Supreme Court's Decision in Colorado "Gay Wedding Cake" Case

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nope, and neither is Mr. Phillips.  Ergo?

That's what Mr. Phillips has been trying to achieve, yes.

 

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No one is arguing that segregation should be reinstituted.  And again (you keep glossing over my responses to you.  It makes it hard for me to conclude that you're attempting to dialogue in good faith), isolated, episodic, de facto discrimination of the kind engaged in by Mr. Phillips (granting, solely for the sake of this discussion, that Mr. Phillips engaged in discrimination,  and I think a persuasive case can be made, since he offered to sell the allegedly-aggrieved patrons anything else in the store, that he did not) is entirely different that the formerly-widespread, well-entrenched, de jure discrimination that the Rev. Dr. King et al fought against and which the Fourteenth Amendment now prohibits.

Mr. Phillips and his supports are for re-instituting the old "we don't serve your kind here" idea, which would be permissible merely by claiming to be religious. One of the hallmarks of segregation.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Phillips didn't refuse all forms of care for one group of his customers or refused to help in such a way that it would cause physical harm or not repair it....emotional pain, sure, maybe even financial costs if the baker they got it from took more of their time or was more expensive, analogy with Tim would be more like Tim refused to provide wine to any unmarried woman or whatever group he saw it as inappropriate drinking it while providing it for the rest of his clients even though he was okay with providing water and food.

In your example, it would be more like refusing to provide it to any woman.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

False.  No wedding cake for a gay wedding, regardless of who is requesting it, per my sources.

Do straight people have gay weddings, Smac?

 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, please stop trying to stack the deck.

Then that is qualitatively different from Mr. Phillips.  His refusal to provide a service was based on the message, not the person requesting it.

The message being, "you're gay and you're doing the life events that gay people do". Isn't that right?

 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

In contrast, your hypothetical mechanic is refusing to provide a service based on the person requesting it, not the vehicle.

Do you see the difference?  

To make the hypothetical analogous, it would have to go like this: "Let's say I set up an auto shop. I'll fix any car, but not any Volvos [or whatever make the mechanic prefers not to repair]."

Discrimination.  But that's because the mechanic is discriminating against the person, not the work.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your argument is entirely specious.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

 

If a gay individual had come in and asked him to provide a wedding cake for his straight brother's wedding , it would appear he would have sold the gay customer the cake.  If the straight brother had come in and said "I want to provide the cake for my gay brother's wedding" he would have refused.  It wasn't  who was paying him for it, but what they were paying for.

Do you think that's somehow better?

"I won't sell something if a black person is going to use it, but if a black person wants to pick up something for a white person, that's just fine". That would be the equivalent in racial terms.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Rainbow wedding cakes are also not a "protected class."  They have no constitutional rights at all, in fact.

Mr. Phillips was not willing to sell a wedding cake specifically endorsing and celebrating same-sex marriage to any customer.

It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

Again, from this article:

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Gay people are a protected class in Colorado. The allegedly religious Phillips wouldn't sell ANY wedding cake for a gay person's wedding.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Non sequitur.  Cake baking is not on a par with mechanic services.  The latter is an essential service, the former is not.  In any event, assuming we're not talking about the only cake shop or the only mechanic within a 500 mile radius, the mechanic in question is absolutely free to dislike members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to refuse to serve them, and I'm free to take my business elsewhere, just as the Plaintiffs in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case were).

How strained are we willing to make this analogy?  Did my car just happen to break down right outside this hostile, anti-Mormon mechanic's shop?  Did I unwisely have my car towed there without determining, beforehand, if the mechanic would or could fix the problem?  How did I find out that the mechanic wouldn't serve members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  (Personally, if he has a sign that says, "Mormons, I'll sell you parts but I won't fix your car," as disappointed as I might be, on the one hand, on the other, I might at least laud him for his perverse honesty and for having the courage of his perverse convictions.)  Did I pick this particular mechanic knowing that he would refuse to serve me based on my religion and that, therefore, I could kick up a fuss on social media, on business rating Web sites, in the news, and elsewhere?  (But of course, no gay or lesbian couple would ever do that ...   )  And, in any event, your analogy is inapt (that is to say, it is inapplicable) because there is little to no expressive or artistic element in play with respect to providing mechanic services, as there is with cake-decorating services.

