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

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Mr. Phillips refuses to make customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Do you acknowledge this?

It's not the customer.  It's the message.

Thanks,

-Smac

He won't sell any kind of wedding cakes to gay people for their weddings.

No.  You are not correct.  Again: Mr. Phillips refuses to make customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

If a gay person's heterosexual friend were to request a  customized "gay wedding"-themed cake as a gift for the gay person, Mr. Phillips would say no.

Mr. Phillips sells anything he is willing to prepare to gay people, or anyone else.  But he is not willing to make a  customized "gay wedding"-themed cake for anyone.

Does that help clarify things?

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's a clear violation of the law.

Which is, perhaps, why you are misstating what I said.  To make it sound like a violation of the law.

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

If he offers wedding cakes for straight clients, he must also do so for gay ones.

Again, he does not offer customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes to "straight clients" or "gay ones" or anyone else.

He simply refuses to make customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes.

THanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who said anything about the law?

That's what this discussion is about.  The law.

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

Put your CFR away. I'm citing the art class I took as an undegrad, where we had a lively discussion about the arts vs craftsmanship.

Okay.  You are talking about art class.  The rest of us are talking about legal principles.

You are not participating in the legal discussion.  I'll keep that in mind from here on out.

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not art. It's a cake. Sorry.

That's like saying "[Goodbye, Yellowbrick Road] is not art.  It's a song.  Sorry."

The No True Scotsman fallacy is at work here.

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's food. You eat it.

And Goodby, Yellowbrick Road is a song.  You listen to it.

So that must mean it's not "art."

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

If the baker's cakes qualify as art, then absolutely anything else can as well.

If you were participating in the legal aspects of this discussion, I'd engage this.  But you're not, so I won't.

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

As usual, you keep coming up with irrelevant comparisons. Elton John does not do commissions - it's not a service he offers. But as the Colorado fundamentalist offers custom wedding deserts, he should have to offer them freely to both gay and straight patrons.

He does.  He just doesn't include gay wedding-themed cakes among his offerings of "custom wedding des{s}erts."

He does not prepare such things for anyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

He just doesn't include gay wedding-themed cakes among his offerings of "custom wedding des{s}erts."

So if a gay couple came in and asked for the identical cake that was designed for a straight wedding, you think he would be willing to make it?

I don't think phrasing it as "gay wedding themed" is accurate.  I believe saying he won't make cakes knowingly and specifically for gay weddings is more accurate.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The fundamentalist baker in question offers a product to straight people that he will not sell for use by gay people. That's illegal discrimination.

Again, you continue to evade the question. 

I'll ask it one last time:

It seems obvious (to me, at least) that a cake can be designed and decorated in a way that will communicate a message. Do you agree or disagree? 

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No.  You are not correct.  Again: Mr. Phillips refuses to make customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

If a gay person's heterosexual friend were to request a  customized "gay wedding"-themed cake as a gift for the gay person, Mr. Phillips would say no.

You are both right. I'm sure Phillips would refuse to make a customized gay-themed wedding cake for anyone, but that isn't what the original lawsuit was about.

In that lawsuit, Craig and Mullins asked for a generic cake that was going to be used for a wedding. There was nothing in any way "gay" about the cake they wanted--no cake topping featuring two men, no writing, no pro-gay symbols. Not even rainbow colored frosting. They simply wanted a generic wedding cake.

Phillips said he would not make a cake for them because it was going to be served at a same-sex wedding.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Analytics

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are both right. I'm sure Phillips would refuse to make a customized gay-themed wedding cake for anyone, but that isn't what the original lawsuit was about.

In that lawsuit, Craig and Mullins asked for a generic cake that was going to be used for a wedding.

Well, I'm not sure about that.  The gay couple repeatedly assert in their brief that they "Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake."  However, contemporary news accounts seem to differ with that:

See, e.g., here (emphases added):

Quote

A Lakewood man who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay couple was merely invoking his constitutional right of free expression, his attorney told three judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

...

Craig and Mullins sued Phillips in 2012 after he refused to fill an order for a cake that included a depiction of a rainbow, a symbol that is supportive of gay marriage.

And here (emphasis added):

Quote

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

...

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

...

