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)

 

[V Chip]

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 *IS* the issue.

The baker is making a wedding cake. If weddings are contrary to a baker's deeply held religious belief, then as long as they make no wedding cakes for everyone... I mean it would be stupid, but whatever if that baker wants to be an idiot and not make wedding cakes because their religion hates weddings somehow...

But weddings aren't against the baker's beliefs. It is only because of the attribute(s) of the wedding party that the baker objects.

If two wedding cakes are identical (except for maybe one has man/woman as cake topper, and one has man/man or woman/woman, and even that is iffy because the baker doesn't make the plastic cake toppers and thus has no "creative freedom" objection grounds) but the only thing different is one is for Tom and Jane and the other is for Jane and Joan... sorry, but that's an objection with the attribute.

I haven't heard of a baker being forced to make a sexually explicit cake for any couple, so it's not that it's something along those lines. I mean, if a baker made dick cakes for a bachelorette party but refused to for a bachelor party... that's just bigotry.

 

[DaveXA]

The attribute *IS* the issue.

The baker is making a wedding cake. If weddings are contrary to a baker's deeply held religious belief, then as long as they make no wedding cakes for everyone... I mean it would be stupid, but whatever if that baker wants to be an idiot and not make wedding cakes because their religion hates weddings somehow...

But weddings aren't against the baker's beliefs. It is only because of the attribute(s) of the wedding party that the baker objects.

If two wedding cakes are identical (except for maybe one has man/woman as cake topper, and one has man/man or woman/woman, and even that is iffy because the baker doesn't make the plastic cake toppers and thus has no "creative freedom" objection grounds) but the only thing different is one is for Tom and Jane and the other is for Jane and Joan... sorry, but that's an objection with the attribute.

I haven't heard of a baker being forced to make a sexually explicit cake for any couple, so it's not that it's something along those lines. I mean, if a baker made dick cakes for a bachelorette party but refused to for a bachelor party... that's just bigotry.

If the baker refuses to sell the cake with a particular type of topper he can decide not to sell it. If they're 2 wedding cakes that look the same, he should be obligated to sell the cake to whoever wants to buy it. How it's used isn't relevant. The baker can't (shouldn't) deny a dick cake for one group and not another either. But that's neither here or there.

For custom cakes, the baker is free not make a cake contrary to his religious beliefs as long as long as he's holding out his services to the public equally for everyone.

 

[Paul]

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?

Yes, the baker should sell cakes to all as long as there is no injury to his ability to practice his or her religion. Nevertheless the Supreme Court sided with the baker and 2 out of the four liberal lefty judges sided with the baker.

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

This is a great question. In this era being offended is up to the person. For example some people are offended when they hear the word "lame"


THE WORD LAME:
I’ve heard it used by colleagues and middle-schoolers, characters in middle-level fiction and family members; I’ve even heard it from the pulpit, being used by an otherwise progressive minister. It’s the adjective lame, and we need to stop using it.

Can we take a minute to think about what the word lame really means? The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that lame means to be “disabled or impaired in any way; weak, infirm; paralyzed; unable to move.” This dictionary tells us that the word lame also applies especially to being “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk.”

Let’s Stop Using the Word Lame

It’s time for us and our students to talk about the word lame.

www.learningforjustice.org

When the perceived offense is up to the offended party there is no limit as to what is offensive. I 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". This is a slippery slope that leads to 1984.

On a personal level If I was a pious Christian I would still deliver cakes to gay orgies. I have no issue with that. If I was a Jew I would also deliver the cakes to the NAZI party as long as there is no physical threat.

At the same time if I was gay or a Nazi: I would not be offended if the Christian or the Jewish bakers do not want to bake a cake. I would simply move on to the next baker.

As for the case that is being discussed. It is possible that the LGTBQIA+++ activists are perennially offended and look for this sort of publicity to make a point. For some people this becomes a pseudo-religion. One could make the point that social justice activists have a passion that is a lot like religion.

I hope this rant makes sense!

 

[MT15]

“when the perceived offense is up to the offended party”?

So, who exactly has the say over when something is offensive, if it’s not the person who was offended?

 

[DaveXA]

“when the perceived offense is up to the offended party”?

So, who exactly has the say over when something is offensive, if it’s not the person who was offended?

It gets fun when everyone is offended.

 

[MT15]

I get that, Dave. I just don’t understand who Paul wants to be the arbiter of who can be offended and over what.

