smac97 Posted December 15, 2022 Share Posted December 15, 2022 (edited) Back in February I said this: Quote I am not persuaded that the Free Speech clause can be endlessly applied to create exemptions from anti-discrimination statutes. In some circumstances I could see it becoming a pretext rather than a good faith thing. However, I also believe that the First Amendment, particularly as pertaining to compelled speech, ought to generally trump anti-discrimination statutes. To the extent there is a contest between the two, the latter should give way to the former. I also think that gay people are generally entitled to the same rights as everyone else. I also think anti-discrimination statutes are being utilized to target and punish religious people because of their religious beliefs and because of the content of their speech. I also think that the free market is a better means of easing this tension than the courts. And this (same link) : Quote I predict that at some point there will be a series of "turnabout is fair play" events where an "LGBT-friendly" business is asked to bake a cake or design a website that contravenes the preferences and sentiments held by that business as pertaining to some social controversy. That business will refuse the request, and will then be sued under an anti-discrimination statute. For example, let's say that a private religious group wants to stage an event endorsing the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. Decorative cakes will be ordered, banners will be designed, literature will be prepared. The religious identity of the group will be plain and clear. The religious character of the messaging in the items ordered will likewise be clear. I am curious what the federal court would say in that instance. It looks like this "turnabout is fair play" stuff may be happening. See here: Gay-friendly restaurant refuses to serve Christians … What happened to “bake the cake, bigot”? Quote In the recent oral arguments of 303 Creative v. Elenis, our newest Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, concocted a hypothetical situation as she grilled lawyers representing a Christian website owner that doesn't build websites for same-sex marriages. In Jackson's make-believe scenario, an old Christian lady named Helen started a business called "Grandma Helen's Protestant Provisions" and, as the name implies, catered only to Protestant Christians. Jackson pressed attorney Kristen Waggoner whether Helen could deny non-Protestants her food. Waggoner did an honorable job explaining to the esteemed justice that she was comparing apples and oranges. In Jackson's scenario, Helen isn't engaging in speech, and compelling her to serve everyone isn't government-compelled speech. In the case of the website company, it is clearly an example of compelled speech if the government forces a Christian to create something that celebrates a sinful act. Justice Gorsuch further clarified that same point, explaining that Lorie Smith (the Christian website owner) is "an individual who says she will sell and does sell to everyone, all manner of websites, (but) that she won't sell a website that requires her to express a view about marriage that she finds offensive." It's an almost identical philosophical argument as existed with Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips. The shop served all customers – gay, straight, and every which way in-between. But, as a professing Christian, what Phillips refused to do was create a specialty cake with language that celebrated a sinful union. The government attempted to compel him to engage in speech that it preferred, but he resisted. Although there are certainly "religious" (and hence Free Exercise) elements in the Cake Wars, I think the more pertinent and central legal issue is Free Speech (more specifically, the right to resist compelled speech). Quote There are, of course, a multitude of questions rational people can and should ask about these kinds of situations. For instance, is there anyone who pretends this isn't targeting by LGBT activists? There are a multitude of cake shops and a bevy of website designers to choose from, after all. Yet curiously, the offended gay couple always seems utterly disinterested in supporting small businesses that support them. That seems counterproductive, no? Beyond that, the attempt to use the gun of government to compel speech that we like portends a frightening future for freedom of association. Should the government be able to force Jewish cleaners to clean the offices of a neo-Nazi organization if they refuse? Should the government be able to force an atheist landlord to rent his property to a church if he doesn't want to? Should the government be able to force an electrician who is a retired cop to do re-wiring for the BLM "Defund the Police" headquarters? Should the government be able to force a homosexual florist to provide Easter lilies for churches that renounce homosexuality? Fair questions, these. Fair and difficult. Here's where the "turnabout" stuff may be coming in: Quote It's that last question that perhaps deserves the most attention given that it really isn't a hypothetical situation at all. In hindsight, I wish Kristen Waggoner would have responded to Justice Jackson by asking her thoughts on Metzger Bar and Butchery. Imagine the scene in the courtroom as Waggoner read the Richmond, Virginia restaurant's recent social media post aloud: Just 90 minutes before the Christian ministry's private party was set to begin, the Bar and Butchery canceled on them because their LGBT staff members didn't