Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Update on Masterpiece Cake Shop Case


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Isn't Smith the ruling the President Oaks - as an Apostle - spoke against a Congressional hearing?

I assume you are referring to this (from the July 1992 Ensign) :

Quote

At the request of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve testified in support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on 13 May 1992. Only two other times has an LDS Church representative brought an official Church stance to Congress.

If passed, the bill, which has the sponsorship of 188 members of Congress and the support of a broad spectrum of religious and civil libertarian groups, would restore the standard that requires government officials to show a “compelling governmental interest” before interfering with religious practices.

The introduction of the bill came in the wake of the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith. The Court did away with the compelling governmental interest clause, ruling that a state need only show that its action advances a legitimate government policy.

The following is the text of Elder Oaks’s testimony before the subcommittee:

Hes remarks are worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 6/17/2021 at 10:44 AM, Daniel2 said:

Another update:

Colorado Baker Loses Case On Trans Birthday Cake

June 17, 2021

Denver’s CBS News affiliate reports:

A Colorado baker who won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a birthday cake for a transgender woman, a state judge has ruled.

Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones said Autumn Scardina was denied a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday because of her transgender status in violation of the law.

The Colorado Sun reports:

Scardina, an attorney, attempted to order the cake on the same day in 2017 that the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case.

Scardina said she wanted to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips statements that he would serve LGBT customers, but her attempt to get a cake was not a “set up” intended to file a lawsuit, Jones said.

The baker reportedly accepted the initial order for the cake but then refused to make it after being told what it was for. The cake was to bear no message. The fine is $500.
 

If the above reporting is all correct (and if anyone knows that any of the facts presented aren't, I'd love to hear any corrections), this new Masterpiece case seems to have several nuances that differ from the previous wedding cake case in which Jack Phillips prevailed in the Supreme Court based on the court finding he had been discriminated against based on religious bias.  As I see it, the differences are:

1) Mr. Phillips repeatedly said in his previous case in multiple court sessions that he does not discriminate against LGBT individuals and that he would absolutely bake birthday cakes for members of the LGBT community.

2) The birthday cake that was ordered had no writing or explicit message on it; rather, it was merely a pink cake with blue frosting.

3) The bakery initially accepted the order to bake a pink cake with blue frosting.

4) After learning what the pink cake with blue frosting meant to the customer (a celebration of the customer's transition from male to female), the bakery then cancelled the order and refused to bake the cake.

Presumably, then, the bakery had no problem baking pink cakes with blue frosting for members of the general public.  If it were a pink cake with blue frosting for any other occasion (a cis-gendered male or female's birthday; a baby shower; a wedding cake; a baptismal celebration; a confirmation; a graduation, etc.), Mr. Phillips apparently would have gladly created and sold the cake (as he initially accepted the order without objection to any inherent 'message' of a pink cake with blue frosting).

I understand some may feel that Scardina (a lawyer herself) singled Mr. Phillips out, but it appears she's fairly candid in admitting her initial intent was "to challenge the veracity of" Mr. Phillips' repeated claims in court he would not discriminate against LGBT individuals and would be happy to bake them "any other type of cake," including birthday cakes. It’s fair to believe that Mr. Phillips’ very public case and comments should have prepared him and his staff for these types of future scenarios. 

I'm not sure Mr. Phillips can make the case that he didn't explicitly refuse service to an individual solely on the basis of gender in the above circumstances, but I'm curious... are there any posters here who believe or maintain SCOTUS will rule in Phillips' favor, this time, if they even decide to take up his case? 

Did the District Judge get it right, and if so, why? 

Or did the District Judge get it wrong, and why?

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

My question to all this is if it were an actual birthday cake for years on earth birthday (not a celebration of transition or symbolic birthday) would he have refused?

And 2.  "Any other type of cake". Could we really have expected him to know that the pink/blue cakes would be a thing back then?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Rain said:

My question to all this is if it were an actual birthday cake for years on earth birthday (not a celebration of transition or symbolic birthday) would he have refused?

And 2.  "Any other type of cake". Could we really have expected him to know that the pink/blue cakes would be a thing back then?

First: does it matter if it were her actual birthday? Should the law consider it to be relevant?

Second: for what it’s worth, according to the article, the cake was “to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday.”

Third, so what if the meaning of pink cake with blue frosting changes over time or from one person or group of people to the next; if it’s message isn’t clear or explicit, should a baker be allowed to deny service on the basis of a protected class that they otherwise provide to members of the general public after they find out what an unclear message means to any given customer? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

First: does it matter if it were her actual birthday? Should the law consider it to be relevant?

If it matters with the law and religious reasons then yes, it should be considered relevant.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Second: for what it’s worth, according to the article, the cake was “to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday.”

