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

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

From your own source:

"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."

Why are you still arguing? Your sources back me up.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

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.

"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."

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

People can say anything they like, within reason. Your legal argument regarding food as speech hasn't been confirmed by SCOTUS, however.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

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.  

Did you mean to say that gay activists are pushing for equal rights? If not you've misrepresented what I understand.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not so. 

Again, from this article:

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

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

I would invite you to actually read - carefully - the statement you keep quoting:

"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."

It's made explicit that the customer's identity that is the issue.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

If I were a betting man, and if the conversation were meticulous and detailed and careful, I would be willing to bet that 90%-plus of the Latter-day Saints who inhabit this Board would find themselves in agreement with the great majority of religious convictions espoused by Jack Phillips: 

https://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/.

I'll gladly join him in the Left Field to which you wish to send us, Gray.  And your comment is a perfect illustration of something else I've said here before: The time quickly is approaching when the religiously devout will realize, whatever doctrinal differences may still exist among the religious of varying stripes, that, for the sake of uniting against to those who are antipathetic toward religion in toto and who favor its elimination altogether from public life ("Sure, you can have 'freedom' of 'religion': You're absolutely 'free' to 'exercise' your religion however you would like ... within the walls of your holy place on your holy day") we're all better off uniting on the principle (speaking metaphorically and not literally, since such enmity is antithetical to the Christian ethic) that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  To illustrate this idea using its direct antithesis, Dan Peterson recently posted on his blog the old joke about two men of faith who ultimately fail to find common ground between them (leading to one's tragic demise), although that common ground is considerable and is readily accessible:

Quote

 

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.

I said, “Don’t do it!”

He said, “Nobody loves me.”

I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”

He said, “A Christian.”

I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”

He said, “Protestant.”

I said, “Me, too! What denomination?”

He said, “Baptist.”

I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Baptist.”

I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”

I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”

I said, “Me, too!  Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”

I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

 

Very few (if any) people who are so antipathetic toward religion that they would attack the faith of, e.g., a Southern Baptist, are likely to be any better disposed toward the faith of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It's not the particular stripe of religion that they find offensive: It's religion in toto.  So any of the religiously devout who favor "killing all of the heretics" (my phrase) over defending religion in general against those who favor its complete eradication from public life had best think twice.  To illustrate this idea, elsewhere in the same Blog post in which the foregoing joke appears, Professor Peterson quotes Martin Luther: “The Kingdom of God . . . is like a besieged city surrounded on all sides by death. Each man has his place on the wall to defend and no one can stand where another stands, but nothing prevents us from calling encouragement to one another.”

Professor Peterson goes on to note how the sort of unity espoused by Luther can be useful to people of faith in the political realm: 

Quote

. . . The same counsel holds for those who seek to defend basic American principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and religious freedom.  To the extent that they train their fire on each other rather than on their actual opponents, they will lose.  And they will deserve to lose.

To see Professor Peterson's blog post in its entirety from which I have taken the foregoing excerpts, see here: 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/05/die-heretic.html

For a good example of someone who believes that the participation of the religious in public life (i.e., in voting) should be curtailed (or even prevented) if their religion influences such participation in any way (along with my response to such a notion), see here:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/religious-devotion-and-political-participation/

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.

A business that is not prepared to act lawfully doesn't deserve to stay in business.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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

You are bearing false witness.

-Smac

Reported for personal attack.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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

Because he's treating them like second class citizens.

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Then I suggest you be more frank and open in your advocacy for the removal of the civil rights act. That's quite an extremist position. God willing, the civil rights act will stand in perpetuity against religious extremists who wish to have the privilege to violate the civil rights of others. Having a religion does not entitle anyone to violate the rights of others.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If I were a betting man, and if the conversation were meticulous and detailed and careful, I would be willing to bet that 90%-plus of the Latter-day Saints who inhabit this Board would find themselves in agreement with the great majority of religious convictions espoused by Jack Phillips: 

https://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/.

I'll gladly join him in the Left Field to which you wish to send us, Gray.  And your comment is a perfect illustration of something else I've said here before: The time quickly is approaching when the religiously devout will realize, whatever doctrinal differences may still exist among the religious of varying stripes, that, for the sake of uniting against to those who are antipathetic toward religion in toto and who favor its elimination altogether from public life ("Sure, you can have 'freedom' of 'religion': You're absolutely 'free' to 'exercise' your religion however you would like ... within the walls of your holy place on your holy day") we're all better off uniting on the principle (speaking metaphorically and not literally, since such enmity is antithetical to the Christian ethic) that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  To illustrate this idea using its direct antithesis, Dan Peterson recently posted on his blog the old joke about two men of faith who ultimately fail to find common ground between them (leading to one's tragic demise), although that common ground is considerable and is readily accessible:

