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)

 

[SFIDC3]

I have a big issue with “deeply held” religious beliefs being used to deny services or rights or business to protected classes (and even those not yet protected that IMO should be). This is placing religion on some pedestal that cannot be touched, whereas if it’s just a deeply held belief or position it doesn’t get this elevation. That is so inherently wrong but people don’t see that, and gives “religious“ people immunity from being held to account for being backwards bigots.

Well said, totally agree with above....

 

[coldseat]

If your business is art where you are asked to design something specifically for something that you believe is wrong, then you should be able to decline.
]

So if a Muslim person went to his shop and asked for a cake that said "Allahu Akbar" on it and he refused because he believes the phrase is offensive because that's what terrorist yell when they commit suicide bombings, then that's okay?

Obviously that's religious in nature, but just trying to find where the line is. Can he get away with saying that he doesn't make any cakes with the phrase "Allahu Akbar" on it because he finds it offensive? Because people can be offended and refuse service for a whole host of things. And if there was ever a slippery slope, this seems like it's it.

 

[coldseat]

These are both related, so I'll address here. They could make the argument, but I think the standard should be, is it reasonable to believe that the architect/baker/artist/etc is being asked to actively participate in an activity they consider to be immoral. I think it's not that difficult to create a Schelling fence around the idea that this can only be applied to direct participation. So, designing a house is not directly participating in a gay couple's sexual relationship. But maybe creating a sculpture of a sexual act is.

If the baker sold standard cakes without specific designs, I would say he did not have the right to refuse service based on Colorado's laws, but a cake where he had to create something celebrating a thing he believes is wrong, he does have the right.

I need to make something clear here because I keep seeing this. NO GAY COUPLE is asking a baker that makes a cake for their wedding to "participate in a gay couple's sexual relationship". They are simply asking them to bake a cake. Those two things are not the same.

I also have to take issue the "baking a cake" for a wedding being the same as "participating in the wedding". It is not the same! The baker could bake the cake and deliver it, but decline to serve the cake that the wedding ceremony because of his religious beliefs and still not participate in the wedding ceremony.

 

[SystemShock]

These are both related, so I'll address here. They could make the argument, but I think the standard should be, is it reasonable to believe that the architect/baker/artist/etc is being asked to actively participate in an activity they consider to be immoral. I think it's not that difficult to create a Schelling fence around the idea that this can only be applied to direct participation. So, designing a house is not directly participating in a gay couple's sexual relationship. But maybe creating a sculpture of a sexual act is.

An architect designs a house with the purpose of giving people a place to live. If the people living in the house live "in sin", whether they have sex or not - remember, thought crimes/desires are punished in Christianity - then I think an argument can be made, that architect is indeed facilitating the venue for the sin.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Probably what's known as the curse of Ham (although it was Ham's son who was cursed) in Genesis. Noah curses Canaan because Ham saw his father naked (yeah... ) to be "the lowest of slaves among his brothers", and the Bible alludes to Africans (or some Africans) being descendants of Canaan, so that's interpreted by some as Canaan being the lowest of slaves among other slaves, i.e, his African descendants.

Why is it atheists seem to know the Bible better than most people who've been devout their whole lives?

 

[DaveXA]

An architect designs a house with the purpose of giving people a place to live. If the people living in the house live "in sin", whether they have sex or not - remember, thought crimes/desires are punished in Christianity - then I think an argument can be made, that architect is indeed facilitating the venue for the sin.

That argument doesn't hold water imo. I mean, if you really want to be legalistic and take that all the way, then arguably, Christians couldn't sell anything, because Christians generally believe no one is without 'sin', and wherever or whatever is used to facilitate that is violating how that vehicle was intended to be used. That whole thing would be a convoluted mess. Really, and ultimately, the baker should just bake the cake as long as he's not required to put something he would consider vulgar on the cake itself. It really shouldn't matter who buys the cake, or who buys a house or even how they use it. Once it's sold, the seller's obligations are done.

At least that how I'd put it.

 

[DaveXA]

Why is it atheists seem to know the Bible better than most people who've been devout their whole lives?

Well, most atheists well versed in the Bible are former Christians, or raised/education in Christian homes or schools. It's really not all that uncommon. I've seen pastor's kids become atheists. It happens.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Well, most atheists well versed in the Bible are former Christians, or raised/education in Christian homes or schools. It's really not all that uncommon. I've seen pastor's kids become atheists. It happens.

I'll never forget an argument between an atheist and a couple religious guys

The atheist was just brutal, what about this verse? what about that verse?

The guy would try to come back but the atheist would counterpunch, Explain this. Explain that. Defend this. Defend that.

I thought the religious guy was going to start crying - he just had nothing

 

[SystemShock]

Why is it atheists seem to know the Bible better than most people who've been devout their whole lives?