want to serve Christians. From the "canceled on them" link: Quote The head of a conservative Christian group in Virginia is speaking out after members of her organization were turned away from a restaurant based solely on their religious views. Victoria Cobb, president of the non-profit Christian lobbying organization Family Foundation of Virginia, told Fox News Digital that several members of her group were scheduled to hold a private event at a side room at Metzger Bar and Butchery in Richmond, Virginia when they received a call an hour and a half before the reservation saying their reservation had been canceled. The reason given for the cancelation, according to Cobb, was that a member of the staff at the restaurant had looked up the organization’s website, which states that the group advocates “for policies based on Biblical principles that enable families to flourish at the state and local level”, prompting the wait staff to refuse to serve the group. “It’s alarming and disgraceful that a restaurant has a religious or political litmus test for who gets in the door,” Cobb told Fox News Digital. “I think people will find that very disturbing.” Metzger Bar & Butchery acknowledged in a social media post that they had in fact canceled the reservation due to the religious beliefs and political advocacy of the foundation. A few thoughts: First, the Metzger Bar framed their refusal of service as pertaining to the group being a "political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ of their basic human rights." Second, the Metzger Bar justified their refusal of service as follows: "We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe." Third, I think this justification opens a huge can of worms. From the first article above: Quote They felt "uncomfortable" and "unsafe." Is that the new standard? Should Jack Phillips simply tell gay couples that he feels "uncomfortable" and "unsafe" making a cake for them? Ditto that for Lorie Smith and her websites? If that defense is reasonable in the eyes of the law, how can religious expression not be? Remember it was President Bill Clinton who said this while signing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993: "Our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties." These are fair questions. Quote It's clear that a new day has dawned in America: One where the government seems content to force Christians like Jack Phillips or Lorie Smith to choose between their convictions and their way of life. One where Christian ministries like the Family Foundation of Virginia can have their events canceled 90 minutes before they start simply because they hold orthodox Christian beliefs. Well, maybe. I wonder if the Family Foundation of Virginia to consider Section 2.2-3904(B) of the Virginia Code ("Nondiscrimination in places of public accommodation; definitions"), which states: Quote It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, including the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation, to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual, or to attempt to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual, directly or indirectly, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation, or to segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof, or to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail, either directly or indirectly, any communication, notice, or advertisement to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services of any such place shall be refused, withheld from, or denied to any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability, or military status. "Public accommodations" are defined in the statute as "all places or businesses offering or holding out to the general public goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations." Let's shorten the language a bit: Quote It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person ... of any place of public accommodation, to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual... any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation, or to segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof ... on the basis ... religion. This seems applicable to what the Metzger Bar did to the group. Unlike the Jack Phillips case, however, there does not seem to be much of a "Free Speech" component to the dispute. Again from the "canceled on them" link: Quote Victoria Cobb, president of the non-profit Christian lobbying organization Family Foundation of Virginia, told Fox News Digital that several members of her group were scheduled to hold a private event at a side room at Metzger Bar and Butchery in Richmond, Virginia when they received a call an hour and a half before the reservation saying their reservation had been canceled. ... “It’s alarming and disgraceful that a restaurant has a religious or political litmus test for who gets in the door,” Cobb told Fox News Digital. “I think people will find that very disturbing.” ... Cobb told Fox News Digital her group firmly believes in treating everyone with respect and took issue with the explanation provided by the restaurant. “It’s so amazingly hypocritical to pride yourself on creating an inclusive environment and announce that in order to defend how you exclude people from your restaurant,” Cobb said. Cobb said that if her group had been allowed to eat at the establishment the waiting staff would have encountered a “group of very kind people who treated them well and would have tipped them well.” “Virginia’s discrimination laws do have clear, it could be a very clear violation