Colorado Baker back in the News (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Same baker that was sued for not making a gay wedding cake which went all the way to the Supreme Court
===================================================

The owner of a specialty cakes shop in Lakewood, Colo., who first made national headlines for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, was back in court on Monday.

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner Jack Phillips was sued by a gay couple in 2012 after citing religious beliefs as his reason for not making their wedding cake. In 2018 his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the justices granted him a partial victory.

On Monday, the Christian baker went on trial in another lawsuit, this time involving Denver-based attorney Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman who said that the baker didn’t sell her a cake because she was transgender.

Scardina attempted to order a cake on the same day in 2017 when the Supreme Court justices announced they would hear Phillips appeal on the same-sex wedding case. He refused, so she took matters to court.

Scardina initially filed a complaint with the state in 2018. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found probable cause that she had been discriminated against.

Phillips then sued the state for harassment in federal court..............

In her complaint Scardina claimed that Phillips refused to sell her a birthday cake “because she is transgender, despite repeatedly advertising that they would sell birthday cakes to the general public, including LGBT individuals.”

The cake she wanted to order was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition. But when she called the shop, she was told that they didn’t make cakes for “sex changes.”

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s website says that Phillips will “happily create custom cakes for anyone,” but he won’t “create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.”

Philips has maintained that he won’t create cakes to celebrate events that he, as a Christian, doesn’t agree with.

On Monday, during a virtual trial, Phillips’ attorney Sean Gates argued that his refusal to bake the cake was simply about its message, and not about discriminating against Scardina.

“The message would be that he agrees that a gender transition is something to be celebrated,” Gates said, according to The Associated Press............

Colorado cake baker back in court over alleged anti-LGBTQ discrimination (msn.com)

 

[MT15]

Okay, but right now the only people using the state to control speech (attempting) are the Republicans. Correct?

 

[Paul]

Okay, but right now the only people using the state to control speech (attempting) are the Republicans. Correct?

Sure, they are objecting to the teaching of CRT with divisive offensive terms . You think that is an attempt to stop free speech? It is OK for people to argue in the public square as long as the state does not mandate what can be said or not said. Nevertheless, the classroom is a different arena. You bring up a great question. I say any school can teach CRT if done academically with not derogatory statements to people with Western heritage. I also oppose CRT if it creates a sense of hopelessness among some children. If the students were adults I could care less.

However, if schools choose to teach CRT with derogatory language the parents can meet with the school board and discus the issue.

Here is a mom arguing against CRT in school. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[MT15]

Various states are outlawing the teaching of CRT. Come on, you haven’t read about these laws?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I said "language or actions". The state exerted coercion over the baker with regards to selling a cake he did not want to bake. The supreme court sided with the baker (that included two liberal judges). I guess I should not have included the term "language". How do you feel about the SCOTUS decision?

The state did not coerce the baker unless you think enforcing the law is coercion.

In the SCOTUS ruling, I don't believe they actually ruled on whether or not the baker violated state law. The court's finding was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility towards the baker instead of remaining neutral. Essentially, they found that the baker was never given a fair shake so the question of whether or not he violated state law was never actually ruled on. I think Kennedy drew attention to the narrow scope of the ruling in the majority opinion.

 

[Paul]

The state did not coerce the baker unless you think enforcing the law is coercion.

It is coercion. However, we accept coercion when it prevents people from breaking the law. Paying taxes is also coercion, but we have no choice. Coercion becomes a problem when it restricts basic rights to freedom. And the case illustrates two different versions of freedom. Nevertheless, having a business is not a right and hence the government can coerce the business owner into jumping through hoops. I see no solution, but the baker has the weaker case.

In the SCOTUS ruling, I don't believe they actually ruled on whether or not the baker violated state law. The court's finding was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility towards the baker instead of remaining neutral. Essentially, they found that the baker was never given a fair shake so the question of whether or not he violated state law was never actually ruled on. I think Kennedy drew attention to the narrow scope of the ruling in the majority opinion.