That could make a huge difference.

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Third, so what if the meaning of pink cake with blue frosting changes over time or from one person or group of people to the next;

 

See my first answer.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

if it’s message isn’t clear or explicit, should a baker be allowed to deny service on the basis of a protected class that they otherwise provide to members of the general public after they find out what an unclear message means to any given customer? 

That's where it could be tricky.  I wondered from your first post how he found out.  If someone in the shop or a friend etc told him what it typically means that would be different than if the client later specifically told him. 

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Rain said:

If it matters with the law and religious reasons then yes, it should be considered relevant.

That could make a huge difference.

See my first answer.

 

That's where it could be tricky.  I wondered from your first post how he found out.  If someone in the shop or a friend etc told him what it typically means that would be different than if the client later specifically told him. 

The client explicitly told him what the cake was for to force the issue so she could sue him. She is an advocacy lawyer.

The history. https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-dildo-cake-other-bakeries-wouldnt-create-1077250

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The client explicitly told him what the cake was for

While in a car with someone else to be a witness

https://www.them.us/story/trans-woman-won-against-masterpiece-cakeshop-after-being-denied-service

Quote

Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop in June 2017 hoping that her good faith would be validated, but things went sour very quickly. She had a birthday coming up and decided to order a pink and blue cake to honor the date’s added significance to her: July 6 is also the anniversary of when she came out as a transgender woman. After detailing the size of the order and confirming with a representative that the bakery could fill it within that time frame, she says that she explained to a representative the “personal meaning” behind the requested design.

At that point, Scardina says that the woman taking the order “became very hostile” and immediately “shut it down.” She explained that Masterpiece would not be able to fulfill the request because it “violates their religious beliefs,” as Scardina recalls. She was in the car with her brother at the time and put the call on speaker, asking the worker to repeat what she said so he could hear. Scardina says the call was immediately disconnected.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Imagine that. Yes, as she stated, and as I stated previously, she is on record as declaring her intention was to see if Phillips would live up to his word as well as obey the law. And whether one disagrees with her actions or not, she is entirely free and within her rights to have done so, just as Rosa Parks did when she knowingly and intentionally refused to move to the back of the bus, and just as Dr. King and his followers knowingly and intentionally targeted sit ins at restaurants that refused to serve blacks.

The fact that Scardina intentionally chose to specifically test Phillips’ intent to follow the law on purpose is irrelevant to the legal questions I posed regarding the case.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

As with the first case, they targeted Mr. Phillips because of his religious beliefs. He would have baked the cake for them if they had not said it represented a gender transition. 

That violates his conscience and religious beliefs. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-there-only-one-baker-in-colorado-he-s-now-in-court-over-a-transgender-themed-cake/ar-BB1eVKaw
 

But, everyone must assimilate and comply. It’s the American way. Nevermind, she could get her cake just about anywhere else in a five mile radius. 

AC4BA6D4-B04B-44BF-96E0-37D4E1BF4875.jpeg

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

At what point does a burning fiery furnace become more humane than a never-ending series of targeted lawsuits?

As Dr. King and his followers demonstrated, sometimes the best way to effect change is to continue to press the issue targeting business that refuse to follow the law.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

As with the first case, they targeted Mr. Phillips because of his religious beliefs. He would have baked the cake for them if they had not said it represented a gender transition. 

That violates his conscience and religious beliefs. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-there-only-one-baker-in-colorado-he-s-now-in-court-over-a-transgender-themed-cake/ar-BB1eVKaw
 

But, everyone must assimilate and comply. It’s the American way. Nevermind, she could get her cake just about anywhere else in a five mile radius. 

AC4BA6D4-B04B-44BF-96E0-37D4E1BF4875.jpeg

Yes, everyone must follow anti-discrimination laws regarding public accommodation requirements. Those that choose to defy them are not unwitting victims, but intentional perpetrators, especially those that have already been through the process and should know as such.

Those pesky blacks… they could have eaten at any other black-friendly diner…. They targeted those poor (but racist) diner owners just because of the diner owners’ beliefs…

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

Given the stats on LGBT around 10% of the generic chocolate cakes he makes would be for LGBT people and have nothing to do with LGBT related functions, and he seems perfectly happy to do that.

But consider 4 options

1) a straight man orders a blue/pink cake to celebrate his 4yo twin boy and girl's birthday 

2) a straight man orders a blue/pink cake to celebrate his 20yo child's transition

3) a transperson orders a blue/pink cake to celebrate their 4yo twin boy and girl's birthday 

4) a transperson orders a blue/pink cake to celebrate their transition 


1 - everyday situation

3 - essentially my generic chocolate cake example at the start of my post 

4 - the situation that this lawsuit relates to

 

situation 2 is where it would get interesting

 

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Mr . Phillips would not bake 2 or 4. His objection is to messages/occasions not people.

