U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[James Madison]

The baker would gladly sell a custom cake to the customer he is predjudice against--but not just any custom cake.

Let's take another example to further illustrate: retail shop A and retail shop B

Owners of both retail shops dislike blacks. Both refuse to sell figurines depicting a black Santa.

Owner A will sell figurines depicting white Santas to both whites and blacks.
Owner B will sell figurines depicting white Santas to only whites.

The baker is predjudice and therefore won't sell certain things, but whatever he's willing to sell to one, he's willing to sell to all.

Your counter argument is that I'm mistaken since he claims to be in the business of selling custom cakes yet refuses to sell one to the customer he has a problem with. The problem is that even though it's true that he's in the business of selling custom cakes, he's not willing to sell just any ole custom cake regardless of who you are. He's not going to sell homo-themed cakes to straights either--for instance if a straight person wanted to buy it for his homosexual friend.

I'm not denying that it's predjudicial. I'm just pointing out a distinction that lies between the product and the people. We need to have laws that protect us from people like owner B who decide not to sell anything to members of a particular protected group. How further we will go to protect customers from those that are predjudicial is another matter.

If I find homosexuals to be devients of society, I must still sell to them if I sell to others; however, its questionable that I must also sell what I don't want to sell. The baker wants to sell custom wedding cakes, but he doesn't want to be associated with selling to homosexuals, but if he wants to remain in business, he has no choice, so he has made the choice to sell custom cakes he deems appropriate, and no matter how predjudiced he might be in his selection of how his custom cakes are, he must be willing to sell those very same cakes to anyone that might cross his path, so long as they're protected by law.

At any rate, it's a distinction, for what it's worth.

No, it’s a distinction without a difference.

The service is custom made wedding cakes. He holds himself, and his business, as open to the public to make and sell custom wedding cakes. This is different from not having in stock a particular item for sale,
such as specific kind of Santa figurine. Here, his custom wedding cake making service is being sold, it’s available for sale, it’s in stock so to speak, so your comparison isn’t parallel.

He’s refusing a service he provides for sale to the public and then specifically refuses that same service to certain segment of the public. Those facts aren’t parallel to your example of an item not sold at all.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the service is custom made wedding cakes, so it's true that they make custom made wedding cakes. In that is no implication that there are custom made wedding cakes they will not make or sell.

He is not committing to sell any and all kinds of wedding cakes by announcing to the world that he's in he business of selling custom wedding cakes. By being in business, however, the law should prohibit him from refusing to sell what he would otherwise sell to people not protected by law. If he sells xx to a, he must sell to b, c, and d. If he doesn't sell xy, he shouldn't have to sell to a, b, c or d.

He offers his services to the public. The service he offers is custom wedding cakes. Custom wedding cakes are not like gender specific apparel, or items in which their inherent nature render them as uniquely for certain people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'd rather not say "hold against them," as you did.

But it is accurate. The reason he does not sell cakes for gay weddings is that he considers such usage of the cake immoral, so he does hold the fact that they intend to use the cake for a gay wedding against them.

What you're saying is that the law has gone further and not only prohibits people from selling to people they take issue with but also are dictating that they must sell or make things they would not otherwise do.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they're not allowed to refuse to sell an item they generally sell to the public just because the person purchasing the item in question intends to use it in a gay (or, for that matter, interracial) wedding. As I pointed out in my previous post, the baker did not refuse to sell them a gay-themed wedding cake (theme was not discussed). He refused to sell them any wedding cake, because they intended to use it in a gay wedding. That's illegal, just as refusing to sell people a wedding cake because it's going to be used in an interracial wedding would be illegal.

What law does it violate, are you saying bakeries are public acommodations or some other reason?

 

[fast]

I'd rather not say "hold against them," as you did.

But it is accurate. The reason he does not sell cakes for gay weddings is that he considers such usage of the cake immoral, so he does hold the fact that they intend to use the cake for a gay wedding against them.