Thanks for the additional information! This is one of those cases that does not have an easy solution unless we abolish religion.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The case basically fell along the narrow lines of 'because it was a wedding cake and not a bagel.' IMO, better method of resolving these issues was articulated in Employment Div. v. Smith.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It is coercion. However, we accept coercion when it prevents people from breaking the law. Paying taxes is also coercion, but we have no choice. Coercion becomes a problem when it restricts basic rights to freedom. And the case illustrates two different versions of freedom. Nevertheless, having a business is not a right and hence the government can coerce the business owner into jumping through hoops. I see no solution, but the baker has the weaker case.

If you want to operate under the theory that laws are coercive, how do you square the need for laws with your opinion that you "do not think the state should coerce citizens to change their language or actions because the offended party decides out of the blue and says "I am offended."? By this rationale, the state should not enact or enforce laws because it is coercion.

 

[Paul]

If you want to operate under the theory that laws are coercive, how do you square the need for laws with your opinion that you "do not think the state should coerce citizens to change their language or actions because the offended party decides out of the blue and says "I am offended."? By this rationale, the state should not enact or enforce laws because it is coercion.

Nice try! This dilemma was solved centuries ago,

Leviathan rigorously argues that civil peace and social unity are best achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract. Hobbes depicts the natural condition of mankind--known as the state of nature--as inherently violent and awash with fear. The state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. This state is so horrible that human beings naturally seek peace, and the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan through social contract.

We could even go to Plato's Republic: Societies need to be ruled to have any kind of success.

The areas where government coercion is a NO NO are all about freedom. It turns out that freedom of religion and speech are sacred cows.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

So what if my religious beliefs say that black people are an abomination, should I be able to refuse service to them?
(I ask this because I have an aunt who can show you the verses in the bible).
or does that not count because it's "different"?
should we allow anyone whos religious beliefs are offended to refuse service? and how far do we let it go? doctors, surgeons, firefighters. police officers?
there was a time not long ago where these situations were ok. why let them creep back into society?
simple solution, offer services and goods to everyone no matter your religious beliefs..
We all know people like that use religion to hide behind when they want to discriminate based on their personal opinions..

 

[Paul]

So what if my religious beliefs say that black people are an abomination, should I be able to refuse service to them?
(I ask this because I have an aunt who can show you the verses in the bible).

I said above that the system is imperfect and that is why we have courts. The same can be said about democracy. The will of the majority is often unconstitutional.

Should we allow anyone whos religious beliefs are offended to refuse service? and how far do we let it go? doctors, surgeons, firefighters. police officers?
there was a time not long ago where these situations were ok. why let them creep back into society?
simple solution, offer services and goods to everyone no matter your religious beliefs..
We all know people like that use religion to hide behind when they want to discriminate based on their personal opinions..

You make excellent points. The issue is the first amendment of the constitution.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Those are the rules that we have. And sadly any religion can believe anything they want as long as they do not harm anyone. As I said before the baker is on shaky grounds despite the first amendment. I guess the amendment could be amended.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Nice try! This dilemma was solved centuries ago,

Leviathan rigorously argues that civil peace and social unity are best achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract. Hobbes depicts the natural condition of mankind--known as the state of nature--as inherently violent and awash with fear. The state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. This state is so horrible that human beings naturally seek peace, and the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan through social contract.

We could even go to Plato's Republic: Societies need to be ruled to have any kind of success.

The areas where government coercion is a NO NO are all about freedom. It turns out that freedom of religion and speech are sacred cows.

And if the government was preventing anyone from practicing their religion, you would have a point. Nobody and no law is preventing this baker from practicing his religion. If the baker made a wedding cake for a gay wedding and delivered it with a hand-written note saying that he hates everything about the couple and prays nightly that they die painfully and burn in hell forever, there would be no laws broken. That is freedom of religion and speech.

What you are arguing is not government-sanctioned muzzling of free speech. You use Hobbes' notion of a social contract without actually understanding it, I think. Hobbes' social contract essentially entailed surrendering a few individual freedoms in exchange for a legally enforced Golden Rule for the exact reasons you stated. In today's society, anti-discrimination laws serve this purpose. We agree to give up our right to discriminate against certain classes of people in exchange for not being discriminated against.

