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

[rockpond]

On 8/15/2018 at 3:52 PM, Daniel2 said:

Masterpiece is again asserting their religious liberty is being threatened. This time, there are some key differences... Buzzfeed reports:

I'm annoyed at BOTH sides.

This certainly seems like a mean-spirited attempt by Scardina to target Phillips (it's the Denver metro area... how many bakeries are there?).

And Phillips, who ought to be able to refuse service to anyone, should have just made the cake.  Against your religious beliefs to bake a pink birthday cake and put blue frosting on it?  C'mon.

[Anijen]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm annoyed at BOTH sides.

This certainly seems like a mean-spirited attempt by Scardina to target Phillips (it's the Denver metro area... how many bakeries are there?).

And Phillips, who ought to be able to refuse service to anyone, should have just made the cake.  Against your religious beliefs to bake a pink birthday cake and put blue frosting on it?  C'mon.

I think baking all the cakes would be a great way to tick them off. Mainly because they really don't care about the cake.

 

LQGRBT: hey, I would like a cake to celebrate me being a weirdo                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Phillips: Sure, I'd love to bake it for you

 

QTZBRF: Will you bake me a cake, if you don't I'm gonna sue you.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Phillips: Sure, I'd love to bake it for you

 

RQFGQQ: I'm a transgender man who identifies as a female poodle, sometimes a shepard. Will you bake me a cake?                                                                                                                    Phillips: Sure, I'd love to bake it for you

Edited August 17, 2018 by Anijen

[Gray]

On 8/16/2018 at 2:05 PM, kllindley said:

Yes! It would be bigotry to insist that any cake-maker create the Salt Lake Temple in Fondant.  

Or to ask a Muslim baker to create a Christus shaped cake.

It's all about the message.   

 

No, it would be bigotry for someone to refuse to bake a Mormon or Christian cake just because they weren't of that religion.

[flameburns623]

On 8/15/2018 at 8:33 PM, 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?

I'm Libertarian so: yes, the pronter has the inherent right to refuse you service for any reason whatsoever.  

But if the gay printer refuses service out of religious bigotry, or the baker of a cake out of bigotry against LGBTQIA . . . . . . then the printer and the baker can be vocally recognized as bigots and they as well as their businesses can be systematically shunned for their bigotry. 

Not harried.

Not hounded.

Not persecuted. 

Just shunned.

Such a shunning would not be endorsed universally. Doubtlessly,  the printer and the baker will have a support network of family and friends who either agree with their bigotry or are at least not offended thereby. 

But: to lose friends , to lose business, to be refused service themselves by other business owners who make it clear they do no business with bigots: one hopes that like the proverbial dripping of water on the stone,  the baker and the printer may slowly come to see, over time, the error of their ways. 

Not so satisfying as being able to use the brute force of the law to fine someone and perhapa imprison them for Thoughtcrime. But it honors personal liberties far better. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

No, it would be bigotry for someone to refuse to bake a Mormon or Christian cake just because they weren't of that religion.

Whatever. It was your argument. I completed the thought experiment you proposed, and concluded that it would clearly be bigotry to force someone to create any product celebrating any event  or message which violates their personal conscience--religious or not.

To flatly assert that my conclusion is wrong suggests you really don't have an argument other than "because I say so."

[Gray]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

Whatever. It was your argument. I completed the thought experiment you proposed, and concluded that it would clearly be bigotry to force someone to create any product celebrating any event  or message which violates their personal conscience--religious or not.

To flatly assert that my conclusion is wrong suggests you really don't have an argument other than "because I say so."

Your argument is fatuous. There is nothing bigoted whatsoever about asking a baker to make a product that helps you celebrate your beliefs. The bigotry lies in discriminating against customers for those beliefs.

[kllindley]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your argument is fatuous. There is nothing bigoted whatsoever about asking a baker to make a product that helps you celebrate your beliefs. The bigotry lies in discriminating against customers for those beliefs.

Intereating. I have not yet made an argument. I shared my opinion, my perspective.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I'm Libertarian so: yes, the pronter has the inherent right to refuse you service for any reason whatsoever.  

But if the gay printer refuses service out of religious bigotry, or the baker of a cake out of bigotry against LGBTQIA . . . . . . then the printer and the baker can be vocally recognized as bigots and they as well as their businesses can be systematically shunned for their bigotry. 