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

FoxNews Article (emphasis added):

Quote

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo., said he has received more than 1,000 angry messages — critics upset because he would not compromise his personal beliefs and bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

The couple, set to be married in Massachusetts in September, told television station KDVR they wanted a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting.

They said the owner immediately informed the men that he does not create cakes for gay weddings.

“It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” Mullins, 28, told Denver Westward. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

But Phillips defended his decision in an interview with television station KCNC in Denver.

“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips told the television station. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”

July 2012 Westword Article (apparently published one day after the incident) (emphases added):

Quote

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).  Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

July 2012 Advocate Article (emphasis added):

Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

2013 Chicago Tribune Article (emphases added):

Quote

Here's the story: Jack C. Phillips, co-owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, in July 2012 told Charlie Craig and David Mullins that he would not bake a cake for their wedding. He said as a long-practicing Christian he believed God intended marriage to be for one man and one woman.

He also told the couple, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Craig and Mullins apparently didn't have trouble finding another baker to make a cake, one with rainbow-colored filling, for their later out-of-state wedding. It's not as if Phillips prevented them from getting a cake from anywhere in America.

July 2012 Advocate Article:

Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

...

Mullins and Craig don't seem to be the only same-sex couple to encounter problems with Masterpiece Cakeshop. According to Westword, other previous customers like Yelp user Samantha S., have said the shop does not "participate in making cakes for 'illegal' things, such as a commitment ceremony." A Masterpiece employee did say, however, that they would be willing to make any other kind of celebratory cake for gay customers, as long as it was not for a wedding or commitment ceremony. 

June 2013 AP Article (emphasis added):

Quote

David Mullins, left, and Charlie Craig, right, successfully sued a Colorado bakery after their order for a rainbow wedding cake was turned down by the owner

June 2013 Fox Article (emphasis added):

Quote

The complaint stems from an incident on July 19, 2012, in which Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips declined to create a rainbow layer cake for the couple’s October wedding in Massachusetts, saying his business does not bake cakes for gay weddings.

August 2012 Fox News Article (quoted here) (emphasis added):

Quote

Phillips found himself in the middle of a controversy several weeks ago when David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked the bakery to make a rainbow cake for their wedding reception.

“He quickly informed us that his business did not provide cakes for gay weddings,” Craig said in a statement. “This moment was offensive, dehumanizing, awkward and quite painful.”

Mullins then cursed the owner, “f*** you and your homophobic cake shop.”

December 2013 LifeSiteNews Article (emphasis added):

Quote

While Colorado’s constitution states, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state,” Mullins and Craig had nonetheless planned to “marry” in Massachusetts, where a court order made same-sex “marriage” legal in 2004.  Afterward, they planned to hold a reception in Colorado.  When they visited Phillips’ cake shop to ask him to provide a wedding cake for the event, he declined, explaining that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in same-sex “weddings.”  Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake.

The two men reacted with angry disbelief.  “It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins told Denver Westword at the time. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F--- you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

Nevertheless, the findings of the fact in the original administrative court case appear to favor the gay couple's factual claim.  Not sure what happened.

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

There was nothing in any way "gay" about the cake they wanted--no cake topping featuring two men, no writing, no pro-gay symbols. Not even rainbow colored frosting. They simply wanted a generic wedding cake.

How do you account for the various news items above, then?

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Phillips said he would not make a cake for them because it was going to be served at a same-sex wedding.

Phillips also said that he would be happy to sell the gay couple brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm not sure about that.  The gay couple repeatedly assert in their brief that they "Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake."  However, contemporary news accounts seem to differ with that...

I hadn't read all of those articles--I stand corrected on what cake they apparently wanted. I formed my opinion on this issue by reading the opinion of the Colorado Court of Appeals, which emphasized that "Phillips refused to prepare a cake for Craig and Mullins before any discussion of the cake’s design."

But it does appear you've conceded that the issue was not about a gay wedding cake, but rather about a cake for a gay wedding. If Phillips would have told them, "Look. I'd gladly bake a wedding cake for you with the styling and messaging that I provide for other weddings, but I have to refrain from creating one with a gay wedding theme," then in all likelihood he would have won at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission or the Colorado Court of Appeals. The reason he lost in Colorado was because he was treating gay people and straight people differently by refusing to sell gays wedding cakes. As Gray said, "He won't sell any kind of wedding cakes to gay people for their weddings."