 

[Paul]

And if the government was preventing anyone from practicing their religion, you would have a point. Nobody and no law is preventing this baker from practicing his religion. If the baker made a wedding cake for a gay wedding and delivered it with a hand-written note saying that he hates everything about the couple and prays nightly that they die painfully and burn in hell forever, there would be no laws broken. That is freedom of religion and speech.

What you are arguing is not government-sanctioned muzzling of free speech. You use Hobbes' notion of a social contract without actually understanding it, I think. Hobbes' social contract essentially entailed surrendering a few individual freedoms in exchange for a legally enforced Golden Rule for the exact reasons you stated. In today's society, anti-discrimination laws serve this purpose. We agree to give up our right to discriminate against certain classes of people in exchange for not being discriminated against.

I have no disagreement. The issue is that we have two parties with rights and the courts do not know which side to choose. Nevertheless, I still think the baker is on shaky grounds and the gay couple has a better case. But, that is just an opinion. This one is not black and white.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Following a five-year legal battle that drew national attention, a California judge has ruled in favor of a bakery owner who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because it violated her religious beliefs.

Kern County Superior Court Judge J. Eric Bradshaw ruled Friday that Catherine Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, acted lawfully while upholding her Christian beliefs about what the Bible teaches about marriage, court document show.

The California Department of Fair Housing and Employment sued Cathy's Creations Inc., doing business as Tastries Bakery, on Oct. 17, 2018 claiming Miller intentionally discriminated against the couple and violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

During a visit to the bakery in August 2017, Miller declined creating the cake for Eileen and Miyera Rodriguez-Del Rio before referring them to a different bakery, Bradshaw wrote in his nearly two-dozen page ruling.

At the time of the denial, court papers show, the couple were already married, but were planning a wedding "with lots of guests" and their "to-do" list included buying a three-tier white wedding cake.

Her attorneys argued her right to free speech, and free expression of religion trumped the argument that she violated the anti-discrimination law.............

Judge rules for California bakery owner who refused to make wedding cake for lesbian couple

 

[Optimus Prime]

DENVER (AP) — The Colorado baker who won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake because of his Christian faith lost an appeal Thursday in his latest legal fight, involving his rejection of a request for a birthday cake celebrating a gender transition.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that that the cake Autumn Scardina requested from Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was to be pink with blue frosting, is not a form of speech.

It also found that the state law that makes it illegal to refuse to provide services to people based on protected characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation does not violate business owners' right to practice or express their religion.

Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips' shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition from male to female.

“We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker,” said the court, which also rejected procedural arguments from Phillips.

Phillips, who is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, maintains that the cakes he creates are a form of speech and plans to appeal.


“One need not agree with Jack’s views to agree that all Americans should be free to say what they believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs,” ADF senior counsel Jake Warner said in a statement.

John McHugh, one of the lawyers who represent Scardina, said the court looked carefully at all the arguments and evidence from the trial.

“They just object to the idea of Ms. Scardina wanting a birthday cake that reflects her status as a transgender woman because they object to the existence of transgender people,” he said of Phillips and his shop...............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[bird]

DENVER (AP) — The Colorado baker who won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake because of his Christian faith lost an appeal Thursday in his latest legal fight, involving his rejection of a request for a birthday cake celebrating a gender transition.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that that the cake Autumn Scardina requested from Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was to be pink with blue frosting, is not a form of speech.

It also found that the state law that makes it illegal to refuse to provide services to people based on protected characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation does not violate business owners' right to practice or express their religion.

Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips' shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition from male to female.

“We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker,” said the court, which also rejected procedural arguments from Phillips.

Phillips, who is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, maintains that the cakes he creates are a form of speech and plans to appeal.


“One need not agree with Jack’s views to agree that all Americans should be free to say what they believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs,” ADF senior counsel Jake Warner said in a statement.

John McHugh, one of the lawyers who represent Scardina, said the court looked carefully at all the arguments and evidence from the trial.

“They just object to the idea of Ms. Scardina wanting a birthday cake that reflects her status as a transgender woman because they object to the existence of transgender people,” he said of Phillips and his shop...............

MSN

www.msn.com

Screw these people.