Very few (if any) people who are so antipathetic toward religion that they would attack the faith of, e.g., a Southern Baptist, are likely to be any better disposed toward the faith of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It's not the particular stripe of religion that they find offensive: It's religion in toto.  So any of the religiously devout who favor "killing all of the heretics" (my phrase) over defending religion in general against those who favor its complete eradication from public life had best think twice.  To illustrate this idea, elsewhere in the same Blog post in which the foregoing joke appears, Professor Peterson quotes Martin Luther: “The Kingdom of God . . . is like a besieged city surrounded on all sides by death. Each man has his place on the wall to defend and no one can stand where another stands, but nothing prevents us from calling encouragement to one another.”

Professor Peterson goes on to note how the sort of unity espoused by Luther can be useful to people of faith in the political realm: 

To see Professor Peterson's blog post in its entirety from which I have taken the foregoing excerpts, see here: 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/05/die-heretic.html

For a good example of someone who believes that the participation of the religious in public life (i.e., in voting) should be curtailed (or even prevented) if their religion influences such participation in any way (along with my response to such a notion), see here:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/religious-devotion-and-political-participation/

From a religious standpoint, the position taken by Phillips is fundamentally antithetical to the principles outlined by Jesus. That's okay - no one is compelled to follow Jesus. But no one should be compelled to have their civil rights violated by businesses either.

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

I would invite you to actually read - carefully - the statement you keep quoting:

"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."

It's made explicit that the customer's identity that is the issue.

Not so.  Precisely the opposite, in fact.  It's not about gays (that is, about people or about their sexual identity or their sexual orientation): it's about events, that is, about gay weddings.  Mr. Phillips does not sell Halloween themed items, either, because he believes that observance to be a pagan observance.  I don't share that particular compunction. Suppose I were of something of a gothic or an occultic bent, and I wanted a specially-themed Halloween cake: Would I be justified in suing him because he refused to sell me such a cake based on his religious convictions?  If not, why not?   What's the difference between that refusal and refusing to sell a specially-prepared, specially-decorated cake for a wedding between a gay couple?   Wasn't it you, who, earlier in the thread, trotted out the "we-don't-serve-your-kind-here" trope and attempted to tar Mr. Phillips with that ugly, filthy brush?

The reason why I would not be justified in suing under these circumstances is one of the same reasons the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop with respect to cakes for gay weddings: In each case (that is, both in the case of the wedding between the gay couple and in the case of my proposed/desired gothic, occult-themed Halloween cake) it's NOT about the PEOPLE: It's about the EVENT. [Caps and bold merely for emphasis.  Not trying to yell. ]

[Kenngo1969]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

A business that is not prepared to act lawfully doesn't deserve to stay in business.

In light of the 7-2 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in what way did Mr. Phillips act unlawfully?

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not so.  Precisely the opposite, in fact.  It's not about gays (that is, about people or about their sexual identity or their sexual orientation): it's about events, that is, about gay weddings.  Mr. Phillips does not sell Halloween themed items, either, because he believes that observance to be a pagan observance.  I don't share that particular compunction. Suppose I were of something of a gothic or an occultic bent, and I wanted a specially-themed Halloween cake: Would I be justified in suing him because he refused to sell me such a cake based on his religious convictions?  If not, why not?   What's the difference between that refusal and refusing to sell a specially-prepared, specially-decorated cake for a wedding between a gay couple?   Wasn't it you, who, earlier in the thread, trotted out the "we-don't-serve-your-kind-here" trope and attempted to tar Mr. Phillips with that ugly, filthy brush?

The reason why I would not be justified in suing under these circumstances is one of the same reasons the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop with respect to cakes for gay weddings: In each case (that is, both in the case of the wedding between the gay couple and in the case of my proposed/desired gothic, occult-themed Halloween cake) it's NOT about the PEOPLE: It's about the EVENT. [Caps and bold merely for emphasis.  Not trying to yell. ]

According to the quote, it's about the people.

If I were to decline to sell wedding cakes for Mormon weddings, but tried to claim it was just the event I objected to, and was not trying to discriminate against Mormons, the sophistry of that argument would be immediately apparent. Even if I were to offer Mormon customers a bread roll or pretzel instead.

[Gray]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

In light of the 7-2 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in what way did Mr. Phillips act unlawfully?

He acted unlawfully by refusing to serve gay customers wedding cakes. The SCOTUS decision didn't rest on the law itself, only that the state (through one of its agents) displayed prejudice. That's why it was a narrow ruling.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

He acted unlawfully by refusing to serve gay customers. The SCOTUS decision didn't rest on the law itself, only that the state displayed prejudice. That's why it was a narrow ruling.