What you're saying is that the law has gone further and not only prohibits people from selling to people they take issue with but also are dictating that they must sell or make things they would not otherwise do.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they're not allowed to refuse to sell an item they generally sell to the public just because the person purchasing the item in question intends to use it in a gay (or, for that matter, interracial) wedding. As I pointed out in my previous post, the baker did not refuse to sell them a gay-themed wedding cake (theme was not discussed). He refused to sell them any wedding cake, because they intended to use it in a gay wedding. That's illegal, just as refusing to sell people a wedding cake because it's going to be used in an interracial wedding would be illegal.

If he would sell an identical cake (identical in every way) to someone else, then yes, I agree with you completely.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But it is accurate. The reason he does not sell cakes for gay weddings is that he considers such usage of the cake immoral, so he does hold the fact that they intend to use the cake for a gay wedding against them.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they're not allowed to refuse to sell an item they generally sell to the public just because the person purchasing the item in question intends to use it in a gay (or, for that matter, interracial) wedding. As I pointed out in my previous post, the baker did not refuse to sell them a gay-themed wedding cake (theme was not discussed). He refused to sell them any wedding cake, because they intended to use it in a gay wedding. That's illegal, just as refusing to sell people a wedding cake because it's going to be used in an interracial wedding would be illegal.

If he would sell an identical cake (identical in every way) to someone else, then yes, I agree with you completely.

It seems the design of the cake was not discussed, because the baker told them right away that he would not bake a cake for a gay wedding, so there was no cake to make another identical one to. However, he would not sell them wedding cakes identical to any of the wedding cakes he sold for opposite-sex weddings, since said he would not sell them any wedding cakes at all, and the reason was that the cake was to be used in a gay wedding.

 

[fast]

But it is accurate. The reason he does not sell cakes for gay weddings is that he considers such usage of the cake immoral, so he does hold the fact that they intend to use the cake for a gay wedding against them.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they're not allowed to refuse to sell an item they generally sell to the public just because the person purchasing the item in question intends to use it in a gay (or, for that matter, interracial) wedding. As I pointed out in my previous post, the baker did not refuse to sell them a gay-themed wedding cake (theme was not discussed). He refused to sell them any wedding cake, because they intended to use it in a gay wedding. That's illegal, just as refusing to sell people a wedding cake because it's going to be used in an interracial wedding would be illegal.

If he would sell an identical cake (identical in every way) to someone else, then yes, I agree with you completely.

It seems the design of the cake was not discussed, because the baker told them right away that he would not bake a cake for a gay wedding, so there was no cake to make another identical one to. However, he would not sell them wedding cakes identical to any of the wedding cakes he sold for opposite-sex weddings, since said he would not sell them any wedding cakes at all, and the reason was that the cake was to be used in a gay wedding.

We are now on the same page.

My original point was to distinguish between two kinds of discrimination. The situation you describe would fall under what I dubbed as people discrimination as opposed to what I dub product discrimination.

If I will do for one but not all, that's people discrimination--so long as what I mean by that isn't skewed. Back to my Pepsi example where I will sell Pepsi but not Coke. If I'm willing to sell Pepsi (with no strings attached) but won't sell Coke, that's product discrimination. So, if I refuse to sell Pepsi to a gay person person because that person is gay, that is people discrimination.

If I refuse to sell Pepsi to someone (regardless of who they are) because they're gonna use it in a gay function, that's people discrimination since I'm refusing to sell what I ordinarily sell.

If I refuse to sell Coke to someone (regardless of who they are), then even if I despise the reason for which it would be used, it's still product discrimination.

With the cake example, he does make custom wedding cakes, and as you've pointed out, he won't sell it to anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) because of the venue it'll be used at, so whether this is people discrimination or product discrimination squarely depends on the final product. If it's indeed the case there would be no difference with the cake and he is still not doing for all what he would do for one--and that's people discrimination; however, if the custom cake involves putting "congratulations Bob and Tom" on the cake, and if he wouldn't sell that to even a heterosexual couple at a heterosexual venue (oh say, as a gag) because he doesn't make custom wedding cakes with two male names on it, that is very clearly a choice steeped in predjudice and discrimination, but it would not be people discrimination but rather product discrimination despite his underlying predjudice.

