Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of cafe, goes on vulgar rant — it was all caught on video

[txradioguy]

But then you knew that already.  Yet you still offer a false account of what occurred.

@Hoodat if he was honest...he wouldn't be able to rant about intolerant Christian bigots with impunity.

[ConstitutionRose]

Maybe Colorado was;  many states faced challenges in the years leading up to the Supreme Court's ruling that a government's provision of special status and benefits to married couples was subject to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.   

It's important to keep in mind that the baker makes two principle arguments - one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs.   That argument, as advanced by a public accommodation,  is nonsense and will be disposed of quickly by the Court, as it has since 1964. 

The more momentous argument is that because his business - the creation of custom wedding cakes - involves the exercise of  some creativity,  he should be allowed to decide who will, and will not, receive his services.    That's momentous because it has implication for a whole host of service providers.   Can a maker of sandwiches discriminate because his delicious double-stacked creations are the result of his passion and artistry?   

Here,  I predict that the SCOTUS will punt.   It's important to keep in mind that the SCOTUS gets to pick and choose the cases it will hear.   I think it picked this one because it can uphold the laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodation from First Amendment claims of religious freedom,  while sidestepping the baker's status as an "artist" able to pick and choose his commissions.   That's because the baker refused service before even initiating a discussion about the design or message of the cake.   His intent to discriminate was manifest without regard to whether he would be forced to practice his "artistry".   This fact is the lever for the SCOTUS to rule on the issue it wants to emphasize, while avoiding the issue it prefers to leave to the political process.   

I think you could make the argument that "custom" changes the nature of the service because it requires agreement between the customer and the service provider to a very specific, out-of-ordinary service.  If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, does that mean the service provider denied service?

[Jazzhead]

I think you could make the argument that "custom" changes the nature of the service because it requires agreement between the customer and the service provider to a very specific, out-of-ordinary service.  If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, does that mean the service provider denied service?

No, not at all.  What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service;  if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake,  that's not an arbitrary denial of service.   As I and others have noted before,  a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.   

But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion.  That suggests arbitrary discrimination -  and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.   

[txradioguy]

No, not at all.  What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service;  if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake,  that's not an arbitrary denial of service.   As I and others have noted before,  a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.   

But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion.  That suggests arbitrary discrimination -  and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.

How is it arbitrary if he's refused to make gay "wedding" cakes for anyone who's asked?

Arbitrary would be making a gay "wedding" cake for person A and refusing to make the same kind of cake for person B.


The baker has been consistent...not arbitrary.

[Hoodat]

It's important to keep in mind that the baker makes two principle arguments - one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs.

And your argument is that he doesn't have the right to discriminate against a cake.

The more momentous argument is that because his business - the creation of custom wedding cakes - involves the exercise of  some creativity,  he should be allowed to decide who will, and will not, receive his services.

But that is not the issue at all.  It has never been about who is served, but rather what is served.

It's important to keep in mind that the SCOTUS gets to pick and choose the cases it will hear.   I think it picked this one because it can uphold the laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodation from First Amendment claims of religious freedom

Discrimination against a cake.

That's because the baker refused service before even initiating a discussion about the design or message of the cake.

You know that not to be true.  The baker was specifically asked to make a wedding cake for a 'wedding' not sanctioned by the State of Colorado.  He refused because he does not make that type of cake.  He doesn't make that type of cake for anyone regardless of who requests it.  His discrimination against that type of 'unsanctioned' cake affects everyone equally regardless of sexual preference.  Pointedly so since sexual preference was never discussed.  But then you knew that already.
 

His intent to discriminate was manifest without regard to whether he would be forced to practice his "artistry".

That would be because his intent to discriminate was in regards to the product he made and not to the customer wanting to buy it, which the court documents prove.  And you already know this to be the case, yet you come back again and again and again with this false narrative of what happened.

[Hoodat]

No, not at all.  What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service;  if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake,  that's not an arbitrary denial of service.

The message of the cake was to celebrate a marriage not sanctioned under Colorado law.  So by the definition you just gave, there was nothing unlawful about the baker's actions.

As I and others have noted before,  a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.

Why not?  You are already demanding that a baker (at the point of a gun) add a product to his menu that he does not currently offer.  Why does that same standard not apply to Jewish bakers?

Thus the pitfalls of making you the arbiter of who bakes what for whom.  You champion equal protection, yet are the very first person to violate it.

But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion.

Nope.  The baker was specifically asked to bake a cake for a wedding not sanctioned under Colorado Law.  At no time did the baker turn the customer away.  He informed the customer that he does not bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law, and he subsequently offered him other products that he did make.  You keep flat out lying about the events that occurred.  What is it in you that compels you to continually lie about this case?

That suggests arbitrary discrimination - 

Nothing arbitrary about it.  The baker simply does not bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.

-  and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.

What about the heterosexual woman who also requested the same-sex wedding cake?  Is she also the victim of discrimination?  Or is this where your equal protection argument falls apart?