[Calm]

Quote

Phillips also said that he would be happy to sell the gay couple brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake.

To me this is a little strange.  "Wedding" brownies that are for the purpose of celebrating a wedding would be equivalent to me to a generic wedding cake which appears is not included in his list of acceptable things, but perhaps "wedding cake" achieves a stronger significance for others, especially those who take time to create them.

This is my favorite for a wedding, btw.  I wonder if Phillips would be okay with making this for a gay wedding:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquembouche

Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

To me this is a little strange.  "Wedding" brownies that are for the purpose of celebrating a wedding would be equivalent to me to a generic wedding cake which appears is not included in his list of acceptable things, but perhaps "wedding cake" achieves a stronger significance for others, especially those who take time to create them.

The impression I got from reading the accounts was that he was amenable to selling them any "off the shelf" pastry / baked good which he carries in the store (which could then be used for whatever purpose) but that he wouldn't use his artistic talents to make custom creations for gay weddings. 

 

Quote

This is my favorite for a wedding, btw.  I wonder if Phillips would be okay with making this for a gay wedding:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquembouche

I've never had one of those, but it looks to be orders of magnitude better than most of the cakes I have ever had at a wedding. Now I'm hungry.  

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I hadn't read all of those articles--I stand corrected on what cake they apparently wanted. I formed my opinion on this issue by reading the opinion of the Colorado Court of Appeals, which emphasized that "Phillips refused to prepare a cake for Craig and Mullins before any discussion of the cake’s design."

Yes, I had noticed that too.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But it does appear you've conceded that the issue was not about a gay wedding cake, but rather about a cake for a gay wedding.

I don't think I've conceded that.  I'm not sure there is a distinction between the two.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If Phillips would have told them, "Look. I'd gladly bake a wedding cake for you with the styling and messaging that I provide for other weddings, but I have to refrain from creating one with a gay wedding theme," then in all likelihood he would have won at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission or the Colorado Court of Appeals.

I doubt it.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The reason he lost in Colorado was because he was treating gay people and straight people differently by refusing to sell gays wedding cakes.

Except that he wasn't.  He said he wouldn't make a "gay wedding"-themed cake for anyone, regardless of who asked for it (the gay couple, one of the gay fellow's straight parents, whatever).

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

As Gray said, "He won't sell any kind of wedding cakes to gay people for their weddings."

But he will sell cookies, brownies, etc.

I don't think Gray's summary is accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[williamsmith]

Anyone should be allowed to say what they do with their labor if it's against their values.  That's America, that's how it's always been.

You can't force a Construction Company to build a Porn Shop, so why do people think they can force people to create a "particular type" of cake?
(because leftists are tyrants and are trying to destroy America as we can clearly see from all their various anti-American actions)

They aren't denying the "persons" service, they are refusing to create a particular type of product with their labor, so the claim of "discrimination" especially under the law simply cannot be made (at least it being intelligent).

Edited August 21, 2018 by williamsmith

[Calm]

1 hour ago, williamsmith said:

Anyone should be allowed to say what they do with their labor if it's against their values.  That's America, that's how it's always been.

Not really, unless you think everyone desires to pay taxes and believes all taxes support their values.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, williamsmith said:

Anyone should be allowed to say what they do with their labor if it's against their values.  That's America, that's how it's always been.

You can't force a Construction Company to build a Porn Shop, so why do people think they can force people to create a "particular type" of cake?
(because leftists are tyrants and are trying to destroy America as we can clearly see from all their various anti-American actions)

They aren't denying the "persons" service, they are refusing to create a particular type of product with their labor, so the claim of "discrimination" especially under the law simply cannot be made (at least it being intelligent).

Kill those commie bastards and don’t even let them eat cake! 

Anti-American activities are dangerous. Maybe you should start some sort of Un-American Activities Committee to root out the traitors in our midst?

[Analytics]

 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Except that he wasn't.  He said he wouldn't make a "gay wedding"-themed cake for anyone, regardless of who asked for it (the gay couple, one of the gay fellow's straight parents, whatever).