What I'm toying with is the idea that just as certain despicable things can be permissible, so too can certain kinds of discrimination be legally permissible. The argument that people put forward to justify prohibiting discrimation is fine when it comes to people discrimination, but it seems that just perhaps a stronger argument is warranted when it comes to product discrimination.

Case in point. Telling someone they must sell their hair care products to blacks is one thing, but telling someone they must carry black hair care products is something else entirely. It's discrimatory either way, but protecting blacks from being turned away is a far cry different than mandating that no kind of discrimination is permissible--as it requires substantially more than it would otherwise; hence the need for a stronger argument than would be necessary for the other.

 

[James Madison]

Moreover, the practical effect of the ruling--regardless of the technical, nuanced explanation of the majority--was that the public gained the impression that SCOTUS had overturned the Colorado law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It did not technically do that, but the perception of most of the media and the public is that it did. So the rhetorical logic chopping and technical nuance in the SCOTUS decision did no favors to the law that wasn't somehow being overturned. It effectively crippled the law in the eyes of the public. This is yet another example of the Roberts SCOTUS handing down a decision that will have unintended consequences in subsequent application of the law and probably end up clogging up the courts with more lawsuits seeking clarification.

The opinion itself isn't the cause of the effect you highlight above. It is especially difficult to render the opinion as the culprit for the effect you highlight when Justice Kennedy explicitly states in the opinion the law itself is not the problem, but the unfair application of the law was the dilemma, and that public accommodation laws may limit religious conduct by businesses without offending the 1st Amendment.

The problem is the media, in a shocking an unfathomably, failed accurately represent what the opinion said. Nearly paralleled in shock as that of the media poorly representing what the opinion said, a large number of the public also failed to properly understand what the majority decision said. My suspicion, as to the cause, is not the opinion, but the lack of people reading the opinion itself. The lack of people reading the opinion is the cause for the effect of the misguided public impression.

This is yet another example of the Roberts SCOTUS handing down a decision that will have unintended consequences in subsequent application of the law

An inherent characteristic of the U.S. judicial system, indeed an inherent characteristic associated with the process of the Court interpreting the law, and in doing so, announcing legal rules, principles, and reasoning which facilitates more litigation in the joints. What you described above is not a phenomenon unique to the Roberts Court

 

[repoman]

This is where it is headed, folks!!!!!!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is where it is headed, folks!!!!!!

Where what is headed? Where you don’t have the right to be an immature dickhead? I don’t recall that being in the Bill of Rights, but unfortunately no matter how hard society may try, immature dickheads will always exist, so rest easy.

 

[RavenSky]

Colorado Baker Just Couldn't Quit While He Was Ahead

A Colorado baker who gained notoriety for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is headed for a new showdown with the state, this time over a birthday cake for a transgender woman.

Note... a BIRTHDAY cake this time.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in the suburbs of Denver, filed a lawsuit against the state on Tuesday claiming that his rights to freedom of speech and religion were being violated.

The new case involves Autumn Scardina, an attorney who ordered a cake with a pink interior and blue exterior in June 2017 to celebrate her birthday as well as the seventh anniversary of her transition from male to female.

Scardina filed a complaint with the state Civil Rights Commission after being told Phillips could not fill the order because of his religious beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look, birthdays have been heralded as special events since just before Cain killed Abel. Now the BS shift to "art" moves into play. Our Christian Dominionists will be pleased.

 

[Copernicus]

This latest development exposes the Supreme Court's decision for what it was--a blindly partisan attempt to slap down a legitmate ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The baker had been clear about his reasons for refusing to serve the gay couple--that he opposed gay marriage. Whether or not some members of the commission made prejudicial statements outside of their deliberations was irrelevant. There was no evidence that their biases actually tainted their original judgment that the baker had violated state antidiscrimination law. However, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court chose to see it differently. So now they have this whole thing coming back on them from a different direction--an act of bigotry against a transgender--not gay--couple. This business owner had openly declared his bigoted reasons for refusing to serve the public in the first case, and the majority on the Supreme Court chose to ignore that and focus on unofficial statements by one or two members of the Colorado commission. So now we see the whole mess coming back again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, why should a transgendered person celebrate a birthday, anyway? The transgendered feel they were born the wrong gender, celebrating a birthday is celebrating a mistake.