Not harried.

Not hounded.

Not persecuted. 

Just shunned.

Such a shunning would not be endorsed universally. Doubtlessly,  the printer and the baker will have a support network of family and friends who either agree with their bigotry or are at least not offended thereby. 

But: to lose friends , to lose business, to be refused service themselves by other business owners who make it clear they do no business with bigots: one hopes that like the proverbial dripping of water on the stone,  the baker and the printer may slowly come to see, over time, the error of their ways. 

Not so satisfying as being able to use the brute force of the law to fine someone and perhapa imprison them for Thoughtcrime. But it honors personal liberties far better. 

So go back to pre-Civil Rights days where you can refuse to sell to Black people and just hope they will be shunned for it? It will not work now with a really despised minority and opening those doors will mean a lot of minorities get despised pretty quick. Bigots crawl out of the woodwork the second you give them any support. Trump shows up and starts dogwhistling and suddenly White Supremacy is an open "thing" again.

It would work wonderfully during the Millenium, I will give it that but people hate people. People are naturally tribal. This kind of libertarianism is incredibly naive. If it worked then the economic benefits of welcoming all to your store would have made the Civil Rights movement unnecessary as discriminating against Blacks is economically inefficient. Same with the Jews and Romani in Europe not so long ago. Same with the Koreans trying to live under Japanese occupation. History shows it does not work that neatly.

Edited August 18, 2018 by The Nehor

[Anijen]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your argument is fatuous. There is nothing bigoted whatsoever about asking a baker to make a product that helps you celebrate your beliefs. The bigotry lies in discriminating against customers for those beliefs.

Is the Bakers beliefs  less important?

Which seemingly opposing beliefs should take precedent?

[Gray]

On 8/16/2018 at 1:51 PM, smac97 said:

I don't think that's "bigotry" at all.  Speech, including artistic speech, should not be compelled by force of law.  

That's my position.  I find it odd that people like you disagree with that.  I hope you'll take the time to answer my question.  Here it is again:

Well?  

Thanks,

-Smac

It's a cake with pink frosting.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Anijen said:

Is the Bakers beliefs  less important?

Which seemingly opposing beliefs should take precedent?

He has every right to be bigoted against any group he wishes. That's a different question than of his breaking the law in how he operates his business.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

It's a cake with pink frosting.

Actually, it'a a pink cake with blue frosting.

You know how I remember? Because the symbolism makes it easy to. Pink on the inside / blue on the outside...you know, just like her - female inside / male outside - prior to her transition. Remember, that's why she wanted the cake to look like that - to help celebrate her birthday and her 7 year transition from male to female. 

That symbolism was designed to communicate a message and that message would have been obvious to the intended audience. Those are the two elements required to fulfill the Spence test, discussed earlier. When both elements are met, you are dealing with something that ought to be considered symbolic speech, which is subject to full First Amendment protection. 

So, yes: a cake can speech - symbolic speech, to be precise.

Are all cakes designed to communicate a message? Or, put another way, do all cakes involve symbolic speech, triggering First Amendment scrutiny? Obviously not. But there's a line where they do, and the debate is about where that line should be drawn. 

When it comes to these borderline cases, I personally tend to favor the side of more robust protections for speech, but I understand that others can look at the same situation and their principles will dictate a different outcome. 

 

[Anijen]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

He has every right to be bigoted against any group he wishes. That's a different question than of his breaking the law in how he operates his business.

So Phillips is a bigot for living his beliefs? Wow, how incredibly blind you are.

So you think he broke the law, but the highest appellate court in the country says he did not, in fact, they say that the Colorado Commission were the law breakers here. Whose answer carries more weight, yours or SCOTUS?

There was no law broken in how he operates his business. 

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

It's a cake with pink frosting.

And Elton John's "Rocket Man" is a song describing "a Mars-bound astronaut's mixed feelings at leaving his family in order to do his job."  And yet the use of that song in certain ways, and in certain venues, may nevertheless be objectionable to Elton John.

For example, let's say that Westboro Baptist Church wants to hire Elton John to sing that song at an anti-gay rally, during a video depicting rockets being launched and aimed at San Francisco, with the idea being that homosexuals there would be wiped out.