You need to reread the decision, and to consider the state both of Colorado law and of U.S. law as it existed in 2012, when the events giving rise to the case transpired.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

According to the quote, it's about the people. ...
 

We're talking in circles, and this will be my last post to you: If it were about the people ("We don't serve your kind here") he would not have offered to sell them any other item in the shop.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 The whole back and forth on this thread comes down to those who think the bakers right to free speech and freedom of religion are being violated.  Those on the other side are claiming that religion does not trump the law and can not be an excuse to break the public accommodation laws.  We are going to argue this until the Supreme Court ACTUALLY RULES on this issue.  But they haven't yet ruled.  So both sides are just giving their opinion on what they think the law should be.  If it was an easy issue, then the Supreme Court had every opportunity to make a ruling about these issues when they passed down their verdict on the baker.  Instead they ruled very narrowly on just the specific unfair treatment of the Colorado Board.  So you don't really have the support of the Constitution behind you quite yet.  

But do you know what does have the support of the Constitution behind it?  The right to protest.  Scott, you and SMAC have vilified those exercising that  right protesting in front of the LA temple over and over again.  SMAC has used numerous opportunities to post that video, even on a thread about medical marijuana.  Here is some of the inflammatory language he used and which you agreed with him about in that post.

1. So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened

2. I wonder what that mob would have done. 

3. ominously declared

4. barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates

5. His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing

6. To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot.

7. Mob intimidation against a religious minority

8. publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority

9. he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple.

10. Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists.

11. California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences

You are now adding that the sidewalk in front of the temple is sacred space.  

I am going to ask you and anyone else who feels this way about the protest to do a very simple thing.  Watch the protest again.  This time turn the sound off.  (obviously you don't like or agree with what is being chanted). Now look at it closely.  And tell me the difference between this protest and the hundreds of others that the Mormons supporting Prop 8 did on the corners of the streets of California.  What is the most egregious action you see happening during this protest that would cause you to agree with the inflammatory language that SMAC used in his post.  Tell us what you actually see,  Here is the video.

If you see nothing other than the usual waving of signs then I would propose that both sides tone down the inflammatory language.  And until the Supreme Court actually rules on this issue, I would suggest that those claiming that it is a constitutional right for a baker to not bake a cake for a gay wedding add to their assertions that it is just their opinion on how they think the Constitution should be interpreted. THAT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED.  

There is a law that has been challenged in the Supreme Court and has been ruled upon as being constitutional. The Civil Rights Act.    Until that gets appealed, it is still the law of the land.  And their is a law that has been challenged in the Supreme Court and has been ruled upon and that is the right to protest.

 

Until such time as the court issues a more definitive ruling, I am entitled to express my opinion on these issue based on my understanding of constitutional and First Amendment principles. Even after the Supreme Court makes a ruling, i don’t have to genuflect to it, just accept it as the rule of law.  For example, I fervently disagree with the Dred Scott decision, a Supreme Court ruling of the 1800s that today is axiomatically condemned as an affront to human rights. 

As for Smac’s comments, he has apologized repeatedly for “intemperate” remarks. Even so, after reviewing the video just now at your behest, I don’t see them as alll that unwarranted. The woman who brazenly jumped the fence even with a substantial police presence appeared to me she was egging the mob on to do the same and to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-and-pitchforks frenzy.  

And incidentally, you don’t get to minimize this thing by telling us to watch it with the sound turned down. The spewing of noisy, hate-tinged slogans is part of the essence of these things. The last thing the participants would want is to be silenced. The point, in part, is to intimidate the objects of their hatred into capitulation.

And I stand by my characterization of it as desecration of a sacred space. I kept pondering over how such a thing would be viewed were it to transpire at a prominent Catholic cathedral or shrine or Jewish synagoguge. 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

People can say anything they like, within reason. [The] legal argument regarding food as speech hasn't been confirmed by SCOTUS, however.

Actually, four of the justices looked at that issue in their concurring / dissenting opinions. According to Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, "[t]he conduct that the Colorado Court of Appeals ascribed to Phillips—creating and designing custom wedding cakes—is expressive." Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagree, though their dissent deals more with other issues.

So, if the case ever goes back to SCOTUS purely on the free speech claim (as it, or something like it, probably will in the future), you're looking at 2-2 to start with.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Amulek

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Then I suggest you be more frank and open in your advocacy for the removal of the civil rights act.

I have no such interest in advocating such a thing.

You are bearing false witness.  Please stop it.

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's quite an extremist position.

I don't think it is.

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

God willing, the civil rights act will stand in perpetuity against religious extremists who wish to have the privilege to violate the civil rights of others.