[Jazzhead]

That would be because his intent to discriminate was in regards to the product he made and not to the customer wanting to buy it, which the court documents prove.  And you already know this to be the case, yet you come back again and again and again with this false narrative of what happened.

And you keep coming back again and again to your bullshit.   If you go on his website, you'll find that he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.  His CURRENT practice is to discriminate with respect to the product he makes.  All customers are treated the same - if they want a custom wedding cake, they'll have to go elsewhere.  His PAST practice was very different - he advertised as his specialty the creation of wedding cakes, yet in practice he denied this service to his gay customers - no matter what design or message they may have requested for the cake.   That was discrimination with respect to his customer , and that is what is unlawful.   

[Hoodat]

How is it arbitrary if he's refused to make gay "wedding" cakes for anyone who's asked?

Arbitrary would be making a gay "wedding" cake for person A and refusing to make the same kind of cake for person B.

The baker has been consistent...not arbitrary.

Notice how Jazzhead violates the very standards he claims to uphold.  He claims consistency as being arbitrary, yet deems his own arbitrary claims as consistent.

As Mick Jagger and Keith Richards once said:

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints . . .

[txradioguy]

one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs.

The 1st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The baker is protected by the bolded.  He exercised his constitutional right to his religious beliefs as well as his constitutional right to free speech.

[Cyber Liberty]

A difference of opinion is not "lying", except to those too stupid or graceless to recognize it.

You have made various assertions on this thread that have been proven false six ways from Tuesday, and you've backed up you claims with spurious evidence that don't 't prove your points at all.  At some point in time a reasonable observer would come to the conclusion that you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. 

That some people call that "lying" is neither stupid or graceless.

[txradioguy]

Notice how Jazzhead violates the very standards he claims to uphold.  He claims consistency as being arbitrary, yet deems his own arbitrary claims as consistent.

As Mick Jagger and Keith Richards once said:

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints . . .

That's the problem Liberals run into when they try to make their case on a Conservative website.  It's all based on emotion and feelings...and they never survive the cold harsh light of reality and facts.

[HoustonSam]

It's important to keep in mind that the baker makes two principle arguments - one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs.   That argument, as advanced by a public accommodation,  is nonsense and will be disposed of quickly by the Court, as it has since 1964. 

I have not read all the posts on this topic, nor have I read other relevant documents such as briefs, so my thoughts are certainly subject to correction.  I note that others have asserted on this thread that the baker had previously refused to prepare a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding when that cake was ordered by a heterosexual woman, and that the baker had offered to sell the homosexual couple anything already available in his shop.  I accept those assertions as true and acknowledge that if they are proven untrue then my argument fails.

The baker did not discriminate against anyone.  He treated the homosexual couple in exactly the same manner he had treated the heterosexual woman - he declined to prepare a wedding cake and offered to sell anything else already available in the shop.  He did not refuse service to anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation, he refused to fulfill a custom order whether that order was submitted by a heterosexual woman or a homosexual couple.  There is simply no evidence that the baker discriminated against anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation because potential customers got the same treatment whether they were heterosexual or homosexual.

Now the baker and his lawyer might in fact be describing this as a right to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, or perhaps that is simply a facile way to describe the baker's position if one disagrees with him.  A court might make its decision from the perspective of discrimination.  But the issue is not one of discrimination and insisting on describing it as such is intellectually lazy at best.  If heterosexual and homosexual were both treated in exactly the same way then there was no discrimination.  The issue is whether being in business causes one to lose constitutional rights.  Can a business owner be forced to make a statement which violates his conscience?

[Cyber Liberty]

If you go on his website, you'll find that he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.  His CURRENT practice is to discriminate with respect to the product he makes.   

His adjustment reflects a change in the law, and it's dishonest to say he changed his policy because of your assertion he's a bigoted Christian and he was doing something wrong in the first place.  People change policies all the time because they've been sued, and doing so is not an admission of guilt, it's a sound business practice.  He's protecting himself from A-holes who call him a "bigot" with no cause.

Only people who have prejudged a business owner dance around and do victory dances in the end zone when this happens.  Frankly, it makes you look petty and foolish.  Reminds me of the saying about why one doesn't play Chess with a pigeon.

[Hoodat]

And you keep coming back again and again to your bullshit.   If you go on his website, you'll find that he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.

His actions after the fact have ZERO bearing on what occurred.  And the reason he no longer takes orders for wedding cakes is because he refuses to be forced at the point of a gun to make a product against his will.

His CURRENT practice is to discriminate with respect to the product he makes.

That was his former practice as well.  He has remained consistent, except that he is now denied the freedom (at the point of a gun) to make the wedding cakes he wants to make.

All customers are treated the same - if they want a custom wedding cake, they'll have to go elsewhere.

All customers were treated the same before, too.  If they wanted a wedding cake for a wedding not sanctioned under Colorado law, they had to go elsewhere.

His PAST practice was very different - he advertised as his specialty the creation of wedding cakes, yet in practice he denied this service to his gay customers - no matter what design or message they may have requested for the cake.   That was discrimination with respect to his customer , and that is what is unlawful.