Elton John, understandably, I think, would not want to participate in such an event, nor would he want his song used in such a venue.  Not only would the use of the song in this way and in this venue convey a message contrary to his ethics and beliefs, it would also likely convey a message that Elton John supports and endorses the ideas espoused by the Westboro Baptist Church.  Consequently, Elton John wants to have the right to refuse to perform or otherwise participate in this anti-gay rally.  He also wants to have the right to refuse the use of his songs at this rally.  His songs are a form of art.  They are a form of speech.  He does not want to be seen as potentially allowing his speech to connote endorsement of the ideas promulgated by the Westboro Baptist Church.

What are your thoughts on this?  Should he have the right to refuse to participate in their rally?  Should he have the right to refuse to allow his songs to be used in their rally, even if he does not personally participate?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 19, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And Elton John's "Rocket Man" is a song describing "a Mars-bound astronaut's mixed feelings at leaving his family in order to do his job."  And yet the use of that song in certain ways, and in certain venues, may nevertheless be objectionable to Eldon John.

For example, let's say that Westboro Baptist Church wants to hire Elton John to sing that song at an anti-gay rally, during a video depicting rockets being launched and aimed at San Francisco, with the idea being that homosexuals there would be wiped out.

Elton John, understandably, I think, would not want to participate in such an event, nor would he want his song used in such a venue.  Not only would the use of the song in this way and in this venue convey a message contrary to his ethics and beliefs, it would also likely convey a message that Elton John supports and endorses the ideas espoused by the Westboro Baptist Church.  Consequently, Elton John wants to have the right to refuse to perform or otherwise participate in this anti-gay rally.  He also wants to have the right to refuse the use of his songs at this rally.  His songs are a form of art.  They are a form of speech.  He does not want to be seen as potentially allowing his speech to connote endorsement of the ideas promulgated by the Westboro Baptist Church.

What are your thoughts on this?  Should he have the right to refuse to participate in their rally?  Should he have the right to refuse to allow his songs to be used in their rally, even if he does not personally participate?

Thanks,

-Smac

A great analogy! 

I wish it could be part of the case, maybe in a friend-of-the-court brief?

Edited August 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Actually, it'a a pink cake with blue frosting.

You know how I remember? Because the symbolism makes it easy to. Pink on the inside / blue on the outside...you know, just like her - female inside / male outside - prior to her transition. Remember, that's why she wanted the cake to look like that - to help celebrate her birthday and her 7 year transition from male to female. 

That symbolism was designed to communicate a message and that message would have been obvious to the intended audience. Those are the two elements required to fulfill the Spence test, discussed earlier. When both elements are met, you are dealing with something that ought to be considered symbolic speech, which is subject to full First Amendment protection. 

So, yes: a cake can speech - symbolic speech, to be precise.

Are all cakes designed to communicate a message? Or, put another way, do all cakes involve symbolic speech, triggering First Amendment scrutiny? Obviously not. But there's a line where they do, and the debate is about where that line should be drawn. 

When it comes to these borderline cases, I personally tend to favor the side of more robust protections for speech, but I understand that others can look at the same situation and their principles will dictate a different outcome. 

 

Okay, it's a pink cake with blue frosting. Call the Louvre, we have a new masterpiece of personal expression for them to display.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Anijen said:

So Phillips is a bigot for living his beliefs? Wow, how incredibly blind you are.

No, he's a bigot because his beliefs are bigoted.

 

13 hours ago, Anijen said:

So you think he broke the law, but the highest appellate court in the country says he did not, in fact, they say that the Colorado Commission were the law breakers here. Whose answer carries more weight, yours or SCOTUS?

Actually, they didn't rule on whether or not he broke the law.

 

13 hours ago, Anijen said:

There was no law broken in how he operates his business. 

There almost certainly was.

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Okay, it's a pink cake with blue frosting. Call the Louvre, we have a new masterpiece of personal expression for them to display.

Fortunately, whether or not something is considered art, or considered speech, is not dependent on whether or not you think it belongs in a museum. 

 

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Fortunately, whether or not something is considered art, or considered speech, is not dependent on whether or not you think it belongs in a museum. 

 

Heart defibrillator manufacturers can now start claiming their commercial products as "speech" and start dictating who can and can't be saved by them.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

And Elton John's "Rocket Man" is a song describing "a Mars-bound astronaut's mixed feelings at leaving his family in order to do his job."  And yet the use of that song in certain ways, and in certain venues, may nevertheless be objectionable to Elton John.