Well that's what we expect. But if person 2 sued him, I wonder how this judge would rule. The straight man isn't a member of a protected class, and yet he's asking for essentially the thing as person 4.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Well that's what we expect. But if person 2 sued him, I wonder how this judge would rule. The straight man isn't a member of a protected class, and yet he's asking for essentially the thing as person 4.

That would be interesting.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

As Dr. King and his followers demonstrated, sometimes the best way to effect change is to continue to press the issue targeting business that refuse to follow the law.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Those that choose to defy them are not unwitting victims, but intentional perpetrators, especially those that have already been through the process and should know as such.

The last time that Mr Phillips was put 'through the process', he was vindicated under the law, and his fundamental right to freedom of conscience was upheld

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

The last time that Mr Phillips was put 'through the process', the law vindicated him, and his fundamental right to freedom of conscience was upheld

Not quite. The court ruled quite narrowly and found that:

In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

From wiki

Link to comment
On 6/20/2021 at 9:05 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

The last time that Mr Phillips was put 'through the process', he was vindicated under the law, and his fundamental right to freedom of conscience was upheld

As others have noted, Mr. Phillips’ specific discriminatory actions most definitely were NOT vindicated, instead SCOTUS ruled that a member of the Colorado Commission displayed animous towards Mr. Phillips based on what they found to be disparaging comments made about his Faith, and they therefore overturned the Commission’s ruling on those very narrow grounds. This was widely recognized by everyone on all/any/no sides of the issue at the time of the ruling itself. 

As such, the court absolutely did NOT authorize any fundamental right to violate anti-discrimination law based on religious beliefs. In fact, just the opposite was true, and everyone has been waiting for the next potential case in which the Court may actually rule on the merits.

Since then, the court has declined to take up other cases by religious business owners claiming a right to discriminate against same-sex weddings and has let the rulings against said business owners stand, leaving in place the fines and penalties imposed by lower courts (see the Arlene’s Flowers case). It’s possible we may never get another ruling if the court keeps dismissing these types of challenges.

It will be interesting to see if a) this new case against Phillips eventually makes its way back to SCOTUS, as he and his lawyers have vowed to do, and b) whether or nor the high court will chose to take it up, and c) if so, how they will rule.

My guess is that they probably won’t take the case and will let this newer ruling against Masterpiece (and that $500 fine) stand.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

As others have noted, Mr. Phillips’ specific discriminatory actions most definitely were NOT vindicated, instead SCOTUS ruled that a member of the Colorado Commission displayed animous towards Mr. Phillips based on what they found to be disparaging comments made about his Faith, and they therefore overturned the Commission’s ruling on those very narrow grounds. This was widely recognized by everyone on all/any/no sides of the issue at the time of the ruling itself. 

As such, the court absolutely did NOT authorize any fundamental right to violate anti-discrimination law based on religious beliefs. In fact, just the opposite was true, and everyone has been waiting for the next potential case in which the Court may actually rule on the merits.

Since then, the court has declined to take up other cases by religious business owners claiming a right to discriminate against same-sex weddings and has let the rulings against said business owners stand, leaving in place the fines and penalties imposed by lower courts (see the Arlene’s Flowers case). It’s possible we may never get another ruling if the court keeps dismissing these types of challenges.

It will be interesting to see if a) this new case against Phillips eventually makes its way back to SCOTUS, as he and his lawyers have vowed to do, and b) whether or nor the high court will chose to take it up, and c) if so, how they will rule.

My guess is that they probably won’t take the case and will let this newer ruling against Masterpiece and that $500 fine stand.

Great explanation.

I tend to wonder if SCOTUS will just keep dancing around the issues with legal technicalities that allows SCOTUS to not consider the merits.

Over all though, I can't see SCOTUS allowing individuals or non-exempt entities to discriminate based on religious beliefs. It just seems it would create chaos.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, provoman said:

Great explanation.

I tend to wonder if SCOTUS will just keep dancing around the issues with legal technicalities that allows SCOTUS to not consider the merits.

Over all though, I can't see SCOTUS allowing individuals or non-exempt entities to discriminate based on religious beliefs. It just seems it would create chaos.

I think you’re right on both counts; I think they’ll decline to take up most cases and let lower courts’ rulings stand.

And I agree that it would be chaos to allow individuals and non-exempt entities to discriminate based on religious beliefs.  In fact, if it did so, it would destroy religion as a protected class itself, since allowing discrimination based on religious belief is and would be, itself, explicitly allowing religious discrimination.  That’s the paradox here: to uphold freedom of religion, the law must not allow religious belief to be a legitimate reason to legalize discrimination.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...