Masterpiece Cake Shop religious freedom case at Supreme Court

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

All these issues have now been argued before the Supreme Court, and we will have to wait for their decision.  Which way that decision goes is not as important as that we will then understand the basic rules (for the nonce).  It matters little whether you and I agree in the midst of a hyperpartisan atmosphere, but those who wish to litigate this must be given their day in court.

Moreover, this has nothing to do with personal beliefs, but rather with public accommodations.  Everyone is entitled to believe and worship as he wishes.  He is not entitled to bring those beliefs into the marketplace the way White Southern racists used to do by refusing to allow Black people to be served in restaurants and other businesses alongside White folk.  We'll see whether the Supreme Court agrees with that.  Currently, there seems to be a notion that race is completely different from gender preference.  I don't agree, but that is what we have a Supreme Court for -- to decide the hard issues.

I wince at the idea of using litigation as a weapon to compel others to accept one's own political ideology. That's what I see happening here.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

All these issues have now been argued before the Supreme Court, and we will have to wait for their decision.  Which way that decision goes is not as important as that we will then understand the basic rules (for the nonce).  It matters little whether you and I agree in the midst of a hyperpartisan atmosphere, but those who wish to litigate this must be given their day in court.

Moreover, this has nothing to do with personal beliefs, but rather with public accommodations.  Everyone is entitled to believe and worship as he wishes.  He is not entitled to bring those beliefs into the marketplace the way White Southern racists used to do by refusing to allow Black people to be served in restaurants and other businesses alongside White folk.  We'll see whether the Supreme Court agrees with that.  Currently, there seems to be a notion that race is completely different from gender preference.  I don't agree, but that is what we have a Supreme Court for -- to decide the hard issues.

I wince at the idea of using litigation as a weapon to compel others to accept one's own political or social ideology. That's what I see happening here.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it,  Mr. Phillips was asked to make a themed cake for a gay wedding, he declined, he was sued, and his case is now before the Supreme Court.

The gay couple repeatedly assert in their brief that they "Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake."  However, contemporary news accounts seem to differ with that.  See here.

Nevertheless, the findings of the fact in the original administrative court case appear to favor the gay couple's factual claim.

Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah a bit of a conflict.  My understanding is that they did not even get to discussing the design of the cake.  Masterpiece just refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  I don't think that the dispute was in the design, but I do think that NOW Masterpiece is claiming artistic expression.  They are calling the cake a sculpture. lol.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

All these issues have now been argued before the Supreme Court, and we will have to wait for their decision.  Which way that decision goes is not as important as that we will then understand the basic rules (for the nonce).  It matters little whether you and I agree in the midst of a hyperpartisan atmosphere, but those who wish to litigate this must be given their day in court.

Moreover, this has nothing to do with personal beliefs, but rather with public accommodations.  Everyone is entitled to believe and worship as he wishes.  He is not entitled to bring those beliefs into the marketplace the way White Southern racists used to do by refusing to allow Black people to be served in restaurants and other businesses alongside White folk.  We'll see whether the Supreme Court agrees with that.  Currently, there seems to be a notion that race is completely different from gender preference.  I don't agree, but that is what we have a Supreme Court for -- to decide the hard issues.

I wince at the idea of using litigation as a weapon to compel others to accept one's own political or social ideology. That's what I see happening here.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wince at the idea of using litigation as a weapon to compel others to accept one's own political ideology. That's what I see happening here.

You do realize that the constitution is written so that greviences can be addressed under the law.  It is fundamental to our political system.  Without due process minorities and those who have been denied their rights and in this case, are being discriminated against have no weapon to fight for their rights.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah a bit of a conflict.  My understanding is that they did not even get to discussing the design of the cake.  Masterpiece just refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  

So the refusal could be based on the event, rather than the individuals involved.

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think that the dispute was in the design, but I do think that NOW Masterpiece is claiming artistic expression.  They are calling the cake a sculpture. lol.

I don't get the "LOL."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

If he doesn't want to provide a service for a legitimate customer, he should find another business.

[Thinking]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wince at the idea of using litigation as a weapon to compel others to accept one's own political or social ideology. That's what I see happening here.

Why should one's political or social ideology be involved in the baking of a cake? All they did was ask a baker to bake a cake, and he won't because they are gay.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do realize that the constitution is written so that greviences can be addressed under the law.  It is fundamental to our political system.  Without due process minorities and those who have been denied their rights and in this case, are being discriminated against have no weapon to fight for their rights.

There is also a legal concept known as vexatious litigation. Look it up.

Briefly stated, it is a legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It is considered an abuse of the judicial process.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Why should one's political or social ideology be involved in the baking of a cake? All they did was ask a baker to bake a cake, and he won't because they are gay.

That's not  accurate. He won't because he desires not to participate in ceremony of this nature. He in fact offered to sell them any other item in the store, and the store does serve gay customers.

[kiwi57]

57 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If he doesn't want to provide a service for a legitimate customer, he should find another business.

"Men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread." - John Stuart Mill.

[Scott Lloyd]

[Dual post. Sorry]

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the refusal could be based on the event, rather than the individuals involved.

I don't get the "LOL."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes.  But the event is directly related to the fact that they are gay.  Is that event the only event ever held that goes against his religious beliefs?  These are some of the issues that I am sure will be debated and discussed by the justices.

