Update on Masterpiece Cake Shop Case

[smac97]

On 3/12/2021 at 2:27 PM, Amulek said:

Apparently, rainbow themed layered cakes are always out - even if you're a straight little girl who just wants all the colors of the rainbow. (link)

That would militate in favor of Philips, since it is the message he finds objectionable, not the person requesting it.

Quote

That being said, I don't know that Phillips actually sells "generic" wedding cakes.

Well, he might.  Hard to say.

As I recall he also said he would sell brownies and such for a gay wedding, but not a wedding cake.

Quote

And I think that's probably where things start to break down.

Legally speaking, perhaps.  If I, while living in Colorado, make a generic wedding cake and offer it for sale to a white person but not to a black person, then I have discriminated.  But if I make and sell generic, essentially message-free cakes to anyone, I'm good.

The Free Speech angle comes into focus here.  

Quote

I believe he's more than happy to sell any pre-made cake (or any other pre-made pastry/cake/etc. that he sells) to anyone who walks into his store - regardless of who they are or how they intend to use it. 

That my be true.

Quote

But when it comes to custom cakes, "If asked to design a cake that celebrates an event or expresses a message in conflict with my faith, I’m obliged as a matter of conscience to decline." (link)

Yep.

Quote

Quote

How do you think Craig/Mullins would have responded?

Not well. But they would have had a much harder time attempting to litigate - especially if Phillips could demonstrate (as it seems he could) that he doesn't sell rainbow layered cakes to anyone at all.

I dunno.  I can't help but think that the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission was out to punish Philips, and would have arrived at the same conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 15, 2021 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/5/2021 at 2:42 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

I'd like them* to actually have the guts to set something down about whether people can or can't do it. The longer they come out with opinions saying that there were procedural issues upstream so it doesn't matter, then the longer people are going to be dragged through courts for things like this.

*A majority of Justices on the United States Supreme Court.

This.

[Kenngo1969]

As I said on the "School Says Terms 'Mom' and 'Dad' are Out" thread, I think this whole thing is simply yet another illustration of the Orwellian world of Crimespeak and Crimethink in which, now, we live.  Not only must one not think unapproved thoughts or not speak unapproved words, one has the right to insist that a third party think approved thoughts and say approved words, and to use the government to compel such thoughts and words.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As I said on the "School Says Terms 'Mom' and 'Dad' are Out" thread, I think this whole thing is simply yet another illustration of the Orwellian world of Crimespeak and Crimethink in which, now, we live.  Not only must one not think unapproved thoughts or not speak unapproved words, one has the right to insist that a third party think approved thoughts and say approved words, and to use the government to compel such thoughts and words.

No.

[Kenngo1969]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No.

Well, if that's what passes for a reasoned argument in your world, happily, I'll leave you to it.

P.S.: I didn't ask any questions, so I'm not sure what question you believe you are answering, but, again, I'll leave you to it.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, if that's what passes for a reasoned argument in your world, happily, I'll leave you to it.

P.S.: I didn't ask any questions, so I'm not sure what question you believe you are answering, but, again, I'll leave you to it.

I was disagreeing. This is in no way Orwellian. It wasn’t done by the government, it is not enforced by law, vocabulary and language are not being restricted and restructured so verbal dissent is impossible, and there is no gaslighting that “we have always only used the term guardian”. I find myself drawing a complete blank on how this can possibly be Orwellian. It is impossible to know what Orwell would think of politics today but I am pretty sure that with his deep sense of self-correcting honesty he would be unlikely to be interested in click-bait articles or of having his work about totalitarianism associated as being a warning about them.

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was disagreeing. This is in no way Orwellian. It wasn’t done by the government, it is not enforced by law, vocabulary and language are not being restricted and restructured so verbal dissent is impossible, and there is no gaslighting that “we have always only used the term guardian”. I find myself drawing a complete blank on how this can possibly be Orwellian. It is impossible to know what Orwell would think of politics today but I am pretty sure that with his deep sense of self-correcting honesty he would be unlikely to be interested in click-bait articles or of having his work about totalitarianism associated as being a warning about them.

Congratulations on your ability to read Orwell's mind.  I'll leave you to that, as well.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Congratulations on your ability to read Orwell's mind.  I'll leave you to that, as well.

So you categorize something as Orwellian suggesting it is possible to understand what Orwell thought or meant. I respond with a correction and a strong supposition (“I am pretty sure”) based on reading a lot of Orwell and you rebut by saying it is ridiculous to even imagine anyone can know what Orwell meant. Aren’t you destroying your own statement?

Edited March 14, 2021 by The Nehor

[Kenngo1969]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you categorize something as Orwellian suggesting it is possible to understand what Orwell thought or meant. I respond with a correction and a strong supposition (“I am pretty sure”) based on reading a lot of Orwell and you rebut by saying it is ridiculous to even imagine anyone can know what Orwell meant. Aren’t you destroying your own statement?

Again, congratulations on your ability to read Orwell's mind.  I'll leave you to it.

[mrmarklin]

On 3/10/2021 at 8:57 AM, The Nehor said:

Don't force me to serve 'coloreds'. That's slavery.

True. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

True. 

False.

