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

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Is THAT what our Constitution means/should mean by “religious freedom”, or encompassed therein?

Good question. Freedom of religion is really just a subset of freedom of conscience.

Here's a hypothetical question of my own: I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I have written a religious tract titled 'Sodom Is upon Us!'. In it, I use scriptures to explain that God hates homosexuals and plans to destroy them in the end. I also talk about how they are destroying our society and their political agenda must be stopped before it's too late

If you're a gay printer, and I take this tract to you, should you be required by law to do the layout and design, including cover art (I'm thinking a rainbow flag on fire), and then print 20,000 copies for me?

In addition, if I take a completely different tract to you titled 'God Loves the Little Children', should you be able to turn down this print request just because I'm a fundamentalist Christian?

Edited August 16, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think it’s clear SCOTUS was trying to give Phillips an out and punted on the central question, which clearly invited another case at some point ultimately TO resolve the case.

While most in this thread are decrying the trans activist (and I do agree that’s what she’s clearly doing), I think it’s equally likely Phillips and his staff challenged—even INVITED—further litigation. 

Perhaps he, under the influence of Liberty Counsel, intentionally continued to flout the findings against him, even knowing that would bring further legal action against him, as a means of standing for something. Standing on religious principle and hoping to be to “Loving” that created a legacy in what he believes will be a victory for what he views as religious liberty. 

After all, in the wake of the first findings by the Colorado Commission, he could have found ways of being more sensitive in how he turned down LGBT individuals. His staff even underwent “sensitivity training” and yet this is how the trans activitist was met and treated. It isn’t as if he and his staff weren’t aware the way she responded wasn’t throwing gas on an already lit fire. 

I think it’s entirely possible and plausible that Phillips and Liberty Counsel want Masterpiece to be their lasting legacy—after all they’re being proactive this time—in defense of what they view as THE defining case for “religious liberty”—even if I think they’re tilting at windmills, I don’t blame nor gnash my teeth at Masterpiece as much as members here who decry a member of the LGBT community for trying to stand for what she believes is right. 

Is it possible to at least admit that both parties here believe their goals are noble, even if we don’t agree with them? Or must we vilify and horriblize the actions of the other side in order to feel better about our own position?

Are you suggesting that questioning this individual's claim that they had no idea who Masterpiece Cakeshop is and claiming they were stunned is actually villifying or horribilizing the individual's actions? 

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good question. Freedom of religion is really just a subset of freedom of conscience.

Here's a hypothetical question of my own: I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I have written a religious tract titled 'Sodom is upon us!'. In it, I use scriptures to explain that God hates homosexuals and plans to destroy them in the end. I also talk about how they are destroying our society and must be stopped before it's too late

If you're a gay printer, and I take this tract to you, should you be required by law to do the layout and design, including cover art, and then print 20,000 copies for me?

Cue the freedom-of-conscience-for-me-but-not-for-thee rationalizations and that's-different-because-I-say-so equivocations in 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It seems confusing to me that you would ask this particular question again.  It appears completely unrelated to either of the situations that actually occurred.  I don't imagine anyone would answer yes to your question, and I can see plenty of reasons to support Masterpiece. 

So, what is the purpose of this question? 

I ask because I've never seen a coherent answer to it as to how it's meaningfully different from the issue at hand, despite your assertion otherwise.

From my perspective, if this case succeeds and the court finds that business owners can cite religious objections as a reason to deny services to gay couples, then why not allow business owners to deny services to any other type of person based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs?  If not forcing business owners to follow the law is what religious freedom truly requires, why stop at denying services to gay or trans folk?  Why not be able to deny services to interracial couples, if that violates a business owner's deeply held religious beliefs?  Why not be able to deny services to infertile couples based on religious objections?  Why not deny service to intergenerational couples?  Why not deny service to atheists?  If religion is given latitude above other classes, why stop at gays, lesbians, and trans folk?  What is the line YOU are choosing to draw, here?  Where does religion's elevation stop?  And if it truly means not forcing a religious person to violate their beliefs, why force a religious person to serve another religious (or non-religious) person who they object to in the strongest religious terms possible...?

Can you explain how/why you think it's different?

[Daniel2]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Are you suggesting that questioning this individual's claim that they had no idea who Masterpiece Cakeshop is and claiming they were stunned is actually villifying or horribilizing the individual's actions? 