Maybe it is just me.  I guess the Supreme Court will decide.  But I have never thought of a wedding cake as a sculpture.  Artistic?  Yes.  Sculpture?  Not the first word that comes to mind.

Edited December 7, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is also a legal concept known as vexatious litigation. Look it up.

Briefly stated, it is a legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It is considered an abuse of the judicial process.

 

And what case have we been talking about do you think fits that description?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's not  accurate. He won't because he desires not to participate in ceremony of this nature. He in fact offered to sell them any other item in the store, and the store does serve gay customers.

Is the baker asking to be married to someone of the same sex?  Does the baker refuse to bake a cake for a baby shower whose mother is not married, or divorce cake or a couple that has been living together. etc.  It sounds like this baker has only ONE use of his cake that conflicts with his religious belief.  Humm.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wince at the idea of using litigation as a weapon to compel others to accept one's own political or social ideology. That's what I see happening here.

Think of it as like having a referee at a soccer game.  We may not like it, but it is necessary.  If men were angels, we would not even need a Constitution (the reasoning of the Founding Fathers).  Compulsion is part of real life, and all of us must be humble enough to accept it.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe it is just me.  I guess the Supreme Court will decide.  But I have never thought of a wedding cake as a sculpture.  Artistic?  Yes.  Sculpture?  Not the first word that comes to mind.

What was funny during formal argument was the notion that a baker could be artistic, but a chef could not, which immediately brought on disagreement.  I'm sure that all the chefs who heard of that were deeply offended.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is the baker asking to be married to someone of the same sex?  Does the baker refuse to bake a cake for a baby shower whose mother is not married, or divorce cake or a couple that has been living together. etc.  It sounds like this baker has only ONE use of his cake that conflicts with his religious belief.  Humm.  

There's no way for me to know a thing like that. Or you either.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes.  But the event is directly related to the fact that they are gay.

No, it is not. If a heterosexual friend of the groom and groom had approached the Baker and made an identical request, for a wedding cake to be used at his gay friends wedding, I suspect mr. Phillips would have turned that request down as well. It is the event, not the individuals, that is morally problematic for mr. Phillips.

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is that event the only event ever held that goes against his religious beliefs?  These are some of the issues that I am sure will be debated and discussed by the justices.

Maybe it is just me.  I guess the Supreme Court will decide.  But I have never thought of a wedding cake as a sculpture.  Artistic?  Yes.  Sculpture?  Not the first word that comes to mind.

I suspect the reference to sculpture was as metaphor or analogy. It is an artistic endeavor. It is a form of speech.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

"Men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread." - John Stuart Mill.

You may want to read up on the context of that quote a bit. It was about protecting freedom of thought, not the right to refuse to serve someone economically. Specifically it was about the evil of using discriminatory economic inducements to squash speech.

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is the baker asking to be married to someone of the same sex?  Does the baker refuse to bake a cake for a baby shower whose mother is not married, or divorce cake or a couple that has been living together. etc.  It sounds like this baker has only ONE use of his cake that conflicts with his religious belief.  Humm.  

There are many custom cakes Jack Phillips has refused to make including Halloween, Divorce, Bachelorette and Bachelor Party cakes, Satan's birthday party cake etc...and even a cake with an anti-lgbtq message. 

[Anijen]

Is it okay for a gay baker to refuse service of making a cake to a minister who wants a cake that has bible verses that are against SSM?

[Daniel2]

49 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

There are many custom cakes Jack Phillips has refused to make including Halloween, Divorce, Bachelorette and Bachelor Party cakes, Satan's birthday party cake etc...and even a cake with an anti-lgbtq message. 

Refusing to provide cakes with specific words/symbols are protected by free speech on either side of the issue. The fact that Philips (and other bakers) can and do refuse to make cakes with specific messages has nothing to do with this issue, which is that Philips has refused to bake the same type of cake for same-sex couples that he bakes for other couples.  Since he doesn’t bake Halloween cakes for anyone, and since he isn’t refusing to bake based on the status of being a member of a protected class, your post isnt analogous to the issue being decided here. 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

14 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Is it okay for a gay baker to refuse service of making a cake to a minister who wants a cake that has bible verses that are against SSM?

Refusing to provide cakes with specific words/symbols are protected by free speech on either side of the issue. The fact that Philips (and other bakers) can and do refuse to make cakes with specific messages has nothing to do with this issue, which is that Philips has refused to bake the same type of cake for same-sex couples that he bakes for other couples.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah a bit of a conflict.  My understanding is that they did not even get to discussing the design of the cake.  Masterpiece just refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  I don't think that the dispute was in the design, but I do think that NOW Masterpiece is claiming artistic expression.  They are calling the cake a sculpture. lol.

Not really in conflict at all. Neither side (including Philips and his lawyer) dispute that the design of the cake wasn’t even discussed at the couple’s contact with the bakery.

In SUBSEQUENT media reports, the couple described the type of cake they had hoped to have at their wedding. 

While this has been pointed out more than once on this board, Smac continues to try to cloud the issue with a laundry list of those subsequent media sources mentioning the design the couple wanted for the wedding, as if that means a there’s some nefarious or questionable aspect to the couple’s integrity, honesty, or their approach to the legal proceedings. In my experience, this is the type of ambiguity that deft lawyers seek to capitalize on in trying to make their case, despite the fact that said facts aren’t really in dispute at all, again, by either party and as outlined in both sides’ briefs and numerous amici briefs.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2