You're saying gay people don't need service at their weddings? What other services are you going to decide for them that they don't need?

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

More like refusing to detail anyone's car in a certain way (perhaps refuses to put advertising on a car because they find it distracting or ugly, violates the pure function of the car which is to get you from A to B), thus forcing those car owners who want to promote the value of their business this way to find someone else to do it or lose out. 

It was a wedding cake.  Important in a symbolic way to some, pure fun for others; not life altering to not have one (I didn't and have never felt the lack, it was a relief to avoid the hassle and pocket the money instead) or even life affecting beyond an afternoon.  I don't believe anyone really suffers because they don't have a wedding cake even if they dreamed of it as part of their wedding.  The circumstances of not having one---never married, too poor, refusal by baker to give you one---can certainly be painful to think about, but there is no inherent need in life to have it..unlike transportation to work, to get food, to visit doctors, etc. or healthcare.

No, the baker wouldn't sell any wedding cake at all to the gay person.

Who gets to decide what services are non-essential? If you don't have a working care, you can always take the bus, after all.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Precise and accurate can also be hyperbolic. As in this case. No one here is calling for segregation, except perhaps those who want to isolate and punish people based on their religious convictions.

Now you're being hyperbolic.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

Again with the circular reasoning.

You keep misusing that term.

[Amulek]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

The allegedly religious Phillips wouldn't sell ANY wedding cake for a gay person's wedding.

Allegedly religious? Come on, the guy doesn't even make Halloween cakes for Pete's sake. 

 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Allegedly religious? Come on, the guy doesn't even make Halloween cakes for Pete's sake. 

 

Fair play. Definitely religious, but way out in left field.

[USU78]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

You keep misusing that term.

Nope.

Your arguments on matters of sociological interest always amount to variations on "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

A 5-4 split Court says something you like, it's right and perforce must never change. That's a tautology. 

Truth is, the most you can say about these trendylefty affirmative rights cases is that they generate a series of malum prohibitum infringements on individual liberty that would set the Founders' teeth on edge such that Jefferson would start talking about feeding the liberty tree with the blood of Patriots.

You're fortunate you live amongst people too civilized and tolerant to follow Jefferson that closely.

Edited June 12, 2018 by USU78
Spell check

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Nope.

Your arguments on matters of sociological interest always amount to variations on "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

A 5-4 split Court says something you like, it's right and perforce must never change. That's a tautology. 

Truth is, the most you can say about these trendylefty affirmative rights cases is that they generate a series of malum prohibitum infringements on individual liberty that would set the Founders' teeth on edge such that Jefferson would start talking about feeding the liberty tree with the blood of Patriots.

You're fortunate you live amongst people too civilized and tolerant to follow Jefferson that closely.

No, you're misusing it. If I had said that x is right because that's the law, you would have used the term correctly. But since I was merely stating what the law was and not making an argument about it, you misused the term. I've seen you do that many times. Merely stating a fact is not a circular argument. There has to be an argument before it can be circular.

Merely stating that the grass is green or the sun is shining is not an argument, let alone a circular one.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Do straight people have gay weddings, Smac?

Can a straight person order a "gay wedding"-themed cake, Gray?

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Quote

Then that is qualitatively different from Mr. Phillips.  His refusal to provide a service was based on the message, not the person requesting it.

The message being, "you're gay and you're doing the life events that gay people do". Isn't that right?

The message being "gay marriage."

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Your argument is entirely specious.

Reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Quote

Rainbow wedding cakes are also not a "protected class."  They have no constitutional rights at all, in fact.

Mr. Phillips was not willing to sell a wedding cake specifically endorsing and celebrating same-sex marriage to any customer.

It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

Again, from this article:

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Gay people are a protected class in Colorado.

Well, not exactly.  Sexual orientation is a protected class.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The allegedly religious Phillips wouldn't sell ANY wedding cake for a gay person's wedding.

Mr. Phillips was not willing to sell a wedding cake specifically endorsing and celebrating same-sex marriage to any customer.  The sexual orientation of the customer doesn't figure into it.