Nobody is advocating that.  You are bearing false witness.

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Having a religion does not entitle anyone to violate the rights of others.

I quite agree.  Me refusing to speak in ways that violate my religious convictions does nothing "to violate the rights of others."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would invite you to actually read - carefully - the statement you keep quoting:

"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."

I've read it.  Including the part where he says he "would gladly serve [the gay couple] any other baked good."

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's made explicit that the customer's identity that is the issue.

I invite you to research this point a bit more.  You'll find that Mr. Phillips refuses to make "gay wedding"-themed cakes for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

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

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.

Judge much?

Back when Epiphanes was G-d/King in the Levant, a couple of things happened:

First, in order to "get along" among the body-worshiping Greeks and Hellenists, Jewish men were getting circumcision reversal surgery so they could hang out nude in the baths and the gyms.  Zeus forbid that the body he had created perfect in every way should be marred by local superstitionists, and, worse yet, that men would have to look at the marred members of subject peoples.  There wasn't particularly any law enjoining such behavior, but societal "norms," brought about through blessed changes in outlooks among the superstitionists, who otherwise couldn't do business with their betters, held sway.

But mens sana in corpore sano wasn't enough, as the G-d/King Epiphanes came to the conclusion for whatever reason that uniformity of worship was a worthy societal goal.  And thus a campaign to require all superstitionists to sacrifice before the altar whereon stood an effigy of the G-d/King Epiphanes was launched throughout the lands where the G-d/King Epiphanes' writ ran.  And it ran into Jerusalem.  Into the Second Temple.  The one built by guys with trowels in one hand and swords in the other because of the unceasing attacks by neighbors hoping the Jews would fail and go running back to Babylon.

That effigy, called the Abomination of Desolation, caused a revolt by civilized and tolerant Jews who had finally had enough.  Bad enough to be subject peoples.  Bad enough to be cut out of commerce unless outward shows of rejection of superstitionism were made.  But to be compelled to participate in an abominable rite upon the desecrated altar scant yards from the Debir was a step too far.  The Hellenes and Hellenists were met with blood and horror as it became too expensive in men and materiel to hold onto Judaea.

And thus were the Jews made free to worship in their own temple as they chose.

To compel someone to participate in a sacrifice by making him sacrifice a pig upon a desecrated altar is a bad thing when pigs are particularly unclean to him, no?

To compel someone to raise pigs for sacrifice upon a desecrated altar is a bad thing when pigs are particularly unclean to him, no?

To compel someone to drive pigs to the temple precincts for sacrifice upon a desecratedan altar is a bad thing when pigs are particularly unclean to him, no?

To compel someone to sell or be taxed on his grain for feeding the pigs to be driven to the temple precincts for sacrifice upon a desecrated altar is a bad thing when pigs are particularly unclean to him, no?

Just so is compulsory participation in an abominable rite a bad thing.

Because homosexual marriage, to the believer, is as abominable a thing as participation in any particular in the sacrifice of pigs before the effigy of Epiphanes on the desecrated altar of the Second Temple.

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

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

People can say anything they like, within reason.

When people like you add a caveat like "within reason," people like me get nervous.

Free Speech doesn't work that way.  There are a very few exceptions to the protections of the Free Speech claus.  Speaking "'within reason,' as that phrase is subjectively and arbitrarily defined by Gray" is not one of them.

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your legal argument regarding food as speech hasn't been confirmed by SCOTUS, however.

I am not speaking of "food" generally (nor is Mr. Phillips, who will sell anything to anybody except themed cakes that contravene his religious beliefs (which he will not sell to anybody).

This issue is not about "food," any more than Cohen v. California was about clothing.  The issue is about artistic speech, which is plainly within the parameters of the First Amendment.  See, e.g., Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995) (painting, music and poetry are "unquestionably shielded" by First Amendment); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790 (1989) ("Music, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment"); Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65 (1981) ("Entertainment, as well as political and ideological speech, is protected: motion pictures, programs broadcast by radio and television, and live entertainment, such as musical and dramatic works, fall within the First Amendment's guarantee"); Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501 (1952) ("[M]otion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. They may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways, ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic expression."). 

Nevertheless, I think we will have to wait and see whether custom-designed "themed" wedding cakes fall within the parameters of "artistic speech."  I think they do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

From your own source:

"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."

Why are you still arguing? Your sources back me up.

No, they don't.  Mr. Phillips is willing to sell anything his store produces to a gay couple.  "Gay wedding"-themed cakes are not in his inventory.  He refuses to make them for anyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

He acted unlawfully by refusing to serve gay customers wedding cakes. 

SCOTUS reversed the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals.

So technically no, he didn't act unlawfully.  We're back to square one.

Thanks,

-Smac