of religious discrimination,” Cobb said. “Because that’s what you find on our website, that all of our viewpoints are directly and intentionally taken from biblical admonitions and that we’re a faith-based organization.” Cobb has a pretty solid point here, but so far she is only doing a bit of saber-rattling. I wonder if the time has come to actually start pushing back a bit. Quote Since the incident went public, the Family Foundation says they have been inundated with hateful messages, dozens of which were obtained by Fox News Digital. “F*** you, f*** your religion,” one message with the subject line “kill yourself” stated. “Every single one of you should face retribution.” Another message referred to the group as “bible toting freaks” and used the phrase “Hail Satan!” Cobb says she has not received any communication from the restaurant since the incident and would be “happy to chat” with ownership “any time” about the situation. I think religious individuals and groups who are being genuinely discriminated against ought to start pushing back. Calmly. Using the law. With measured words and reasoned arguments. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Edited December 15, 2022 by smac97 3 Link to comment
Teancum Posted December 15, 2022 Share Posted December 15, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think religious individuals and groups who are being genuinely discriminated against ought to start pushing back. Calmly. Using the law. With measured words and reasoned arguments. As you outlined it is a difficult issue. ON the other hand I see many religious people, including some here, cheer for those who want to discriminate and not provide services based on their religion. Why shouldn't someone who objects to the positions that come from some religious people be able to do the same? As a professional service provider there are likely some that I would not want to take on as a client. I would not want to do work for a white supremist group for example. So where do we draw the line and why should someone with religious views that are offensive to the service provider be exempted? Link to comment
rockpond Posted December 15, 2022 Share Posted December 15, 2022 @smac97 Great summary of, as you correctly put it, a really difficult issue. Similarly, I have concerns about where the courts are going with the conflict between 1st amendment and anti-discrimination laws. It's so frustrating that activists are going after these business owners. There is no shortage of great bakeries and web designers in the Denver area who will gladly do LGBT-themed designs. I had not heard about the Metzger Bar case... I'd love to see that go through the court system like Masterpiece and 303 Creative to get some attention on this issue from the other perspective. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 15, 2022 Share Posted December 15, 2022 People were eager to whittle away at anti-discrimination statutes when they didn’t think anyone would discriminate against them. That bit about digging a pit for your neighbor and then falling into it yourself might apply I suppose. Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 15, 2022 Author Share Posted December 15, 2022 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Quote I think religious individuals and groups who are being genuinely discriminated against ought to start pushing back. Calmly. Using the law. With measured words and reasoned arguments. As you outlined it is a difficult issue. Broadly, yes. But there are times when the discrimination is pretty clear-cut, such as the story in the OP. 1 minute ago, Teancum said: ON the other hand I see many religious people, including some here, cheer for those who want to discriminate and not provide services based on their religion. Well, no. Unlawful discrimination is not really at issue here. Instead, the issue is Free Speech (more specifically, resisting compelled speech). 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Why shouldn't someone who objects to the positions that come from some religious people be able to do the same? If unlawful discrimination is going on, then two wrongs do not make a right. Alternatively, if resisting compelled speech is lawful (and I think it is), then responding to such resistant with unlawful discrimination is not right. 1 minute ago, Teancum said: As a professional service provider there are likely some that I would not want to take on as a client. And as long as you are not refusing to take on clients due to unlawful discrimination, you have that the right. 1 minute ago, Teancum said: I would not want to do work for a white supremist group for example. Nor would I. 1 minute ago, Teancum said: So where do we draw the line and why should someone with religious views that are offensive to the service provider be exempted? The lines are drawn in the statute: Quote It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person ... of any place of public accommodation, to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual... any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation, or to segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof ... on the basis ... race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability, or military status. So none of these seem to work: "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with religious views that are offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {race or skin color or national origin that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {a sex or gender identity