 

[CoolBrees]

The event and cake in question here though is not a wedding - it’s a birthday cake.

They want it to be blue on the outside and pink on the inside in celebration of their identity.

The wedding cake is settled law now. I don’t agree with it in the slightest but the SCOTUS rules so here we are.

But a birthday cake? Just because of the color scheme? Yeah hopefully that isn’t going to fly imo.

And for the record, I think they set the Baker up. They are a lawyer and, although all the Baker had to do was make a stupid cake and get paid, I believe they saw an opportunity. I am not going to comment on whether I think that is ethical or not

 

[DaveXA]

The event and cake in question here though is not a wedding - it’s a birthday cake.

They want it to be blue on the outside and pink on the inside in celebration of their identity.

The wedding cake is settled law now. I don’t agree with it in the slightest but the SCOTUS rules so here we are.

But a birthday cake? Just because of the color scheme? Yeah hopefully that isn’t going to fly imo.

And for the record, I think they set the Baker up. They are a lawyer and, although all the Baker had to do was make a stupid cake and get paid, I believe they saw an opportunity. I am not going to comment on whether I think that is ethical or not

Yeah, now I remember the talk about the baker being possible set up. Certainly smells like it.

Birthday cake and colors? Baker should have baked the cake and move on. Honestly, the courts should have just thrown the case out as frivolous, imo.

 

[Paul]

“when the perceived offense is up to the offended party”?

So, who exactly has the say over when something is offensive, if it’s not the person who was offended?

That is problematic. What if I said your words above are offensive? Where does it end?

In a nation with free speech we have to accept that sometimes the words of others makes us uncomfortable. If we do not allow uncomfortable speech them we do not have free speech. Ideally I should be able to challenge you views and maybe you challenge mine too. We both become a bit uncomfortable, even mad at each other but we forge ahead to try to fully understand the issue. If you and I ended the discussion because we are offended by words then there is no true free speech.

However, some actions or speech are seen as unsavory by society at large. In this instance the members of society should be able to police themselves and avoid terms that are universally disgusting. Society decides, not you. In this instance cancel culture is totally acceptable (assuming the majority feels that way).

 

[Paul]

I get that, Dave. I just don’t understand who Paul wants to be the arbiter of who can be offended and over what.

Read my post: I said society at large gets to decide.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, the baker should sell cakes to all as long as there is no injury to his ability to practice his or her religion. Nevertheless the Supreme Court sided with the baker and 2 out of the four liberal lefty judges sided with the baker.

This is a great question. In this era being offended is up to the person. For example some people are offended when they hear the word "lame"


THE WORD LAME:
I’ve heard it used by colleagues and middle-schoolers, characters in middle-level fiction and family members; I’ve even heard it from the pulpit, being used by an otherwise progressive minister. It’s the adjective lame, and we need to stop using it.

Can we take a minute to think about what the word lame really means? The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that lame means to be “disabled or impaired in any way; weak, infirm; paralyzed; unable to move.” This dictionary tells us that the word lame also applies especially to being “disabled in the foot or leg, so as to walk haltingly or be unable to walk.”

Let’s Stop Using the Word Lame

It’s time for us and our students to talk about the word lame.

www.learningforjustice.org

When the perceived offense is up to the offended party there is no limit as to what is offensive. I 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". This is a slippery slope that leads to 1984.

On a personal level If I was a pious Christian I would still deliver cakes to gay orgies. I have no issue with that. If I was a Jew I would also deliver the cakes to the NAZI party as long as there is no physical threat.

At the same time if I was gay or a Nazi: I would not be offended if the Christian or the Jewish bakers do not want to bake a cake. I would simply move on to the next baker.

As for the case that is being discussed. It is possible that the LGTBQIA+++ activists are perennially offended and look for this sort of publicity to make a point. For some people this becomes a pseudo-religion. One could make the point that social justice activists have a passion that is a lot like religion.

I hope this rant makes sense!

You've got a few strawman arguments in here. This is the first:

"This is a great question. In this era being offended is up to the person. For example some people are offended when they hear the word "lame""

The poster you quote didn't say anything about being offended.

The second one is this:

"I 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". This is a slippery slope that leads to 1984."

Nobody is arguing for the state to coerce people into changing their language. The argument is that refusing a good or service to one party that you would willingly offer or provide to another is discrimination. In this case, it's a multicolored pink/blue birthday cake that the baker said he would make for a cisgender customer.