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit.  First of all, sexual preference was not discussed with the customers.  There is nothing in the court records that indicated the customers revealed their sexual preference to the baker.  Secondly, at no time were the customers denied service.  The court records are quite clear about this.  Neither side denies it.  Yet here you are again flat out lying about it.  That makes you a liar.  Thirdly, a heterosexual woman also asked for a same-sex wedding cake, and she too was told that the baker did not make that type of cake.  So the discrimination against a certain product was experienced by both heterosexual and homosexual customers equally.  So your claim that the customer was discriminated against simply because of his sexual preference is pure unadulterated bullshit.

But then you knew that already.

[LateForLunch]

Reminds me of the saying about why one doesn't play Chess with a pigeon.

As usual, the chaos-ridden left has no consistent morality nor therefore policy. What will Jazzhead and his lovely friends do when muzz businesses stridently refuse to provide goods/services to homosexuals? What then, sieur? Will the ACLU and a cadre of expensive lawyers descend on them like carrion birds to destroy their business or put them in prison because they refused to serve Jewish, Christian or transgender people !?! 

Can't wait to see what sort of absurd, cognitively dissonant crunk the 'Crats drop THEN. heh 'Can't wait. 

The leftist carnival of chaos and mutual rape continues.

[thackney]

No, not at all.  What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service;  if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake,  that's not an arbitrary denial of service.   As I and others have noted before,  a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.   

But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion.  That suggests arbitrary discrimination -  and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.

In your opinion, a Jewish baker could be compelled to to bake a custom cake for a Nazi celebration, provided the decorations are not considered offensive?

[Cyber Liberty]

In your opinion, a Jewish baker could be compelled to to bake a custom cake for a Nazi celebration, provided the decorations are not considered offensive?

From what I've seen of the argument, unless the Jewish cake baker specifies in his advertised schedule of services that he won't do Nazi imagery, then he can be compelled to decorate a cake with a Swastika and the double lightning bolts, too.  If a Muslim walks in the store and wants a cake inscribed with "Die, Jewish Dogs" he'd likewise be forced to produce it, unless also noted in some list of services available.

Makes for quite a long stretch of fine print, no?

[Jazzhead]

In your opinion, a Jewish baker could be compelled to to bake a custom cake for a Nazi celebration, provided the decorations are not considered offensive?

No.  Nazism (indeed, political views in general) aren't protected characteristics with respect to public accommodations.   A store could, I believe, refuse to serve Democrats, so long as such refusal isn't deemed a subterfuge for discrimination with respect to a protected characteristic. 

Note that sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in many places.   That is a matter for the political process to decide.   

[Jazzhead]

  He's protecting himself from A-holes who call him a "bigot" with no cause.

Also against folks who would reasonably deem him a bigot on the basis of his actions.   Those are the folks who tend to sue and win.     

[Cyber Liberty]

Not gonna say it.  No matter what, it will come off looking like a cheap shot.

[musiclady]

Not gonna say it.  No matter what, it will come off looking like a cheap shot.

   Discretion is the better part of valor.

[Cyber Liberty]

  Discretion is the better part of valor.

High praise, my dear ML.  High praise indeed.  You know what I'm thinking, too....

[ConstitutionRose]

No, not at all.  What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service;  if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake,  that's not an arbitrary denial of service.   As I and others have noted before,  a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.   

But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion.  That suggests arbitrary discrimination -  and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.

My secondary business is creating custom jewelry for special occasions, mostly weddings.  Its secondary and custom and I don't advertise (although more work would be good), because I don't like dealing with certain personalities and certain designs are offensive enough to me that I don't want to create them.  I've had people really go off on me when I explained that I could not accommodate them.  One or two has threatened to sue me.  My attorney assures me that as long as I keep the business based on agreement between customer and myself as provider they have no standing to sue.  The advertising bit is my own choice.  I suppose the law differs between states to some extent.  My point is that as long as the baker was willing to sell the customer anything in the bakery, he was not discriminating.  The custom cake is an agreement between consumer and provider and any reason will do - including "I don't feel like making it right now".  Otherwise, what limitations are there on the ability of a customer to make a demand on a provider?  Could someone come to me and say "you will make diamond necklaces and earrings for my daughter's wedding, you will provide all the raw materials and labor and you will charge only $100 or I will sue you for discriminating because I'm Hindu."?

[Hoodat]

No.  Nazism (indeed, political views in general) aren't protected characteristics with respect to public accommodations.   A store could, I believe, refuse to serve Democrats, so long as such refusal isn't deemed a subterfuge for discrimination with respect to a protected characteristic.

In other words, some animals are more equal than others.

Note that sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in many places.

Non-sequitur.  This case has nothing to do with sexual preference.  This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

That is a matter for the political process to decide.

Now that's funny.  You have consistently rejected the political process in favor of the tyranny of black robes.  The political process dictates that Californians get to establish their own marriage laws.  The tyranny of black robes dictates that California does not get to establish their own marriage laws, but must adopt Vermont's instead.

[musiclady]

High praise, my dear ML.  High praise indeed.  You know what I'm thinking, too....

I do indeed!