that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {a pregnancy or childbirth or related medical conditions that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {an age that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {a sexual orientation that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {a marital status that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {a disability that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" "So where do we draw the line and why should someone with {a military status that is} offensive to the service provider be exempted?" Again, unlawful discrimination is not really at issue here. Instead, the issue is Free Speech (more specifically, resisting compelled speech). Regarding Unlawful Discrimination: No, you cannot "refuse, withhold from, or deny" the "accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation" where the refusal/withholding/denial is based on the foregoing attributes of the prospective customer. Regarding the Exercise of Free Speech Rights: Yes, you can decline to speak things you do not want to speak. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Buckeye Posted December 15, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted December 15, 2022 The line should be drawn at speech (religious or otherwise). I may hate Illinois Nazis (see blues brothers reference) but if I’m an oil change shop I have to serve their vehicles the same as anyone else. My services are not speech. Same goes with the Virginia restaurant. Businesses can not refuse service because of who the customer is, but they can choose to not engage in speech they sincerely disagree with. From one of my favorite books and movies, A Man For All Seasons: William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!” Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!” Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! 5 Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 16, 2022 Author Share Posted December 16, 2022 5 hours ago, rockpond said: @smac97 Great summary of, as you correctly put it, a really difficult issue. Similarly, I have concerns about where the courts are going with the conflict between 1st amendment and anti-discrimination laws. So am I. The latter are well-intended, but can be rather easily misused to contravene the former, as we saw in the Jack Phillips case. 5 hours ago, rockpond said: It's so frustrating that activists are going after these business owners. There is no shortage of great bakeries and web designers in the Denver area who will gladly do LGBT-themed designs. Yep. As I noted in the OP: "I also think that gay people are generally entitled to the same rights as everyone else. I also think anti-discrimination statutes are being utilized to target and punish religious people because of their religious beliefs and because of the content of their speech. I also think that the free market is a better means of easing this tension than the courts." 5 hours ago, rockpond said: I had not heard about the Metzger Bar case... I'd love to see that go through the court system like Masterpiece and 303 Creative to get some attention on this issue from the other perspective. Honestly, I don't think the Metzger Bar case has much value as precedent. It does not present any novel question of law. It's straight-up religious discrimination, that's all. I would rather see the Metzger Bar case resolved at the local level. Sue 'em, teach 'em a lesson without inflicting ruinous protracted litigation on 'em, then carry on with life. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 16, 2022 Author Share Posted December 16, 2022 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: People were eager to whittle away at anti-discrimination statutes And other people are eager to whittle away at the First Amendment. 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: when they didn’t think anyone would discriminate against them. I don't think the predominant issue here is discrimination. I think the more pertinent and central legal issue is Free Speech (more specifically, the right to resist compelled speech). 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: That bit about digging a pit for your neighbor and then falling into it yourself might apply I suppose. I don't see how. Most people these days are content with nondiscrimination statutes. I think they become less content when those statutes are (mis)used to contravene the First Amendment (again, as we saw in the Jack Phillips case). Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted December 16, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted December 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: The line should be drawn at speech (religious or otherwise). I may hate Illinois Nazis (see blues brothers reference) but if I’m an oil change shop I have to serve their vehicles the same as anyone else. My services are not speech. Same goes with the Virginia restaurant. Businesses can not refuse service because of who the customer is, but they can choose to not engage in speech they sincerely disagree with. From one of my favorite books and movies, A Man For All Seasons: William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!” Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!” Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! I'm thinking along the same line. There is a difference between supporting something you disagree with and engaging or serving someone who holds beliefs you don't agree with. Having to design a car that advertises for the KKK is, in my opinion, different than serving someone who is a member of the KKK breakfast. 