Do you still think we are on a slippery slope to something bad when it's the public- as opposed to the government- holding people accountable for their words and actions?

 

[Paul]

You've got a few strawman arguments in here. This is the first:

"This is a great question. In this era being offended is up to the person. For example some people are offended when they hear the word "lame""

The poster you quote didn't say anything about being offended.

The second one is this:

"I 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". This is a slippery slope that leads to 1984."

Nobody is arguing for the state to coerce people into changing their language. The argument is that refusing a good or service to one party that you would willingly offer or provide to another is discrimination. In this case, it's a multicolored pink/blue birthday cake that the baker said he would make for a cisgender customer.

Do you still think we are on a slippery slope to something bad when it's the public- as opposed to the government- holding people accountable for their words and actions?

Thanks for pointing the controversy about people been offended by the word "lame", perhaps that was not in context.
As for the concept of who is offended: This is one of those issues that does not have a solution that makes all parties happy. The baker has a right and the gay couple has a right. The supreme court voted 7-2 in favor of the baker. Two of the left leaning judges voted with the conservative side.

Lastly regarding feeling offended: I suggest you read my post #153 above about that subject.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Thanks for pointing the controversy about people been offended by the word "lame", perhaps that was not in context.
As for the concept of who is offended: This is one of those issues that does not have a solution that makes all parties happy. The baker has a right and the gay couple has a right. The supreme court voted 7-2 in favor of the baker. Two of the left leaning judges voted with the conservative side.

Lastly regarding feeling offended: I suggest you read my post #153 above about that subject.

None of this addresses any of what I said. I did not offer any thoughts on anyone being offended. I pointed out that you don't seem to be arguing in good faith. You are not addressing the arguments or questions being put forth. For example, I asked the following question:

Do you still think we are on a slippery slope to something bad when it's the public- as opposed to the government- holding people accountable for their words and actions?

You did not address it at all. You instead talked about things that had nothing to do with my post.

 

[Paul]

Do you still think we are on a slippery slope to something bad when it's the public- as opposed to the government- holding people accountable for their words and actions?

You did not read my post #153. I specifically said that society at large decides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. BTW, society can be as bad a democracy and hence courts are needed. Ultimately, all these issues are relative. There is no absolute good or evil. It is all a social construct.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You did not read my post #153. I specifically said that society at large decides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. BTW, society can be as bad a democracy and hence courts are needed. Ultimately, all these issues are relative. There is no absolute good or evil. It is all a social construct.

I have read every post in this thread, I assure you. You still aren't answering a simple yes or no question. You said the following:

"I 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". This is a slippery slope that leads to 1984."

I pointed out that this is a strawman argument as nobody is advocating for state-coerced language enforcement. That's why I asked you if you still feel we are on a slippery slope when the question is accurately framed as the public holding people accountable for offensive words. Could you please answer that question?

 

[MT15]

I think you are on the slippery slope, Paul. You are advocating for thought control basically.

The idea that someone could put forth the notion that they think the word “lame” is offensive is just someone expressing an opinion after all. How and why would you try to control that?

If they get enough people to agree, then it seems that meets the definition you put forth above that “general society” gets to decide what is generally offensive.

What is your problem with this process. It seems to meet your criteria. Unless you think values and conventions should remain frozen in time?

 

[Paul]

I have read every post in this thread, I assure you. You still aren't answering a simple yes or no question. You said the following:

"I 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". This is a slippery slope that leads to 1984."

I pointed out that this is a strawman argument as nobody is advocating for state-coerced language enforcement. That's why I asked you if you still feel we are on a slippery slope when the question is accurately framed as the public holding people accountable for offensive words. Could you please answer that question?

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?

 

[Paul]

I think you are on the slippery slope, Paul. You are advocating for thought control basically.

The idea that someone could put forth the notion that they think the word “lame” is offensive is just someone expressing an opinion after all. How and why would you try to control that?

If they get enough people to agree, then it seems that meets the definition you put forth above that “general society” gets to decide what is generally offensive.

What is your problem with this process. It seems to meet your criteria. Unless you think values and conventions should remain frozen in time?

Making an observation is not thought control or even agreeing or disagreeing with the observation. Some people take offense with the word "lame" and that is OK by me as long as the state does not coerce me to change my vocabulary. I prefer to voluntarily stop using the word on my own.