For example, let's say that Westboro Baptist Church wants to hire Elton John to sing that song at an anti-gay rally, during a video depicting rockets being launched and aimed at San Francisco, with the idea being that homosexuals there would be wiped out.

Elton John, understandably, I think, would not want to participate in such an event, nor would he want his song used in such a venue.  Not only would the use of the song in this way and in this venue convey a message contrary to his ethics and beliefs, it would also likely convey a message that Elton John supports and endorses the ideas espoused by the Westboro Baptist Church.  Consequently, Elton John wants to have the right to refuse to perform or otherwise participate in this anti-gay rally.  He also wants to have the right to refuse the use of his songs at this rally.  His songs are a form of art.  They are a form of speech.  He does not want to be seen as potentially allowing his speech to connote endorsement of the ideas promulgated by the Westboro Baptist Church.

What are your thoughts on this?  Should he have the right to refuse to participate in their rally?  Should he have the right to refuse to allow his songs to be used in their rally, even if he does not personally participate?

Thanks,

-Smac

A cake is a commercial product, which is different from artistic expression.

Objecting to the use of one's artistic work based on a legally-permissible objection (not wanting to participate in hate speech, or even political speech) is very different from objecting based on motivations that are not legally justifiable: race, gender, religion etc of the customer.

No shirt, no shoes, no service is legal. "No Jews" is not legal.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

A cake is a commercial product, which is different from artistic expression.

How so?

Does Elton John give away his "artistic expression" for free?

Quote

Objecting to the use of one's artistic work based on a legally-permissible objection (not wanting to participate in hate speech, or even political speech) is very different from objecting based on motivations that are not legally justifiable: race, gender, religion etc of the customer.

Ah.  So what are these "legally-permissible objections?"  Can you provide a list?  Who created this list?  Who gets to decide which forms of speech can be compelled and which cannot?

Quote

No shirt, no shoes, no service is legal. "No Jews" is not legal.

Mr. Phillips wants the right to refuse to provide a particular type of product (wedding cakes that celebrate gay marriage, transgenderism, etc.).  He refuses to make these types of cakes for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 20, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How so?

Does Elton John gives away his "artistic expression" for free?

The test for artistic expression isn't whether or not it's free (all good artists charge for their work). But a bakery doesn't sell artwork. It sells baked goods. Perhaps the baker would care to register as an art gallery instead if he really believes in good faith that his desserts are "art"?

 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So what are these "legally-permissible objections?"  Can you provide a list?  Who created this list?  Who gets to decide which forms of speech can be compelled and which cannot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Phillips wants the right to refuse to provide a particular type of product (wedding cakes that celebrate gay marriage, transgenderism, etc.).  He refuses to make these types of cakes for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Thanks,

-Smac

His argument is transparent sophistry. He's using rhetorical trickery to try to get around the law.

[Anijen]

20 hours ago, Gray said:

No, he's a bigot because his beliefs are bigoted.

Then by your own statement, you are a bigot too.

 

Quote

Actually, they didn't rule on whether or not he broke the law.

Actually they did. The Colorado Commission fined him and punished him for breaking the law.  His appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was reversed. This quote is strait from the SCOTUS decision:

"Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint."

 

Quote

There almost certainly was.

"almost certainly"

Almost means not quite, very nearly. Certainly means undoubtedly, surely.  My opinion is you are using your own false truths (I can use oxymorons too).

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Heart defibrillator manufacturers can now start claiming their commercial products as "speech" and start dictating who can and can't be saved by them.

This is a non sequitur. If you don't understand why, then you obviously don't understand the underlying issue. 

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Then by your own statement, you are a bigot too.

No, that doesn't follow.

 

14 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Actually they did. The Colorado Commission fined him and punished him for breaking the law.  His appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was reversed. This quote is strait from the SCOTUS decision:

"Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint."

You don't seem to understand their ruling. They reversed based on prejudice from the commission, not based on the defendent's innocence.

 

14 minutes ago, Anijen said:

"almost certainly"

Almost means not quite, very nearly. Certainly means undoubtedly, surely.  My opinion is you are using your own false truths (I can use oxymorons too).

This is word salad.