7 Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 16, 2022 Author Share Posted December 16, 2022 2 hours ago, Buckeye said: The line should be drawn at speech (religious or otherwise). I may hate Illinois Nazis (see blues brothers reference) but if I’m an oil change shop I have to serve their vehicles the same as anyone else. My services are not speech. Same goes with the Virginia restaurant. Yep. This is one of the prices to be paid for living in a pluralistic society. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 16, 2022 Share Posted December 16, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And other people are eager to whittle away at the First Amendment. I don't think the predominant issue here is discrimination. I think the more pertinent and central legal issue is Free Speech (more specifically, the right to resist compelled speech). I don't see how. Most people these days are content with nondiscrimination statutes. I think they become less content when those statutes are (mis)used to contravene the First Amendment (again, as we saw in the Jack Phillips case). Thanks, -Smac We’ll see how this goes. Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 16, 2022 Author Share Posted December 16, 2022 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: We’ll see how this goes. I don't anticipate it going very far. Either the Christian group will turn the other cheek and not file suit, or they will and the case will be resolved fairly quickly. I don't think the case has much value as precedent. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 16, 2022 Share Posted December 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't anticipate it going very far. Either the Christian group will turn the other cheek and not file suit, or they will and the case will be resolved fairly quickly. I don't think the case has much value as precedent. Thanks, -Smac I meant this conflict in general. Link to comment
Daniel2 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) Another update on a related case… As noted, The Alliance Defending Freedom has vowed to appeal, so we’ll see where it goes from here: Colorado appeals court rules against Jack Phillips, Masterpiece Cakeshop in trans cake case; baker to appeal By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor A three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled against Christian baker Jack Phillips, having concluded that he was wrong to refuse, on religious grounds, to bake a cake celebrating transgenderism. In a decision released Thursday, Judge Timothy Schutz authored the panel's opinion affirming an earlier trial court decision against Phillips, concluding that the baker violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by not creating a cake to celebrate a person's new trans identity. A complaint was lodged against Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop after a man who self-identified as a woman and changed his name to Autumn Scardina demanded that the baker create a cake with the colors of the trans flag in pink and blue frosting to celebrate Scardina’s self-professed sexual identity. “Scardina testified [he] requested a custom pink and blue cake with no message or other design elements. The trial court found that Debra agreed to make that cake but then retracted the commitment once Scardina told her what the cake was for,” wrote Schutz. “It was only after Scardina disclosed that [he] was transgender and intended to use the cake to celebrate both [his] birthday and [his] transition that Masterpiece and Phillips refused to provide the cake. Thus, it was Scardina’s transgender status, and [his] desire to use the cake in celebration of that status, that caused Masterpiece and Phillips to refuse to provide the cake.” The appeals court rejected Phillips’ claims that he was being forced to convey a message that went against his beliefs because the cake he was asked to make “expressed no message,” adding that “not all conduct constitutes speech.” Phillips had previously won a United States Supreme Court case in 2018 that centered on his refusal to bake a wedding cake that celebrated a same-sex marriage in 2012 when same-sex marriage was not legal in Colorado. https://www.christianpost.com/news/appeals-court-rules-against-jack-phillips-in-trans-cake-lawsuit.html Edited January 26 by Daniel2 Link to comment
Danzo Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 sounds like a setup to me. What trans person in his right mind would do this to the baker for any other reason than to provoke a response. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, Danzo said: sounds like a setup to me. What trans person in his right mind would do this to the baker for any other reason than to provoke a response. Of course it was deliberate. Most of these cases are. 1 Link to comment
Danzo Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Of course it was deliberate. Most of these cases are. Unfortunately. Too much energy being spent by the Judicial System trying to make case law out of what are essentially personal vendettas. Link to comment
california boy Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Someone made the statement recently "If you can eat what you produce, then it is not art." Hard to make the case that a plain pink and blue cake with no writing on it is a work of art. Is every cake made a piece of art? Can a piece of bubble gum become a work of art if the person chewing it is LGBT? Link to comment
