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)

 

[bird]

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

Yeah, religion is a cluster bleep.

 

[bird]

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/

No argument with the laying out of the problem. Of course, what this really goes back to, imo, is the so-called “eeew” factor regarding LGBTQ people by many heterosexuals and the religious authoritarians. Can’t call them “religious“ right as they are not right, they are wrong, imo.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Can’t call them religious right as they are not right, they are wrong, imo.

I'd go ahead and put "religious" in quotes because they damn sure don't practice the teachings of their religious tenets

 

[bird]

I'd go ahead and put "religious" in quotes because they damn sure don't practice the teachings of their religious tenets

As you requested, so was it done.

 

[Paul]

Hey guys: Let's play devil's advocate. What if a Jewish baker (survivor of the Holocaust) has to bake a cake with Swastikas for the birthday party of a Nazi sympathizer?

 

[CoolBrees]

Yeah, Nazis aren’t a protected class, so it is a bit of a non starter

 

[JRad]

Hey guys: Let's play devil's advocate. What if a Jewish baker (survivor of the Holocaust) has to bake a cake with Swastikas for the birthday party of a Nazi sympathizer?

Yeah, Nazis aren’t a protected class, so it is a bit of a non starter

Right, it's a little different to compare Nazis and gays (I realize what you're going for here though, as they're different flavors of evil to the different groups)

It's difficult to draw an exact hypothetical to play along, I'm having trouble thinking of a more apt comparison.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yeah, Nazis aren’t a protected class, so it is a bit of a non starter

Yes, but religion is.

So, in this case, you have two protected classes -- a Christian and someone who is gay and another transgender (one has federal protections the other state).

I've already stated my case, but I think people should not be forced to do custom work that goes against deeply held religious beliefs. I think requiring them to sell commodities to a protected class however is fine.

 

[CoolBrees]

@UncleTrvlingJim -

Correct. So the Jewish baker, having no protected class standard to fulfill, could tell the Nazi to

“get the F out and never come back - we don’t serve your kind here.”

And would be well within their rights to do so.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

@UncleTrvlingJim -

Correct. So the Jewish baker, having no protected class standard to fulfill, could tell the Nazi to

“get the F out and never come back - we don’t serve your kind here.”

And would be well within their rights to do so.

Right, the neo-Nazi example is pretty easy legally speaking.

I think forcing people to do custom work on something they clearly believe to be morally wrong is also morally wrong. But forcing them to provide standard service to a protected class is perfectly ok.

 

[Saintamaniac]

but I think people should not be forced to do custom work that goes against deeply held religious beliefs.

When someone refuses to bake a cake for a divorcee or an adulterer or someone who works on the Sabbath, I'll start acknowledging their deeply held religious beliefs. Until that time, their deeply held religious beliefs are deep held piles of bullshirt and hypocrisy that gives them an out to discriminate against people they don't like.

Hell, I look forward to the day someone decides to claim doing a service for Christians goes against their deeply held religious beliefs and watch heads explode.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Hey guys: Let's play devil's advocate. What if a Jewish baker (survivor of the Holocaust) has to bake a cake with Swastikas for the birthday party of a Nazi sympathizer?

In addition to Nazis not being a protected class, a baker that refuses to bake a cake with swastikas for anyone is also fine. Swastika cake is not a product they offer to anyone.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Hey guys: Let's play devil's advocate. What if a Jewish baker (survivor of the Holocaust) has to bake a cake with Swastikas for the birthday party of a Nazi sympathizer?

the bakers weren't asked to bake a cake with gay sex on it. that's what's comparable. the scenario isn't the same ballpark, not.even same universe.

 

[Paul]

the bakers weren't asked to bake a cake with gay sex on it. that's what's comparable. the scenario isn't the same ballpark, not.even same universe.

OK, but do you you think the Jewish baker should deliver the cake with Swastikas? Yes or no?
I vote for no. How about you?

 

[Paul]

Yeah, Nazis aren’t a protected class, so it is a bit of a non starter

OK, these are the protected classes of people:

U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008)[clarification needed]. Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, state law and employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.[1] The following characteristics are "protected" by United States federal anti-discrimination law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Sexual orientation and gender identity as of Bostock v. Clayton County – Civil Rights Act of 1964[3]
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Prohibits discrimination for having children, with an exception for senior housing. Also prohibits making a preference for those with children.
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

WIKI

Is it OK to discriminate against anyone that is not on the list?

 

[V Chip]

I've already stated my case, but I think people should not be forced to do custom work that goes against deeply held religious beliefs. I think requiring them to sell commodities to a protected class however is fine.

It is my deeply held belief that what many people call their deeply held religious belief is really a deeply held belief that they try to use their religion to justify rather than being an actual deeply held *religious* belief.

 

[CoolBrees]

I’ll say that if the business in question is serviced in any way by a public street or utility or any service that is funded by tax dollars then they need to follow the law and not deny any member of the public service based on that person being a member of a protected class.

 

[Paul]

It is my deeply held belief that what many people call their deeply held religious belief is really a deeply held belief that they try to use their religion to justify rather than being an actual deeply held *religious* belief.

Unfortunately you cannot read the thoughts of others.

The first amendment explicitly says the practice of religion cannot be hindered.

However, there is such a thing as religious fervor that is not necessarily related to the worship of a deity. In fact people that are deeply involved in political movements often behave in a religious fashion.