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether Phillips would sell them any cake that was to be used to celebrate a same sex wedding. Your news articles aside, the narrative that was presented to the Court was that Phillips refused these customers service before they even talked about how they wanted the cake decorated.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

But he will sell cookies, brownies, etc.

Slightly modifying the court's analogy, if you went to a nice restaurant with some friends and the waiter told you, "sorry, the entrees on the menu are for non-Mormons only. I only allow Mormons to order appetizers, cookies, and brownies." Would that be illegal discrimination? In Colorado it would be.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think Gray's summary is accurate.

It is in fact an accurate summary of the reasoning used by the Colorado Court of Appeals, as articulated in their ruling. 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

To me this is a little strange.  

I think I understand the distinction he is drawing for himself.  A brownie is a generic dessert.  It conveys no message.

In contrast, a "rainbow" cake that is specifically ordered for a gay wedding does convey a message, and one that Mr. Phillips does not want to be forced to speak.

I have contemplated what I would do if a family member or friend invited me to attend a same-sex wedding.  I don't think I would.  I sustain the Church's position on same-sex marriage.  I also sustain the Church's position on demonstrating love and compassion to those who have same-sex attraction.  Attendees at a wedding are traditionally construed as witnesses and celebrants of the event.  For myself, I do not think I could reconcile myself to "celebrating" (through attendance at) an event that is so at odds with the Restored Gospel in relation to its teachings about marriage and The Law of Chastity.  So if invited to a same-sex wedding, I would decline.  I would do so privately, preferably in person (and perhaps preceded by an explanatory letter).  I would explain my position, while also expressing love and affection for the individuals. 

Although I would decline to attend such a wedding, I would thereafter welcome the couple to attend any private or family activities and events to which I would invite others, and would treat them with love, decorum, tolerance and understanding.  I think shunning or ignoring or dissociating such a couple would not be appropriate (and, in fact, largely at odds with the Restored Gospel).

So that's a distinction I draw for myself.  Others may see it as arbitrary or weird, but it works for me.  And I think Mr. Phillips's distinction (between refusing to make a specifically-intended-to-celebrate-a-gay-wedding cake, while otherwise being willing to sell generic cookies, brownies, etc.) works for him.

I applaud Mr. Phillips.  He is going as far as he feels he can to demonstrate respect and cordiality for gay people.  And for that he's being sued into oblivion.  Again.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's what this discussion is about.  The law.

Okay.  You are talking about art class.  The rest of us are talking about legal principles.

You haven't mentioned any legal principles in regards to artistic expression, at least not to me. But perhaps you can come up with a coherent legal theory for why a piece of cake is art, but a writing desk or a Coke can is not. I look forward to your analysis.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are not participating in the legal discussion.  I'll keep that in mind from here on out.

That's like saying "[Goodbye, Yellowbrick Road] is not art.  It's a song.  Sorry."

No, that's not like it at all. Music is a form of artistic expression. Baking is not.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The No True Scotsman fallacy is at work here.

You don't seem to understand the principle of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

And Goodby, Yellowbrick Road is a song.  You listen to it.

So that must mean it's not "art."

Are you confusing the term art with "paintings"? That's what you seem to be doing. Music, dance, theater, painting, and sculpture are all forms of art.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you were participating in the legal aspects of this discussion, I'd engage this.  But you're not, so I won't.

He does.  He just doesn't include gay wedding-themed cakes among his offerings of "custom wedding des{s}erts."

He does not prepare such things for anyone.

Thanks,

-Smac

Correction: he doesn't sell ANY wedding cakes if he thinks they will be used by gay people on their wedding. That's illegal.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  You are not correct.  Again: Mr. Phillips refuses to make customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

If a gay person's heterosexual friend were to request a  customized "gay wedding"-themed cake as a gift for the gay person, Mr. Phillips would say no.

Mr. Phillips sells anything he is willing to prepare to gay people, or anyone else.  But he is not willing to make a  customized "gay wedding"-themed cake for anyone.

Does that help clarify things?

Which is, perhaps, why you are misstating what I said.  To make it sound like a violation of the law.

Again, he does not offer customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes to "straight clients" or "gay ones" or anyone else.