Many people de-convert because they try to prove to themselves that the scriptures are true, and in doing so, they engage in a different type of Bible study from the one people normally do in Sunday school, one in which you start with the proposition that nothing in the Bible is true, and look for fallacies in the scriptures, then try to prove the scriptures are indeed true, and try to find logical explanations for the fallacies you encounter.

Morality is part of the study, and slavery is a prominent topic within morality that is studied and discussed extensively; being that the curse of Ham deals with/mentions slavery, @Bigdaddysaints ' post rang a bell. I will say, I didn't remember the entire episode, so I had to go and look for specifics.

 

[Saintamaniac]

This is my take. Replace gay with black, interracial, different religion, female, etc and to me they’re all just straight up discriminatory, and that’s what the first amendment and subsequent amendments/laws are intended to prevent.

I have a big issue with “deeply held” religious beliefs being used to deny services or rights or business to protected classes (and even those not yet protected that IMO should be). This is placing religion on some pedestal that cannot be touched, whereas if it’s just a deeply held belief or position it doesn’t get this elevation. That is so inherently wrong but people don’t see that, and gives “religious“ people immunity from being held to account for being backwards bigots.

If your deeply held religious beliefs allow you to sell a cake to an adulterer but not to a same-sex couple then your deeply held religious beliefs claim is a bullshirt excuse to allow you to discriminate against same sex couples.

 

[DaveXA]

If your deeply held religious beliefs allow you to sell a cake to an adulterer but not to a same-sex couple then your deeply held religious beliefs claim is a bullshirt excuse to allow you to discriminate against same sex couples.

Indeed. Hypocrisy for sure there.

 

[SystemShock]

If your deeply held religious beliefs allow you to sell a cake to an adulterer but not to a same-sex couple then your deeply held religious beliefs claim is a bullshirt excuse to allow you to discriminate against same sex couples.

Homosexuality and adultery aren't the same.. Homosexuality is still an abomination. Adultery, on the other hand, is a watered down sin.

 

[DaveXA]

Homosexuality and adultery aren't the same.. Homosexuality is still an abomination. Adultery, on the other hand, is a watered down sin.

I dunno, maybe I've been in the wrong church all my life, but I never heard that before.

 

[SystemShock]

I dunno, maybe I've been in the wrong church all my life, but I never heard that before.

Why do you keep doing this?

Probably you guys don't read your Bibles much.

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Now find me a verse anywhere where it says homosexuality is not an abomination, not an unnatural act, or that Yahweh/Jesus doesn't detest the act.

 

[DaveXA]

Why do you keep doing this?

Probably you guys don't read your Bibles much.

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Now find me a verse anywhere where it says homosexuality is not an abomination, not an unnatural act, or that Yahweh/Jesus doesn't detest the act.

If you'd take your focus off homosexuality for a minute, let's ask a more pertinent question, you find me a verse where it says adultery is not a sin or abomination, or where it's not detested by Yaweh/Jesus. They're both sins according to Scripture. Nowhere does it state specifically that adultery is more or less worse than homosexuality.

And anyway, I don't believe homosexuality in and of itself is a sin.

 

[Yoweigh]

Thought experiment:

If it's ok for a baker to refuse to sell a cake because it might facilitate a sin, is it ok for a gun merchant to refuse to sell a gun because it might facilitate a murder?

 

[coldseat]

If you'd take your focus off homosexuality for a minute, let's ask a more pertinent question, you find me a verse where it says adultery is not a sin or abomination, or where it's not detested by Yaweh/Jesus. They're both sins according to Scripture. Nowhere does it state specifically that adultery is more or less worse than homosexuality.

And anyway, I don't believe homosexuality in and of itself is a sin.

They are not the same in the eyes of the Christian church. If you commit adultery, you commit a sin of the flesh. If you are homosexual, you are "intrinsically disordered from natural law", thus an abomination.

That's why the stigma, punishment, harassment, discrimination and hate has always been more severe if you're homosexual than if you commit adultery. One is an understandable sin of the flesh and the other is an abomination.

 

[DaveXA]

Thought experiment:

If it's ok for a baker to refuse to sell a cake because it might facilitate a sin, is it ok for a gun merchant to refuse to sell a gun because it might facilitate a murder?

Well, I think the initial premise is flawed. Baking a cake and selling it in no way facilitates whatever perceived sin. Selling a house in no way facilitates someone's sin. It's sort of like making a store liable for somone else using a rope to kill someone or hang themselves with.

I'll also add, if the cake maker is asked to make a vulgar cake, that's different from making a generic cake that ends up being used in what would be perceived to be a vulgar fashion. I'd argue he has a right to refuse to make a certain design but doesn't have the right to refuse ordinary service to a specific group of people.