[longview]

On 3/13/2021 at 5:27 PM, The Nehor said:

I was disagreeing. This is in no way Orwellian. It wasn’t done by the government, it is not enforced by law, vocabulary and language are not being restricted and restructured so verbal dissent is impossible, and there is no gaslighting that “we have always only used the term guardian”. I find myself drawing a complete blank on how this can possibly be Orwellian. It is impossible to know what Orwell would think of politics today but I am pretty sure that with his deep sense of self-correcting honesty he would be unlikely to be interested in click-bait articles or of having his work about totalitarianism associated as being a warning about them.

This is a cheap and facile COP OUT.  It is partially done by government.  If it is not being approved by the people or the legislature, then it is sneaked in by activist courts.  It is an entire COMPLEX consisting of the government (DEEP STATE), the dominant media, progressive multi-national corporations, numerous entrenched radical college professors, Hollywood agitation, steadfast corruption in our culture, paid street thugs, false flag operators, social engineers, and a large cast of small time "Karens" all marching in lockstep to push for ever more "transformations" of our world.  They get to dictate what is politically correct (and it is ever changing for the sake of making it even more subversive).

The COMPLEX is seriously ORWELLIAN from top to bottom and through and through.  People have lost their jobs, their homes, been hounded out of leadership roles at universities.  Several businesses have been sued and forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for claiming their Constitutional rights for self-expression, freedom of association, property rights, and everything that belongs to us by natural law.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

This is a cheap and facile COP OUT.  It is partially done by government.  If it is not being approved by the people or the legislature, then it is sneaked in by activist courts.  It is an entire COMPLEX consisting of the government (DEEP STATE), the dominant media, progressive multi-national corporations, numerous entrenched radical college professors, Hollywood agitation, steadfast corruption in our culture, paid street thugs, false flag operators, social engineers, and a large cast of small time "Karens" all marching in lockstep to push for ever more "transformations" of our world.  They get to dictate what is politically correct (and it is ever changing for the sake of making it even more subversive).

The COMPLEX is seriously ORWELLIAN from top to bottom and through and through.  People have lost their jobs, their homes, been hounded out of leadership roles at universities.  Several businesses have been sued and forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for claiming their Constitutional rights for self-expression, freedom of association, property rights, and everything that belongs to us by natural law.

Put on your aluminum hat. That will block the mind control rays.

University professors lost their jobs because people don’t like what they said. That is normal society. I am sorry that you are under the delusion that some views are privileged and immune to economic consequences. As to the businesses losing all that money maybe they should stop trying to overturn the Civil Rights Movement?

[Kenngo1969]

If there is enough of an imbalance of power between the entity wielding the power and the entity or person against whom the power is being wielded, then, as I see it, it makes little difference whether the government is the entity approving or disapproving of the opinion, of the speech, of the word choice, of the entity or individual engaging in an expression, and so on.  In these cases, whoever has come up with the "speech codes" (These words are approved, and these words are forbidden) is the entity wielding the power, and the person or entity against whom the "speech codes" are enforced is the entity against whom that power is being wielded. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Put on your aluminum hat. That will block the mind control rays.

University professors lost their jobs because people don’t like what they said. That is normal society. I am sorry that you are under the delusion that some views are privileged and immune to economic consequences. As to the businesses losing all that money maybe they should stop trying to overturn the Civil Rights Movement?

So much for universities being forums for free thought and free expression, then. 

[The Nehor]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

So much for universities being forums for free thought and free expression, then. 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hey, if libeling people you don't know and have never met is what blows your skirt up, have at it, Honeybunch!

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hey, if libeling people you don't know and have never met is what blows your skirt up, have at it, Honeybunch!

As a kilt-wearer I am offended by this metaphor.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, pulling the NAZI card. 
 

Didn’t there used to be a board reg about this? Something to do with Godwin’s Law? 

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ah, pulling the NAZI card. 
 

Didn’t there used to be a board reg about this? Something to do with Godwin’s Law? 

I don't know if it's a Board rule, but, yes, there is: Godwin's Law.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[AtlanticMike]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As a kilt-wearer I am offended by this metaphor.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ah, pulling the NAZI card. 
 

Didn’t there used to be a board reg about this? Something to do with Godwin’s Law? 

The creator of Godwin’s Law specifically clarified that it is allowed when referring to actual Nazis or Nazi-adjacent persons.

[halconero]

For anyone interested in this case, or the concept of rights and privileges in general, this is a good listen I am working my way through:

https://overcast.fm/+OF1zkFfeE
 

It covers how the courts in the US have become de facto super-legislatures, and have driven polarization around values that should be hashed out in the legislature. They bring up a similar cake case in Northern Ireland, and abortion in Germany. In both cases, the courts found in favour of the more conservative position, but notably, their decisions focused on resolving the conflict of rights rather than one trumping the other, and asked the public to hashout a legal framework.

I thought it was noteworthy and a thoughtful dicussion.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

For anyone interested in this case, or the concept of rights and privileges in general, this is a good listen I am working my way through:

https://overcast.fm/+OF1zkFfeE
 

It covers how the courts in the US have become de facto super-legislatures, and have driven polarization around values that should be hashed out in the legislature. They bring up a similar cake case in Northern Ireland, and abortion in Germany. In both cases, the courts found in favour of the more conservative position, but notably, their decisions focused on resolving the conflict of rights rather than one trumping the other, and asked the public to hashout a legal framework.

I thought it was noteworthy and a thoughtful dicussion.

What?

Actually let legislatures, like, do stuff? 

Why, that's just crazy talk!

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What?

Actually let legislatures, like, do stuff? 

Why, that's just crazy talk!

Also impossible until we nuke the filibuster.

(Insert cackling evil laugh here)