Popular Post Buckeye Posted January 27 Popular Post Share Posted January 27 I’m with the court on this one. The fact that he was willing to make the cake at first, but only changed when he learned the purpose from the buyer, shows this isn’t his speech objection. He would create the cake for a celebration of twins, for instance. But not for a trans celebration. That’s discrimination based on the customer. Not allowed. 5 Link to comment
bsjkki Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 They said the cake wasn’t ‘speech.’ If that is true, why did they want a blue and pink cake? The colors in this circumstance contained a message. Once he knew the message the cake represented, he did not want to participate in the message delivery. I am pro free speech and against compelled speech. 2 Link to comment
bsjkki Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: That’s discrimination based on the customer. Actually not. He would bake a birthday cake for a trans person. 2 Link to comment
Daniel2 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 18 hours ago, Buckeye said: I’m with the court on this one. The fact that he was willing to make the cake at first, but only changed when he learned the purpose from the buyer, shows this isn’t his speech objection. He would create the cake for a celebration of twins, for instance. But not for a trans celebration. That’s discrimination based on the customer. Not allowed. Agreed. I think this is a clear cut case of a custom-colored cake NOT being speech. Regardless of what a cake symbolizes to the recipient, if a baker is willing to make the exact same custom cake for someone else, I think it’s clear they can’t refuse service to another customer based on the meaning behind the occasion being celebrated. A baker who’s happy to bake a custom white cake with white frosting to celebrate a Catholic’s first communion (or any other occasion) could not refuse to sell the very same custom white cake with white frosting to celebrate a Latter-day Saint’s baptism without violating public accommodation laws—and rightly so, IMO. Edited January 27 by Daniel2 3 Link to comment
Daniel2 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 22 hours ago, Danzo said: sounds like a setup to me. What trans person in his right mind would do this to the baker for any other reason than to provoke a response. 22 hours ago, The Nehor said: Of course it was deliberate. Most of these cases are. Indeed. This case, like many cases on both sides of the issue, are custom-engineered to both craft and challenge legal precedent (see here for one just so from the conservative side) Mr. Phillips and his company certainly aren’t hurting for money, full financial and legal backing, business, or famous accolades/notoriety (depending on one’s viewpoint). 😉 Edited January 27 by Daniel2 2 Link to comment
smac97 Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 19 hours ago, Buckeye said: I’m with the court on this one. I think I am, too. 19 hours ago, Buckeye said: The fact that he was willing to make the cake at first, but only changed when he learned the purpose from the buyer, shows this isn’t his speech objection. He would create the cake for a celebration of twins, for instance. But not for a trans celebration. That’s discrimination based on the customer. Not allowed. From the decision: Quote Scardina stated she wanted to purchase a custom birthday cake for six to eight people and that she would need it in a few weeks. Scardina ordered a pink cake with blue frosting. She did not request that the cake contain any words, symbols, or details — just a pink cake with blue frosting. Debra confirmed that Masterpiece could make the requested cake. Scardina then told Debra that the custom birthday cake had personal significance, reflecting Scardina’s birthday as well as celebrating her transition from male to female. Debra replied that she did not think the shop could make the cake “because of the message” and said she would get Phillips on the phone. Before Phillips could speak to Scardina, the call was disconnected. When Scardina called back, Eldfrick answered. Scardina again requested a custom pink and blue cake celebrating her birthday and her transition from a man to a woman. Eldfrick explained that the shop could not make the requested cake. Phillips never spoke to Scardina regarding the requested cake. He testified, however, that he “won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with [his] Bible’s teachings” and that “he believes that God designed people male and female, that a person’s gender is biologically determined.” For these reasons, Phillips testified, he will not create a custom cake to celebrate a gender transition. More generally, Phillips agreed that a pink cake with blue frosting has no “particular inherent meaning” and does not express any message. The trial court found that Phillips would make the same pink and blue cake for other customers and would even sell an identical premade (as opposed to custom ordered) cake to Scardina, even if she disclosed the purpose of the cake. ... Scardina testified she requested a custom pink and blue cake with no message or other design elements. The trial court found that Debra agreed to make that cake but then retracted the commitment once Scardina told her what the cake was for. In a similar vein, Phillips testified he would make the same custom pink and blue cake for other customers. He stated he would make the cake if he did not know why the cake was being used, and, most critically, Phillips acknowledged that a pink cake with blue frosting “has no intrinsic meaning and does not express any