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

[Anijen]

Why do they not just go to a baker who will bake their cake?

 

Because it is not the cake they are after, but litigation. They simply want to shut this Christian down, bankrupt him. Of this I am convinced.

[bsjkki]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

I apologize in advance for the long quote. But the OP did request a different source.

“Lest anyone wonder whether this request was made in good faith, consider that this same person apparently made a number of requests to Masterpiece Cakeshop. In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name “Scardina” appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme — except featuring “an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer.” This same emailer reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.”

On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request:

I’m thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don’t have the means to procure one yourself.

And finally, two days later, a person identifying as “Autumn Marie” visited Phillips’s shop and requested a cake featuring a pentagram. According to ADF, “Phillips believes that person was Autumn Scardina.”

Rather than recognizing Scardina’s conduct as nothing more than a bad-faith campaign of harassment, Aubrey Elenis, the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, found on June 28 “probable cause” to believe that Phillips violated Scardina’s civil rights when he refused Scardina’s bad-faith request to design a cake celebrating Scardina’s “transition.”

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Why do they not just go to a baker who will bake their cake?

 

Because it is not the cake they are after, but litigation. They simply want to shut this Christian down, bankrupt him. Of this I am convinced.

No, they want to generate case law that is on their side. Seeing this as the big bad gay agenda beating up on the small business man is a disingenuous approach. This is two cultural forces facing off over interpretation of law with both throwing money at it. The owners of the little cake shop are in no danger.

[bsjkki]

And a more scholarly argument. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/15/masterpiece-cakeshop-comes-fire-colorado-officials/

“Even if this had been another baker entirely — assuming the hypothetical that Colorado has two bakers in the state, of course — this complaint still wouldn’t pass muster under Masterpiece Cakeshop, combined with Janus and especially NIFLA. Those decisions, published in the two days preceding the new complaint against Phillips, demolish the compelled-speech archipelago that Colorado and other states attempted to construct to allow the state to dictate public expressions. Anthony Kennedy’s brief concurrence in NIFLA makes that clear, emphasis mine:

 

included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” App. 38–39. But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 715 (1977). It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

That goes directly to the core of the CCRC’s mission here. Clearly, the transgender-celebration request was a provocation designed to give CCRC a second bite at imposing compelled speech in the marketplace. It’s a malicious ruling with malign intent to infringe on both freedom of speech and free expression of religious belief. It’s abusive and retaliatory, and deserves a much harsher sanction this time around.”

[bsjkki]

This link contains the suit filed on behalf of Madterpiece Cakeshop suing the state of Colorado. https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/colorado-goes-after-masterpiece-cakeshop-again-this-time-over-gender-transition-cake/

“Cakeshop files federal lawsuit: “It is now clear that Colorado will not rest until Phillips either closes Masterpiece Cakeshop or agrees to violate his religious beliefs”

”1. The U.S. Constitution stands as a bulwark against state officials who target people—and seek to ruin their lives—because of the government’s anti-religious animus. For over six years now, Colorado has been on a crusade to crush Plaintiff Jack Phillips (“Phillips”) because its officials despise what he believes and how he practices his faith.1 After Phillips defended himself all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, he thought Colorado’s hostility toward his faith was over. He was wrong. Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor. This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.“

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

From a selfish practical standpoint this is dangerous as it could easily be you or I discriminated against next.

I genuinely don't want a person providing a service to me that violates his/her conscience. If s/he were compelled to do so for any reason, it would make me feel really bad, and I would rescind my request. This is politeness 101, in my opinion.

Please note, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is not about discriminating against a person; it's about not performing a service that violates conscience. I suspect at this point that you are intentionally skipping over this point in your responses. Literally no one in this thread is in favour of discrimination based on merely disliking a person.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is the cake this place makes even any good?

I long ago concluded that, in 99 per cent of cases, people don't eat cake for the taste. Give me pastry any day!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

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.

I would be interested in your explanation as to the material distinctions here.  Elton John gets to the control who gets to use his artistic expressions (and how, and where, and in what ways, etc.), but Mr. Phillips does not?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The use of art and the use of a basic good are very different. 