 

[fast]

Well, why should a transgendered person celebrate a birthday, anyway? The transgendered feel they were born the wrong gender, celebrating a birthday is celebrating a mistake.

I may have things twisted, and I am probably doing a disservice to say this, but they are not born the wrong gender; they are born the wrong sex.

Take a person (born with a penis) that speaks about how she feels inside, how she has always inwardly felt like a woman. It's not that she wants to transform from a man to a woman, but confusion aside, she is and has always been a woman--a woman born with a males body.

If what this person says is not a tragic consequence of social acceptance run amuck and this person truly was born both a girl (feels like a girl) and a male (with male parts), then the trick is not to transform the mind to align with the body but to transform the body to align with the mind.

So, the "gender" in "transgender" is a bit of a misnomer. She's not changing gender; she was born a girl and has been a girl all along--just shying away from girly activities in fear of being ostracized. What she wants to change is her body -- to change it so that it accords with what she feels inside.

 

[laughing dog]

This latest development exposes the Supreme Court's decision for what it was--a blindly partisan attempt to slap down a legitmate ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The baker had been clear about his reasons for refusing to serve the gay couple--that he opposed gay marriage. Whether or not some members of the commission made prejudicial statements outside of their deliberations was irrelevant. There was no evidence that their biases actually tainted their original judgment that the baker had violated state antidiscrimination law. However, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court chose to see it differently. So now they have this whole thing coming back on them from a different direction--an act of bigotry against a transgender--not gay--couple. This business owner had openly declared his bigoted reasons for refusing to serve the public in the first case, and the majority on the Supreme Court chose to ignore that and focus on unofficial statements by one or two members of the Colorado commission. So now we see the whole mess coming back again.

The SCOTUS threw this moralistic bigot a bone, and now he is chewing on it. According to the SCOTUS ruling, the baker did violate the law, but due to his alleged unfair treatment by the Colorado authorities, they overturned the verdict. But the SCOTUS made it clear that if that mistreatment had not occurred, that this baker had no case.

One can only hope that the make up of the court does not change any more, and that their collective memories remain intact, so that this nasty bigot gets a surprise.

 

[James Madison]

This latest development exposes the Supreme Court's decision for what it was--a blindly partisan attempt to slap down a legitmate ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The baker had been clear about his reasons for refusing to serve the gay couple--that he opposed gay marriage. Whether or not some members of the commission made prejudicial statements outside of their deliberations was irrelevant. There was no evidence that their biases actually tainted their original judgment that the baker had violated state antidiscrimination law. However, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court chose to see it differently. So now they have this whole thing coming back on them from a different direction--an act of bigotry against a transgender--not gay--couple. This business owner had openly declared his bigoted reasons for refusing to serve the public in the first case, and the majority on the Supreme Court chose to ignore that and focus on unofficial statements by one or two members of the Colorado commission. So now we see the whole mess coming back again.

Is that really a fair depiction of the case? Two liberals agreed with the majority decision and wrote a concurrence. That certainly weighs against the characterization the opinion was partisan.

Concerning the decision itself, there was the disparaging remark(s) by a commissioner(s), and unequal application of the law. Both facts were relied upon to argue the law was not applied in a neutral manner.

At this moment these facts, the facts we know to exist about this latest incident, are not inconsistent with what Kennedy wrote was required in Masterpiece Cakeshop. Unless the Court plans to over turn Employment Div v. Smith, make some exception to it (rather difficult in this context workout over turning the case), or at some point evidence the law is not neutrally applied, there’s some bias or hostility towards Phillips, then Phillips should lose the religious freedom claim under the 1st Amendment.

Left unresolved, was the free speech issue, which he has raised again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk