Colorado Baker back in the News (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    12,132
    Reaction score
    15,901
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    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)
     
    Is it OK to discriminate against anyone that is not on the list?
    Legally speaking, yes. It might not be particularly good for business and your business might fail, but yes.
     
    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?

    Above is not playing devil's advocate, it is the definition of a non-starter....
     
    Above is not playing devil's advocate, it is the definition of a non-starter....
    Universe-from-Nothing.png
     
    Laws should apply to all uniformly. I don't get the concept of a protected class. I am not a lawyer and maybe I am just naive.
    Laws should apply to all uniformly. Protected classes were created to protect those who were not being treated uniformly based on innate characteristics they do not have control over.
     
    Laws do apply uniformly. They are applied equally to everyone. Just because you belong to a protected class, doesn’t mean you can discriminate against another

    I don’t like the idea of a protected class either. I don’t like them because they are necessary.

    If everyone acted without prejudice towards those certain ethic, religious, or sexual orientations then they wouldn’t be necessary.

    But sadly these groups were marginalized so much that the federal government had to codify their protection. Because state and local governments wouldn’t do their jobs.

    That’s why the Civil Rights Act is such an indictment of our systematic racism. We had to write into the freaking Constitution that Black people are people and they get to vote and eat and drink with white people without fear of being rejected for something that is completely out of their control (the color of their skin)
     
    Laws should apply to all uniformly. Protected classes were created to protect those who were not being treated uniformly based on innate characteristics they do not have control over.
    Sure, I get that. But, it just sounds awkward. The law should read: No discrimination, end of story.

    However, that is different form the issue of citizens have the right to practice their religion. These two points clash.
    One the government starts to regulate behaviors and speech we enter a very slippery slope.
     
    Laws do apply uniformly. They are applied equally to everyone. Just because you belong to a protected class, doesn’t mean you can discriminate against another

    I don’t like the idea of a protected class either. I don’t like them because they are necessary.

    If everyone acted without prejudice towards those certain ethic, religious, or sexual orientations then they wouldn’t be necessary.

    But sadly these groups were marginalized so much that the federal government had to codify their protection. Because state and local governments wouldn’t do their jobs.

    That’s why the Civil Rights Act is such an indictment of our systematic racism. We had to write into the freaking Constitution that Black people are people and they get to vote and eat and drink with white people without fear of being rejected for something that is completely out of their control (the color of their skin)
    No arguments. But this unintentionally creates different types or classes of citizens. I wonder how the French deal with this. They seem to have a more egalitarian system that tries not to classify people.
     
    @Paul -

    regarding your comment on the should be laws against any type of discrimination-

    How exactly would that be enforced?

    I mean “no shirt, no shoes, no service” discriminates against TWO groups right in the slogan. Practically every bar or convenience store has this sign noticeably posted. And quite understandably so.
     
    What if a Muslim baker refused to bake a cake with the Star of David on it for a Jewish couple?

    What if a gay baker refused to bake a cake for a catholic wedding?

    Are those hypotheticals all the same as the Colorado baker legally?
     
    What if a Muslim baker refused to bake a cake with the Star of David on it for a Jewish couple?

    What if a gay baker refused to bake a cake for a catholic wedding?

    Are those hypotheticals all the same as the Colorado baker legally?

    I haven't followed the Colorado baker story. Did he refuse to bake a cake at all, or a specific kind of cake?

    Fwiw, I don't think a baker, or really anyone, should be compelled to create or sell something that violates their religious beliefs. As long as the standards are applied equally to all customers.
     
    What if a Muslim baker refused to bake a cake with the Star of David on it for a Jewish couple?

    What if a gay baker refused to bake a cake for a catholic wedding?

    Are those hypotheticals all the same as the Colorado baker legally?
    Should a baker be able to not create a wedding cake for someone’s second marriage? Many religious people believe a second marriage is verboten if the ex is still alive. Should the baker be allowed to inquire if someone was divorced, and then if so if their ex is still living?

    The whole idea of having a public business and refusing to serve people because of any inherent attribute is ridiculous. If I open a cake shop and refuse to make a cake for someone because they’re black, religious, straight, fat, a veteran, foreign, whatever — that’s simply stupid.
     
    Should a baker be able to not create a wedding cake for someone’s second marriage? Many religious people believe a second marriage is verboten if the ex is still alive. Should the baker be allowed to inquire if someone was divorced, and then if so if their ex is still living?

    The whole idea of having a public business and refusing to serve people because of any inherent attribute is ridiculous. If I open a cake shop and refuse to make a cake for someone because they’re black, religious, straight, fat, a veteran, foreign, whatever — that’s simply stupid.
    The attribute isn't the issue. The issue would be in the baker making something that is contrary to the baker's views. What a person does with the cake is irrelevant. What the baker puts on it is. A baker isn't likely going to ask all of his/her customers to disclose whatever marriage or whether they're gay. The baker does have the right not to design a cake a certain way though.
     
    The attribute isn't the issue. The issue would be in the baker making something that is contrary to the baker's views. What a person does with the cake is irrelevant. What the baker puts on it is. A baker isn't likely going to ask all of his/her customers to disclose whatever marriage or whether they're gay. The baker does have the right not to design a cake a certain way though.

    As long as that holds true for all customers asking for a cake designed in that way.
     
    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?
    No, a Jewish baker should not have to bake a cake with a swatzika on it.. and a "Christian" baker shouldn't have to bake a cake with 2 men having anal sex on it (that's about the equivalent of the 2)
    but, a Jewish baker should have to sell a wedding cake to a skin head as long as their is no intimidation involved. just like a "Christian" baker should have to sell a gay couple a wedding cake as long as there is no intimidation involved.
    Do you agree with this me?

    Do you think a Jewish baker would be in an unsafe environment delivering a cake to a Nazi party?
    Do you think the "Christian" baker would be in an unsafe environment delivering a cake to a gay party?
    Be honest
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom