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)

 

[Saintamaniac]

@SystemShock We'll simply have to agree to disagree. I'm of the belief that if someone is going to claim strongly held religious beliefs to discriminate against someone, but then turn around and sell to someone else who violates one of the tenets of the aforementioned strongly held religious beliefs, that claim is complete bullshirt and should be disallowed.

All that does is create an avenue for people to hide behind some shirt they either don't really believe or don't understand in order to discriminate. Less we forget that not all that long ago, strongly held religious beliefs were used to discriminate against people due to the color of their skin.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Frankly, make Sexual Orientation a protected class. Problem solved. It's silly that they aren't in 2021. We are talking dark ages stuff here. As a society, we are evolved enough to accept nobody should be discriminated against because of sexual orientation just like race and religion.

 

[SystemShock]

@SystemShock We'll simply have to agree to disagree. I'm of the belief that if someone is going to claim strongly held religious beliefs to discriminate against someone, but then turn around and sell to someone else who violates one of the tenets of the aforementioned strongly held religious beliefs, that claim is complete bullshirt and should be disallowed.

Fine. Good thing you are not a judge, or you'll be sending people to the electric chair for jaywalking

All that does is create an avenue for people to hide behind some shirt they either don't really believe or don't understand in order to discriminate. Less we forget that not all that long ago, strongly held religious beliefs were used to discriminate against people due to the color of their skin.

In that we agree.

 

[DaveXA]

Frankly, make Sexual Orientation a protected class. Problem solved. It's silly that they aren't in 2021. We are talking dark ages stuff here. As a society, we are evolved enough to accept nobody should be discriminated against because of sexual orientation just like race and religion.

Pretty much this.

 

[Complex Kid]

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.

So is eating shellfish. So being gay is the same as eating crawfish or shrimp?


Leviticus 11:10-11


10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

 

[SystemShock]

So is eating shellfish. So being gay is the same as eating crawfish or shrimp?


Leviticus 11:10-11


10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Apparently so.

Hey, I didn't write it.

 

[Complex Kid]

Apparently so.

Hey, I didn't write it.

A LOT of people living in SWLA have a lot of explaining to do then.

 

[Nebaghead]

So is eating shellfish. So being gay is the same as eating crawfish or shrimp?


Leviticus 11:10-11


10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

So are tattoos. Guess they serve tattooed people.

 

[DaveXA]

A LOT of people living in SWLA have a lot of explaining to do then.

Not really though. But PM me if you want to know more. Not gonna get into the weeds on a religious discussion here.

 

[Saintamaniac]

So is eating shellfish. So being gay is the same as eating crawfish or shrimp?


Leviticus 11:10-11


10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

So are tattoos. Guess they serve tattooed people.

And this is precisely why the claim of strongly held religious beliefs is complete and utter bullshirt and should not be accepted as a reason to discriminate.

 

[DaveXA]

And this is precisely why the claim of strongly held religious beliefs is complete and utter bullshirt and should not be accepted as a reason to discriminate.

Well, these aren't strongly held religious beliefs. I mean, hardly anyone follows these strictly ceremonial rules anymore.

 

[SystemShock]

And this is precisely why the claim of strongly held religious beliefs is complete and utter bullshirt and should not be accepted as a reason to discriminate.

Because they have become inconvenient. That's how Judaism branched into Christianity, how the whole Protestant thing started (pesky divorce)...

Once a law or a story become inconvenient, the interpretation changes.

 

[zztop]

You see a lot of stupid laws being passed under the guise of "religious freedom" or whatever bullshirt they want to call it. All I see is an excuse to discriminate against people.

I just read today about this

Arkansas gov. signs law letting doctors refuse to treat on basis of morality, religion

Opponents worry the law could hurt LGBTQ people.

www.axios.com

This is not how things should work in this society. If people have such a difficult time providing a service to certain people because it goes against a religious belief, they should find some other line of work that doesn't not cause such mental and emotional conflict

 

[SystemShock]

You see a lot of stupid laws being passed under the guise of "religious freedom" or whatever bullshirt they want to call it. All I see is an excuse to discriminate against people.

I just read today about this

Arkansas gov. signs law letting doctors refuse to treat on basis of morality, religion

Opponents worry the law could hurt LGBTQ people.

www.axios.com

This is not how things should work in this society. If people have such a difficult time providing a service to certain people because it goes against a religious belief, they should find some other line of work that doesn't not cause such mental and emotional conflict

This is the insidiousness of religion.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Well, these aren't strongly held religious beliefs. I mean, hardly anyone follows these strictly ceremonial rules anymore.

That's kinda my point. Discrimination shouldn't be allowed because someone strongly believes some of their religion's tenets but not others.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting article on this

first time seeing that the baker doesn’t do Halloween cakes either
===================

The 2015 Supreme Court decision extending the right to marry to same-sex adult couples contained a ticking time bomb. Six years later, the noise is getting loud.
The explosive material has to do with religious freedom.

While polls clearly show that a growing majority of Americans support marriage equality, a significant number of religious people continue to believe that same-sex marriage and other evolving understandings of gender and sexuality are transgressions against God’s law.


But how can their dissent be lawfully expressed? The five-vote majority in 2015 papered over this question by insisting that the ruling applied only to civil marriage — and thus posed no burden on the right of religions to choose which marriages to bless.

As we’ve learned since, however, sanctifying marriages is not the only way religion enters this picture.
You may remember Jack Phillips, baker, and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo.

Phillips is a devout conservative Christian who sees his work as an expression of talents given to him by God. Therefore, he chooses not to sell products that he believes to be offensive to God. He doesn’t do Halloween cakes, for example — and he doesn’t do wedding cakes to celebrate same-sex unions…….

Religious liberty or freedom from discrimination: Advocates on both sides insist the question is simple. In fact, it is very difficult.

Two bedrock principles of the Constitution are brought into direct conflict.

Americans have a right in their public lives to be free from discrimination based on who they are. This right finds expression in laws requiring businesses and agencies that serve the public to do so without discrimination.


Americans also have a protected freedom of belief and expression. They cannot be compelled by the government to express or reject any religious views or political opinions.


No case puts the matter more sharply in relief than the matter of the baker and his cakes, which may well be headed back to the Supreme Court for round two.

A transgender individual has asked Phillips to create a celebratory cake. When Phillips refused, a state district judge levied a fine without any of the gratuitous commentary that previously gave the justices their wiggle room…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/18/masterpiece-cakeshop-religious-freedom-philadelphia/

 

[bird]

Ok. Strongly held beliefs as a reason to discriminate is utter bullschlitz. The Roberts court knew this and went ahead anyway. Matthew says ”the whole people” (a lie) said that the blood of Yeshua be on their heads and their children’s’ heads. This is nonsense. But if I claim a strongly held belief that the Jews are Christkillers then, by the logic of the court as well as the idiot baker, I MUST be allowed to discriminate against Jews. If I have the strongly held belief that Protestants are heretics then I must be able to discriminate against Protestants. After all, iirc, the entire movement was excommunicated from the church.

As for the baker? He, like most Christians, picks and chooses what he wants to follow. Thus the danger of religion being the basis for legal decisions. I don’t know the answer but will ask if he is Protestant. If so, then according to the Roman church he isn’t Christian. He is a heretic.

 

[SystemShock]

Ok. Strongly held beliefs as a reason to discriminate is utter bullschlitz. The Roberts court knew this and went ahead anyway. Matthew says ”the whole people” (a lie) said that the blood of Yeshua be on their heads and their children’s’ heads. This is nonsense. But if I claim a strongly held belief that the Jews are Christkillers then, by the logic of the court as well as the idiot baker, I MUST be allowed to discriminate against Jews. If I have the strongly held belief that Protestants are heretics then I must be able to discriminate against Protestants. After all, iirc, the entire movement was excommunicated from the church.

As for the baker? He, like most Christians, picks and chooses what he wants to follow. Thus the danger of religion being the basis for legal decisions. I don’t know the answer but will ask if he is Protestant. If so, then according to the Roman church he isn’t Christian. He is a heretic.

... and according to Thomas Aquinas, the only good heretic is a dead heretic.