 

CFR that the trans activist "claim[ed] that they had no idea who Masterpiece Cakeshop is".

[Gillebre]

When I read this article what stood out to me was that he was not denying service in general to someone who was LGBT, but declining a customized service that he chooses not to offer for certain situations. He's perfectly willing to sell cake or anything else with the caveat that if it's to be customized there are extra guidelines he puts in place as the business owner. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. What really bothers me is the apparent vindictiveness, the need to ruin someone and exercise malice and feed hostility. These are the shadows of Satan's work because of how it feeds contention, and especially for the sake of it. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I would have baked this person a birthday cake because not to...is against my religion.  This is rediculous.

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.

If and when you maintaining your principles imperils your ability to make a living, and death threats, and vandalism of your property, etc. (all of which has happened to Mr. Phillips), I'll be happy to lend a sympathetic ear.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

CFR that the trans activist "claim[ed] that they had no idea who Masterpiece Cakeshop is".

CFR that Captain Renault did not know about gambling at Rick's.  🤨

Are we really going to pretend that Scardina's "I was stunned" claim should be taken at face value?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

Quote

Phillips had also said previously his recusals were limited to same-sex weddings.

“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies,” Phillips recalled saying in an interview with the New York Times last September about the first lawsuit. “I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.”

This is a factually inaccurate statement, bolstered by what seems to be an obvious, willful misreading of the quote being used to support it. 

Anyone who has been following the litigation with anything more than a mild level interest ought to know full well that there are lots of kinds of cakes that Phillips won't make (e.g., Halloween cakes). 

But hey, why should quotes ever be considered in context. The words "I just can't make a cake for a same-sex wedding" once came out of Phillips mouth, so obviously he's a hypocrite for refusing to make a cake for a trans-sexual woman. 

Ugh. This kind of reporting is maddening. 

 

Quote

“They asked what I wanted the cake to look like, and I explained I was celebrating my birthday on July 6, 2017, and that it would also be the 7th year of my transition from male to female,” says a complaint Scardina filed last summer with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. “When I explained I am a transexual and that I wanted my birthday cake to celebrate my transition by having a blue exterior and a pink interior, they told me they will not make the cake based on their religious beliefs.”

I haven't looked at the filing, but if this quotation accurately reflects what is on the factual record then it seems like Phillips may be on much firmer ground in this case than in the last one. In the first lawsuit, there was no discussion of the cake's design. Here, however, the complainant admits that she asked for a specific kind of cake (i.e., blue exterior w/pink interior) which was meant to symbolically communicate a message that Phillips disagrees with. If he doesn't make those kinds of cakes for anybody, then it seems to me he ought to have a pretty solid free speech case here. 

 

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

I ask because I've never seen a coherent answer to it as to how it's meaningfully different from the issue at hand, despite your assertion otherwise.

From my perspective, if this case succeeds and the court finds that business owners can cite religious objections as a reason to deny services to gay couples, then why not allow business owners to deny services to any other type of person based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs?  If not forcing business owners to follow the law is what religious freedom truly requires, why stop at denying services to gay or trans folk?  Why not be able to deny services to interracial couples, if that violates a business owner's deeply held religious beliefs?  Why not be able to deny services to infertile couples based on religious objections?  Why not deny service to intergenerational couples?  Why not deny service to atheists?  If religion is given latitude above other classes, why stop at gays, lesbians, and trans folk?  What is the line YOU are choosing to draw, here?  Where does religion's elevation stop?  And if it truly means not forcing a religious person to violate their beliefs, why force a religious person to serve another religious (or non-religious) person who they object to in the strongest religious terms possible...?

Can you explain how/why you think it's different?

Because I don't see either of these instances being cases of discriminating against gay or trans people on the basis of that identity. 

I've yet to see a coherent answer to Hamba's question.

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

CFR that the trans activist "claim[ed] that they had no idea who Masterpiece Cakeshop is".

Retracted. I misread the WaPo article. The trans activist declined to answer that question. 

And the rest of the question?

[Daniel2]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR that Captain Renault did not know about gambling at Rick's.  🤨

Are we really going to pretend that Scardina's "I was stunned" claim should be taken at face value?

Thanks,

-Smac

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.

[Calm]

Quote

As some sort of "pro-trans" statement he could not, in good conscience, make.

Maybe because that is how the transwoman described it? (I quoted it earlier).

[Daniel2]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe because that is how the transwoman described it? (I quoted it earlier).