He simply refuses to make customized "gay wedding"-themed cakes.

THanks,

-Smac

CFR that Phillips agreed to sell any kind of standard. boilerplate, non-gay themed wedding cakes for gay weddings.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

CFR that Phillips agreed to sell any kind of standard. boilerplate, non-gay themed wedding cakes for gay weddings.

CFR that I said "Phillips agreed to sell any kind of standard. boilerplate, non-gay themed wedding cakes for gay weddings."

You keep misstating/misrepresenting what I am saying.  It's not appreciated.

Here is a number of contemporaneous news items about Mr. Phillips:

Quote

The gay couple repeatedly assert in their brief that they "Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake."  However, contemporary news accounts seem to differ with that:

See, e.g., here (emphases added):

  Quote

A Lakewood man who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay couple was merely invoking his constitutional right of free expression, his attorney told three judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

...

Craig and Mullins sued Phillips in 2012 after he refused to fill an order for a cake that included a depiction of a rainbow, a symbol that is supportive of gay marriage.

And here (emphasis added):

  Quote

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

...

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

...

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

FoxNews Article (emphasis added):

  Quote

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo., said he has received more than 1,000 angry messages — critics upset because he would not compromise his personal beliefs and bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

The couple, set to be married in Massachusetts in September, told television station KDVR they wanted a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting.

They said the owner immediately informed the men that he does not create cakes for gay weddings.

“It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” Mullins, 28, told Denver Westward. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

But Phillips defended his decision in an interview with television station KCNC in Denver.

“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips told the television station. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”

July 2012 Westword Article (apparently published one day after the incident) (emphases added):

  Quote

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).  Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

July 2012 Advocate Article (emphasis added):

  Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

2013 Chicago Tribune Article (emphases added):

  Quote

Here's the story: Jack C. Phillips, co-owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, in July 2012 told Charlie Craig and David Mullins that he would not bake a cake for their wedding. He said as a long-practicing Christian he believed God intended marriage to be for one man and one woman.

He also told the couple, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Craig and Mullins apparently didn't have trouble finding another baker to make a cake, one with rainbow-colored filling, for their later out-of-state wedding. It's not as if Phillips prevented them from getting a cake from anywhere in America.

July 2012 Advocate Article:

  Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

...

Mullins and Craig don't seem to be the only same-sex couple to encounter problems with Masterpiece Cakeshop. According to Westword, other previous customers like Yelp user Samantha S., have said the shop does not "participate in making cakes for 'illegal' things, such as a commitment ceremony." A Masterpiece employee did say, however, that they would be willing to make any other kind of celebratory cake for gay customers, as long as it was not for a wedding or commitment ceremony. 

June 2013 AP Article (emphasis added):

  Quote

David Mullins, left, and Charlie Craig, right, successfully sued a Colorado bakery after their order for a rainbow wedding cake was turned down by the owner

June 2013 Fox Article (emphasis added):

  Quote

The complaint stems from an incident on July 19, 2012, in which Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips declined to create a rainbow layer cake for the couple’s October wedding in Massachusetts, saying his business does not bake cakes for gay weddings.

August 2012 Fox News Article (quoted here) (emphasis added):

  Quote

Phillips found himself in the middle of a controversy several weeks ago when David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked the bakery to make a rainbow cake for their wedding reception.

“He quickly informed us that his business did not provide cakes for gay weddings,” Craig said in a statement. “This moment was offensive, dehumanizing, awkward and quite painful.”

Mullins then cursed the owner, “f*** you and your homophobic cake shop.”

December 2013 LifeSiteNews Article (emphasis added):

  Quote

While Colorado’s constitution states, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state,” Mullins and Craig had nonetheless planned to “marry” in Massachusetts, where a court order made same-sex “marriage” legal in 2004.  Afterward, they planned to hold a reception in Colorado.  When they visited Phillips’ cake shop to ask him to provide a wedding cake for the event, he declined, explaining that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in same-sex “weddings.”  Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake.

The two men reacted with angry disbelief.  “It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins told Denver Westword at the time. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F--- you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

You haven't mentioned any legal principles in regards to artistic expression, at least not to me.