It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

I think this is the third time I've asked this: 

From this article:

Quote

It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception.

...

Phillips informed the couple his business does not create cakes for gay weddings.

...

Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake.

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 12, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

Can a straight person order a "gay wedding"-themed cake, Gray?

The message being "gay marriage."

Trying to redefine people as if they were merely a message is a way of trying to sneak discrimination in through the back door of sophistry.

 

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

Right.  He wouldn't sell ANY "gay wedding"-themed cake to ANYone, regardless of sexual orientation.

I think this is the third time I've asked this: 

Right, so he doesn't want gay people using his wedding cakes.  And this is better because...?

Just now, smac97 said:

From this article:

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Your question is easily answered by reversing it. If Mr. Philips doesn't discriminate against gay people, why isn't he willing to sell them a wedding cake?

 

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Right, so he doesn't want gay people using his wedding cakes.  And this is better because...?

 

Your question is easily answered by reversing it. If Mr. Philips doesn't discriminate against gay people, why isn't he willing to sell them a wedding cake?

 

It has nothing to do with selling. It is an issue of custom creation. 

You have every right to disagree with Phillips actual arguments.  But it is bad form to misrepresent them.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Can a straight person order a "gay wedding"-themed cake, Gray?

The message being "gay marriage."

Trying to redefine people as if they were merely a message is a way of trying to sneak discrimination in through the back door of sophistry.

Nobody is "redefin[ing] people."  If a person is opposed to same-sex marriage, the First Amendment allows him to say as much.  It also prevents the government from compelling him speak in ways that contravene his beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

17 hours ago, Gray said:

Businesses are allowed to discriminate against the shirtless, and the shoeless. They can also discriminate against members of a crime family. None of those is a protected class.

I'm glad you also understand that gay activists are pushing for extra or special rights through protected class status. Just don't confuse that with a constitutional right. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Right, so he doesn't want gay people using his wedding cakes. 

Not so. 

Again, from this article:

Quote

Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake.

He doesn't want to prepare "gay wedding"-themed cakes.  To anyone.

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your question is easily answered by reversing it. If Mr. Philips doesn't discriminate against gay people, why isn't he willing to sell them a wedding cake?

Mr. Phillips was not willing to sell a wedding cake specifically endorsing and celebrating same-sex marriage to any customer.

It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.  Ergo no discrimination.

You still haven't answered the question, and at this point I won't press the matter further.  I hope you take it as food for thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You're saying gay people don't need service at their weddings? What other services are you going to decide for them that they don't need?

They don't need service at their weddings at pain of forcing an unwilling provider to render services which violate his conscience, especially not when other alternatives are readily at hand.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Mr. Phillips and his supports are for re-instituting the old "we don't serve your kind here" idea,

You are bearing false witness.  Again, from this article:

Quote

Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake.

He certainly does serve homosexuals.  What he does not do is prepare "gay wedding"-themed cakes.  For anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

which would be permissible merely by claiming to be religious. One of the hallmarks of segregation.

You are bearing false witness.

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That's what Mr. Phillips has been trying to achieve, yes [i.e., he is in favor of reinstituting segregation].

Mr. Phillips and his supports [sic] are for re-instituting the old "we don't serve your kind here" idea, [emphasis added by Kenngo1969] which would be permissible merely by claiming to be religious. One of the hallmarks of segregation.

Then why did he offer to sell our poor, unfortunate, aggrieved patrons any other items in the shop?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You're saying gay people don't need service at their weddings?

We're saying that the Constitution's Free Speech clause protects against compelled speech.

We're saying that Free Exercise clause is also implicated.

We're saying that the Equal Protection clause is also implicated.

We're saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was manifestly prejudiced against Mr. Phillips's religious beliefs in its administration of the law.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

What other services are you going to decide for them that they don't need?

Generally, I am opposed to ever-expanding "Public Accommodations" and "Anti-Discrimination" statutes.  As we saw in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, these are being used to subvert constitutional rights.  

I think these statutes should be more narrowly tailored to essential goods and services, and otherwise let the Free Market take care of the rest.  

Thanks,

-Smac