The transgender activist lawyer went out of her way to track down Mr. Phillips and tell him she was ordering "a gender transition cake ... intended to celebrate her gender transition."

This is, in your view, "a basic good?"  I'd be interested to see examples of "gender transition cakes" on sale.  Are they mass-produced?  Where?  By whom?  Sold by whom?  Can you provide a link to a website that sells "gender transition cake{s}?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

It is hard to believe that the whole civil rights movement could have been stopped if George Wallace and others had simply stated that serving blacks was against their religious beliefs.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is hard to believe that the whole civil rights movement could have been stopped if George Wallace and others had simply stated that serving blacks was against their religious beliefs.  

Are you intentionally misconstruing the point in order to construct a rhetorical gotcha, or do you genuinely not understand the points that have been made repeatedly in this thread (and so many others before it)???

[Stargazer]

10 hours 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.....?

Not saying that I support Masterpiece -- because I'm a little ambivalent at the moment -- but what you're asking seems to have but passing resemblance to the case in your OP.  Masterpiece isn't refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person, because the person is transgender.  Masterpiece is refusing to bake a cake celebrating transgenderism, something Masterpiece considers against his conscience.  There's a large difference between these two scenarios, despite an obvious connection.  I don't think they should be conflated into a single matter.

10 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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?

I think there is a difference between an obvious Muslim (e.g. a lady in hijab) showing up at a Jew-owned bakery requesting a birthday cake with "Happy 50th Birthday, Ahmed!" decorated on it, and the same Muslim requesting a cake celebrating a terrorist attack on a synagogue featuring "Death to Jews!" and a fondant sculpture of the targeted synagogue (with fondant flames).  Would you agree that the Jew-owned bakery should be forced by law to bake both cakes?  In the latter case, I don't think he should be forced to bake the cake, but it appears that Colorado would definitely force him to do so.  I would disagree with Colorado.

What if a gay baker refused to bake an anniversary cake celebrating the fifth anniversary of the customer's conversion from gay to straight, because he sincerely believed that such conversions were a sham and he didn't believe in them?  I'd guess that Colorado would make him do so.  I would disagree with Colorado.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I genuinely don't want a person providing a service to me that violates his/her conscience. If s/he were compelled to do so for any reason, it would make me feel really bad, and I would rescind my request. This is politeness 101, in my opinion.

Please note, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is not about discriminating against a person; it's about not performing a service that violates conscience. I suspect at this point that you are intentionally skipping over this point in your responses. Literally no one in this thread is in favour of discrimination based on merely disliking a person.

And if that service is selling you food you need to live and there are no other places to purchase it or everyone feels the same way about selling to those filthy Mormons?

Edited August 16, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I long ago concluded that, in 99 per cent of cases, people don't eat cake for the taste. Give me pastry any day!

These people are doing cake wrong.

[Hamba Tuhan]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And if that service is selling you food you need to live and there are no other places to purchase it or everyone feels the same way about selling to those filthy Mormons?

You still don't get it, do you? At all. Even Daniel gets this. <sigh>

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not saying that I support Masterpiece -- because I'm a little ambivalent at the moment -- but what you're asking seems to have but passing resemblance to the case in your OP.  Masterpiece isn't refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person, because the person is transgender.  Masterpiece is refusing to bake a cake celebrating transgenderism, something Masterpiece considers against his conscience.  There's a large difference between these two scenarios, despite an obvious connection.  I don't think they should be conflated into a single matter.

I agree.

If a non-transgendered friend of a transgendered person had called Mr. Phillps with a request for a "gender transition cake," Mr. Phillips would have refused that request as well.  It's not about the person ordering the themed cake.  It's the theme of the cake that Mr. Phillips does not want to convey.  He does not want to speak it.  And he should not be coerced by the force of law to speak in ways that violate his conscience.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, Anijen said:

Why do they not just go to a baker who will bake their cake?

 

Because it is not the cake they are after, but litigation. They simply want to shut this Christian down, bankrupt him. Of this I am convinced.