Yes, I have.  But as you said, you aren't participating in the discussion of the law, so I won't bother to continue to address such things with you.

Quote

But perhaps you can come up with a coherent legal theory for why a piece of cake is art, but a writing desk or a Coke can is not. I look forward to your analysis.

I doubt that.  In any event, no thanks.  I have stopped taking you seriously in this discussion.

There are plenty of interesting points to address as to the legal issues here.  Instead, all you've got is facile and glib one-liners ("But a bakery doesn't sell artwork. It sells baked goods.").

Quote

Correction: he doesn't sell ANY wedding cakes if he thinks they will be used by gay people on their wedding. That's illegal.

No, that's not correct.

And whether it's "legal" is up in the air.  The Colorado "Civil Right" Commission is demonstrably biased, so we'll need to do better than that.

I'd explain further, but there's no point.  This is a serious discussion about complex legal concepts.  I don't think your comments are serious, and you apparently aren't interested in addressing the points I am making in any meaningful, constructive way, so I'll refrain from further efforts to engage you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 21, 2018 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think I understand the distinction he is drawing for himself.  A brownie is a generic dessert.  It conveys no message.

In contrast, a "rainbow" cake that is specifically ordered for a gay wedding does convey a message, and one that Mr. Phillips does not want to be forced to speak.

I have contemplated what I would do if a family member or friend invited me to attend a same-sex wedding.  I don't think I would.  I sustain the Church's position on same-sex marriage.  I also sustain the Church's position on demonstrating love and compassion to those who have same-sex attraction.  Attendees at a wedding are traditionally construed as witnesses and celebrants of the event.  For myself, I do not think I could reconcile myself to "celebrating" (through attendance at) an event that is so at odds with the Restored Gospel in relation to its teachings about marriage and The Law of Chastity.  So if invited to a same-sex wedding, I would decline.  I would do so privately, preferably in person (and perhaps preceded by an explanatory letter).  I would explain my position, while also expressing love and affection for the individuals. 

Although I would decline to attend such a wedding, I would thereafter welcome the couple to attend any private or family activities and events to which I would invite others, and would treat them with love, decorum, tolerance and understanding.  I think shunning or ignoring or dissociating such a couple would not be appropriate (and, in fact, largely at odds with the Restored Gospel).

That is a principled position that I can appreciate.

I can't help but wonder if Phillips is really being equally principled. Let me explain.

Say you get a wedding invitation from a friend. This friend happened to have recently abandoned his first wife and 5 young children, and refuses to pay alimony or child support. His new wedding is to marry a 19-year old stripper he recently met in Vegas. Would you attend that wedding? Of course not. As you said, attending a wedding is traditionally construed as being a witness and celebrant of the event, and also implies that you will support the new union.

But what about Phillips? Generally, when you see a cake at a wedding you don't immediately think that it represents the baker's endorsement of the specific marriage. That isn't a tradition. So what about Phillips' religious impulses for baking? When somebody orders a cake from him, does he personally interview the happy couple and make sure that he personally supports their particular marriage and believes that God supports it, too? If so, then I would agree with you that Phillips is taking a principled position with gays. But if he bakes cakes for all straight couples like it is a business but refuses to bake cakes for gays out of principle, that seems a bit hypocritical.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Amulek said:

Again, you continue to evade the question. 

I'll ask it one last time:

It seems obvious (to me, at least) that a cake can be designed and decorated in a way that will communicate a message. Do you agree or disagree? 

 

 

No, not in the way you're insinuating. It's not speech like artistic expression, or an article in a newspaper. A Coke can communicates a "message". That message is "I contain Coke." A desk communicates a message - the message being "I can be used to do office work." A wedding cake communicates a message: "this is a wedding." But it's not really like speech. A tuxedo communicates a "message" - that message being "I am at a formal event". It's only a message in the broadest sense - in which case absolutely everything is technically a message. It would be sophistry in the extreme to try to claim that a tuxedo or a desk or a Coke can or a cake are "speech" in an meaningful sense.

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, williamsmith said:

Anyone should be allowed to say what they do with their labor if it's against their values.  That's America, that's how it's always been.

