above in relation to the artistic expression of Mr. Phillips.

I am not speaking about copyright law.  Let's assume that copyright laws should be fully observed.  Let us further hypothesize that the Westboro Baptist Church wants to use a series of songs by Elton John at an anti-gay rally. Let us further hypothesize that Elton John wants to have the right to refuse the use of his songs in that way and in that venue. Do you think you should have that right?

Yeah, I have no problem with that. Do not think it compares. The use of art and the use of a basic good are very different. 

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

:shok:

truth-bomb.jpeg?w=470

 

Seriously though, if you protect the rights of people to deny goods, services, and the like to others you are providing legal protections to discrimination. From a selfish practical standpoint this is dangerous as it could easily be you or I discriminated against next. From a moral standpoint it is problematic.

Perhaps most importantly from an LDS standpoint taking a stance against sin is commanded. Making living more difficult for sinners through discriminatory practices is not. If there is one thing I trust God to do is to punish sinners in his own way and in his own time. We do not need to heap more burdens on them. And doing it to keep our hands clean seems childish. It is like the weak in the gospel in Paul’s time worried over eating meat that was once part of a pagan sacrifice. Really something we should just get over.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...