message.” It was only after Scardina disclosed that she was transgender and intended to use the cake to celebrate both her birthday and her transition that Masterpiece and Phillips refused to provide the cake. Thus, it was Scardina’s transgender status, and her desire to use the cake in celebration of that status, that caused Masterpiece and Phillips to refuse to provide the cake. I think the admitted lack of "intrinsic meaning" and no "express{ed} message" is the operative conclusion. By way of contrast, it may help to compare Scardina's requested cake described above (" just a pink cake with blue frosting") with the her purported initial requests back in 2017: Quote According to a verified complaint filed today by my old colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, on June 26, 2017 — the very day the Supreme Court granted Jack’s request to review his wedding-cake case — a lawyer named Autumn Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop and “asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a custom cake with ‘a blue exterior and a pink interior’ — a cake ‘design’ that, according to the lawyer,” reflected “the fact that [the lawyer] transitioned from male-to-female and that [the lawyer] had come out as transgender.” Lest anyone wonder whether this request was made in good faith, consider that this same person apparently made a number of requests to Masterpiece Cakeshop. In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name “Scardina” appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme — except featuring “an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer.” This same emailer reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.” On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request: I’m thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don’t have the means to procure one yourself. And finally, two days later, a person identifying as “Autumn Marie” visited Phillips’s shop and requested a cake featuring a pentagram. According to ADF, “Phillips believes that person was Autumn Scardina.” Hard to definitively say how much of this is attributable to Scardina. Anyway, I could see Phillips feeling like he was just being harassed. And he very well may have been. But a pink cake with blue frosting that even Phillips agrees has no "intrinsic meaning" and no "express{ed} message" seems to take this case out of the "Free Speech" realm. Thanks, -Smac 3 Link to comment
smac97 Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 (edited) From the website of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the law firm representing Mr. Phillips: Quote Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips will appeal Thursday’s state appeals court decision that would force him to express messages that violate his beliefs. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop had asked the Colorado Court of Appeals to uphold his First Amendment rights after a trial court issued a ruling that punished Phillips for declining to design a custom cake celebrating a gender transition. I really like ADP, but it seems that "declining to design a custom cake celebrating a gender transition" is not quite apt. Even their client admits the requested cake had no "intrinsic meaning" and no "express{ed} message." Quote “Free speech is for everyone. No one should be forced to express a message that violates their core beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jake Warner, who argued before the court on behalf of Phillips in Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop. This is more like it. This case is about Free Speech (more particularly, resisting compelled speech). That the target is a religious person is neither here nor there (except to the extent he is being harassed because of his religious beliefs, but I don't think any legal claim to that effect has been made). Quote On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ prior case where Colorado tried to force him to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding—a case in which Phillips prevailed in 2018—an activist attorney called Masterpiece Cakeshop requesting that Phillips create a custom-designed cake, pink on the inside and blue on the outside, that would symbolize and celebrate a gender transition. The attorney then called back—requesting another custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana to “correct the errors of [Phillips’] thinking.” Phillips declined to create both custom cakes because they expressed messages that violate his core beliefs. The activist then filed this lawsuit. Phillips works with all people and always decides whether to take a project based on what message a cake will express, not who is requesting it. That last bit is actually a pretty solid point, and one I have noted several times. If a non-transgender/non-homosexual person asks for a cake celebrating a gender transition or a same-sex wedding, I think Phillips would say no (he "always decides whether to take a project based on what message a cake will express, not who is requesting it"). Here, Scardina was smart enough to water down her request to essentially eliminate from it any innate "message" or "meaning." Quote ADF attorneys are litigating both Phillips’ case and Smith’s case, 303 Creative v. Elenis. Both cases involve the same state law, which Colorado officials are misusing to force artists to express messages that contradict their core beliefs and faith. Interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 28 by smac97 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now