Probably so.  The best thing to do is bake one own cake.  A lot cheaper and it does not take that much time.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You still don't get it, do you? At all. Even Daniel gets this. <sigh>

Yes, I apologize for being an idiot. Please try to show compassion for the mentally slow amongst us. TIA

Edited August 16, 2018 by The Nehor

[Daniel2]

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Nope, I can’t. But I’d bet the ACLU and the Lexington Civil Rights Committee have probably explained why they are doing so, somewhere, if you wanted to find out why. 

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, they want to generate case law that is on their side. Seeing this as the big bad gay agenda beating up on the small business man is a disingenuous approach. This is two cultural forces facing off over interpretation of law with both throwing money at it. The owners of the little cake shop are in no danger.

This. Yes, this. A thousand times this.

While I agree with the legal points being hammered out, I think emotional appeals to victimization of/on either side of this issue (either the trans woman or the Christian baker) are overwrought and overblown. 

Both sides know what they’re doing.

Both sides are well funded and neither is in danger of losing livelihoods.

Both sides have likely faced unfair and indefensable mistreatment at some point over their actions (harassment, epithets, death treats and the like that are sadly all-too-common in today’s world).

Both sides feel they’re standing on the moral high ground.

Both sides have an agenda they hope wins in the legal realm.

Both sides could have avoided the current state of affairs, but chose to stand on principle.

Both sides are likely to have varying degrees of support, depending on the demographics of the supportive community in question. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are you intentionally misconstruing the point in order to construct a rhetorical gotcha, or do you genuinely not understand the points that have been made repeatedly in this thread (and so many others before it)???

No.  What if a person has  a closely held religious belief that blacks are suppose to be the servants of all the other sons of Adam.  As such, they should not be required to serve them at the lunch counter. 

When closely held religious beliefs are used as a reason to refuse any kind of service, that reasoning can justify any type of discrimination.  This is why the Supreme Court has to be very careful on how it rules on these types of cases.  Whether the discrimination is against a LGBT is irrelevant in establishing case law.  Once it becomes case law that discrimination based on closely held religious beliefs is established, there is no end to the justification of all types of discrimination.  That is the danger that the religious right is playing with in supporting these kinds of cases. 

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

No.  What if a person has  a closely held religious belief that blacks are suppose to be the servants of all the other sons of Adam.  As such, they should not be required to serve them at the lunch counter. 

When closely held religious beliefs are used as a reason to refuse any kind of service, that reasoning can justify any type of discrimination.  This is why the Supreme Court has to be very careful on how it rules on these types of cases.  Whether the discrimination is against a LGBT is irrelevant in establishing case law.  Once it becomes case law that discrimination based on closely held religious beliefs is established, there is no end to the justification of all types of discrimination.  That is the danger that the religious right is playing with in supporting these kinds of cases. 

This. If ruled badly this could undo the Civil Rights movement entirely.

[Daniel2]

15 hours 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

Smac,

As a lawyer yourself, if you had to make an educated guess: why do you think neither the Liberty Counsel’s legal team nor judges at any level have referenced your suggested comparison/attempted analogy to copywright law in their cases or found them to be legally compelling/valid in their rulings?

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Smac,

As a lawyer yourself, if you had to make an educated guess: why do you think neither the Liberty Counsel’s legal team nor judges at any level have referenced your suggested comparison/attempted analogy to copywright law in their cases or found them to be legally compelling/valid in their rulings?

Again, I am not talking about copyright law.  See here:

Quote

15 hours 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?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not talking about copyright law.  See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

I used the term ‘copyright law’ as a shorthand summary of what you wrote. Feel free to rebrand and call the group of points you made by whatever you wish—my question is the same:

Why do you think neither Liberty Counsel nor judges at any level, including SCOTUS, have referenced or accepted the points you made in any of their court submissions or legal rulings?

Edited August 16, 2018 by Daniel2

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

I used the term ‘copyright law’ as a quick summary of what you wrote.

For the third time, my point isn't about copyright law.

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

Feel free to call the group of points you made by whatever you wish—my question is the same:

Why do you think neither Liberty Counsel nor judges have referenced the points you made in any of their legal submissions or rulings?

I have no idea.  There are all sorts of ways to present all sorts of legal arguments and reasoning.

In any event, you are not addressing the substance of what I have said.  Can't say I'm surprised.  Here it is again:

Quote

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?

Well?  

Thanks,

-Smac