You can't force a Construction Company to build a Porn Shop, so why do people think they can force people to create a "particular type" of cake?
(because leftists are tyrants and are trying to destroy America as we can clearly see from all their various anti-American actions)

They aren't denying the "persons" service, they are refusing to create a particular type of product with their labor, so the claim of "discrimination" especially under the law simply cannot be made (at least it being intelligent).

You are misunderstanding the vast majority of so-called "leftists." If the couple had asked Phillips to make a cake with obscene words and symbols on it, very few people would argue that he should be obligated to do so. Phillips said he refuses to sell any wedding cake to gays--even ones that are identical to ones he sells to straight couples. That is why the case against him went as far as it did and was only overturned in a narrow ruling that really didn't settle the issue.

An analogy that represents what your opponents actually say on this issue is that if you own a Construction Company that specializes in building, say, McDonalds restaurants, you should build them for everybody, even if the franchisee is black, and even if you say that your religious beliefs preclude blacks from being business owners and thus in good conscious you can't participate in them opening a business.

[Analytics]

Gray said:

[Correction: he doesn't sell ANY wedding cakes if he thinks they will be used by gay people on their wedding.]

to which Smac97 responded:

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, that's not correct.

Can you clarify? Are you claiming that if a gay couple requests from Phillips a wedding cake that is identical to the wedding cakes he sells to heterosexual couples, he would sell it to them? If so, CFR.

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR that I said "Phillips agreed to sell any kind of standard. boilerplate, non-gay themed wedding cakes for gay weddings."

You keep misstating/misrepresenting what I am saying.  It's not appreciated.

Here is a number of contemporaneous news items about Mr. Phillips:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks. So contrary to you previous post, Phillips would not in fact sell ANY wedding cake for a gay wedding, regardless of style.

 

"He also told the couple, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman."

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is a principled position that I can appreciate.

I can't help but wonder if Phillips is really being equally principled.

I think his stance is demonstrably principled.  He draws a line where you do not, perhaps.  But he has drawn a line, and that line is based on principle.  Not on hatred.  Or malice.  Or prejudice.

Principle.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let me explain.

Say you get a wedding invitation from a friend. This friend happened to have recently abandoned his first wife and 5 young children, and refuses to pay alimony or child support. His new wedding is to marry a 19-year old stripper he recently met in Vegas. Would you attend that wedding? Of course not. As you said, attending a wedding is traditionally construed as being a witness and celebrant of the event, and also implies that you will support the new union.

But what about Phillips? Generally, when you see a cake at a wedding you don't immediately think that it represents the baker's endorsement of the specific marriage.

But he thinks it does.  And so might others who appreciate the artistry of the "themed" cake.  

Let's take a look at a few themed cakes:

Let's put aside, for the moment, what anyone else might think of these cakes, or of the person who created them.

Would you, as an individual, be reluctant to make any of the above cakes?  

If so, would that reluctance be based on principle?

Might that reluctance also be based, to a lesser extent, on a concern that your making of it might give others the impression that you endorse these messages?

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So what about Phillips' religious impulses for baking? When somebody orders a cake from him, does he personally interview the happy couple and make sure that he personally supports their particular marriage and believes that God supports it, too?

Probably not.  But for him, I think, same-sex marriages are categorically improper.  It's a difference of kind, not degree.

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If so, then I would agree with you that Phillips is taking a principled position with gays.

I think it's hard to attribute any motive other than "principle" to Mr. Phillips.

• From this article: "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."
• And this article: "'If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,' Phillips told the television station. 'It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.'"
• And this article: "He also told the couple, 'I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.' He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman."
• And this article: "A Masterpiece employee did say, however, that they would be willing to make any other kind of celebratory cake for gay customers, as long as it was not for a wedding or commitment ceremony."

"Any other baked good."  "Birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduateions, or whatever [except same-sex weddings]."  "Birthday cakes, shower cakes, ... cookies and brownies."  "Any other kind of celebratory cake ... as long as it was not for a [gay] wedding or commitment ceremony."

How do you account for these statements?  I account for it by concluding that Mr. Phillips is acting on principle.  

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But if he bakes cakes for all straight couples like it is a business but refuses to bake cakes for gays out of principle, that seems a bit hypocritical.

That is not an accurate statement of his position.  See above.

Thanks,

-Smac