As I understand it, though, regardless of how the trans woman described it, in order for the law to legally regard it as 'speech," the law holds "speech" as how the average member of the general public (there's a legal word for this, but it escapes me at the moment) would view said creation.

Without any for prior knowledge of this case, if 100 members of the general public were shown a red cake with blue frosting, how many of them would say, "that cake CLEARLY communicates it's a TRANS cake!" 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Can you explain how/why you think it's different?

I think answering the questions below might assist with this exercise:

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good question. Freedom of religion is really just a subset of freedom of conscience.

Here's a hypothetical question of my own: I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I have written a religious tract titled 'Sodom Is upon Us!'. In it, I use scriptures to explain that God hates homosexuals and plans to destroy them in the end. I also talk about how they are destroying our society and their political agenda must be stopped before it's too late

If you're a gay printer, and I take this tract to you, should you be required by law to do the layout and design, including cover art (I'm thinking a rainbow flag on fire), and then print 20,000 copies for me?

In addition, if I take a completely different tract to you titled 'God Loves the Little Children', should you be able to turn down this print request just because I'm a fundamentalist Christian?

 

[Daniel2]

42 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Good question. Freedom of religion is really just a subset of freedom of conscience.

Here's a hypothetical question of my own: I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I have written a religious tract titled 'Sodom Is upon Us!'. In it, I use scriptures to explain that God hates homosexuals and plans to destroy them in the end. I also talk about how they are destroying our society and their political agenda must be stopped before it's too late

If you're a gay printer, and I take this tract to you, should you be required by law to do the layout and design, including cover art (I'm thinking a rainbow flag on fire), and then print 20,000 copies for me?

In addition, if I take a completely different tract to you titled 'God Loves the Little Children', should you be able to turn down this print request just because I'm a fundamentalist Christian?

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.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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

So you agree that it is OK for a business to censor messages based on conscience? Can you then please clarify what your issue with this case is? The baker said he can't bake a cake that expresses a message that violates his conscience, no?

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Would those who supports Masterpiece in all these proceedings answer me this question?:

Does “religious freedom”/“freedom of speech” mean that any business owner can deny services to members of any given religion, to members of all religions, or to those without a religious affiliation based on said business owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs that don’t align with those of their customers.....?

In other words, if I don’t agree with your religion/lack thereof and I don’t want to condone it, should the law hold that I can withhold services from you because you’re Mormon? Or Jewish? Or Catholic? Or Atheist? Is THAT what our Constitution means/should mean by “religious freedom”, or encompassed therein?

First of all, how should any business owner know what religion a person is? If two men, or two women come into a bakery to order and agree on their wedding cake, then it is easy to figure out who, or whom the cake is being prepared for. There are few, if any clues that revealing someone's religious beliefs or doctrine. Your question, or argument, is the classic "straw man argument". This bakery in question served these two men all the time, he knew them, that they were Gay, and they knew him. It was only the wedding cake, and catering he objected too. Despite this, instead of going elsewhere they sued, seeing dollar signs, forgetting their previous relationship to the owner. Also a person of religion can change from childhood Faith, change back, they can join a completely different Faith, as many Mormons who come from other Faiths. It is not even remotely the same thing as those who are Gay. Unless of course if you are willing to admit that people are not born Gay, and they choose to be Gay, and then choose to become straight, like people can do with religion. Will you admit that it is a choice and people are not born Gay? If so, your argument can be discussed in the manner you wish. So, born Gay, or is it a choice, just like those who are religious?  

[sunstoned]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe because that is how the transwoman described it? (I quoted it earlier).

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. 

[The Nehor]

50 minutes 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.

If and when you maintaining your principles imperils your ability to make a living, and death threats, and vandalism of your property, etc. (all of which has happened to Mr. Phillips), I'll be happy to lend a sympathetic ear.

Thanks,

-Smac

And brings you in millions in donations......let us not pretend this was all horror and victimization here.

[The Nehor]

A question I would like the answer to is:

Is the cake this place makes even any good?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Some people just love to work. Countless Millionaires, and Billionaires still work. I cannot work due to a broken back, but even were it not for my back, I still wish I could. 

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?

[The Nehor]

6 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. 

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

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

That would have made sense ... IF what he wanted was the cake, not the publicity or the point scoring.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[sunstoned]

Just now, The Nehor said:

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

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