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

[musiclady]

Why would he have to advertise that he didn't make a product for an event that was not sanctioned under Colorado law?


Since you are unable to produce said advertisement even though asked repeatedly to do so, I will assume that wedding cakes sold in Colorado are for Colorado weddings under Colorado law.


Uh, no.  The customer sprang a request on the baker that was outside of what he offered.  Let's try to stick with the truth here, Jazzhead.


Again, no.  There is no law in Colorado that forces a baker to bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.

When faced with the truth, his entire argument falls to pieces.

That's why he won't acknowledge reality, and keeps arguing leftist fantasy......   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Why would he advertise that, especially when same-sex "marriages" were not recognized by the State.
If it isn't a marriage, how can it be a "wedding"? That would be like making a wedding cake for someone and their car.

He also did not advertise he would not bake wedding cakes for a man marrying a goat.

So by J's logic, he would be forced to do so. Inscription requested is "I got my Goat!"

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When faced with the truth, his entire argument falls to pieces.

That's why he won't acknowledge reality, and keeps arguing leftist fantasy......   

He does this in order to shut down threads.

He is the Champion thread smasher of alltime.

[thackney]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/16-111-BIO-CCRC.pdf     No discussion took place regarding the artistry or message for the cake.  The baker simply refused service in accordance with an unwritten "policy" he sprung on his customers when they entered the store.     

If it could be reasonably demonstrated that the baker had previously refused work based upon Christian religious beliefs, unrelated to homosexuality, would you view his actions differently?  If he had a previous history of refusing to make goods that conflicted with his beliefs?

@Jazzhead

And what if because of this history, the gay couple sought him out?

[LateForLunch]

If it could be reasonably demonstrated that the baker had previously refused work based upon Christian religious beliefs, unrelated to homosexuality, would you view his actions differently?  If he had a previous history of refusing to make goods that conflicted with his beliefs?

@Jazzhead

And what if because of this history, the gay couple sought him out?

All good questions deserving answers as intelligent as the question.

Good luck to leftist litigators when it's Muslims telling the gummint to suck rocks about delivering products/serives to homosexual couples. My watchword is, "what would Holland do"? The answer is - nothing. Dutch cops/court would tell the gay person to suck it up and go somewhere else and tell the baker to put up a sign warning customers that their beliefs "prevent them from engaging in some products/services" and refer them to documation inside. No litigation wedges or cracks for attorneys to enter and cause destruction like roots in asphalt. No room for roving, poison-laden lawsuit "professionals" to attack a business person.

Not tort reform but almost better..

[Hoodat]

If it could be reasonably demonstrated that the baker had previously refused work based upon Christian religious beliefs, unrelated to homosexuality, would you view his actions differently?  If he had a previous history of refusing to make goods that conflicted with his beliefs?

Jazzhead neglected to mention that the baker also refused to make a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual woman.  And he is not being honest when he says the baker refused service.  Jazzhead is consciously aware that the baker did not refuse service, but freely offered other baked goods to the customer.

Not sure why he remains determined to offer a false narrative of the events in question, especially after providing links that contradict his claims.

[Smokin Joe]

Jazzhead neglected to mention that the baker also refused to make a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual woman.  And he is not being honest when he says the baker refused service.  Jazzhead is consciously aware that the baker did not refuse service, but freely offered other baked goods to the customer.

Not sure why he remains determined to offer a false narrative of the events in question, especially after providing links that contradict his claims.

Because without distortion of fact, there is no case whatsoever, and people will realize just how badly the baker was screwed over. That doesn't exactly spin things the way he wants.

[Jazzhead]

Again, no.  There is no law in Colorado that forces a baker to bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.

Ah, but there is.  It's the law the prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation with respect to a customer's sexual orientation.   Not all jurisdictions have such laws - but Colorado does.   The status of same sex marriage in Colorado is irrelevant.   Lots of folks celebrate weddings in Colorado that are held elsewhere.   Bakers in Colorado that advertise wedding cakes are obliged not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is all lots of fun to argue about, but the bottom line is that the SCOTUS will soon rule who is right and who is wrong.  I'll abide by their decision.

[Jazzhead]

Because without distortion of fact, there is no case whatsoever, and people will realize just how badly the baker was screwed over. That doesn't exactly spin things the way he wants.

I linked a SCOTUS brief that lays out the facts.  Read it before you accuse me of lying and spin.   Service was refused without any sort of discussion regarding the design or message on the cake.   Whether that amounts to unlawful discrimination is in the hands of the Supreme Court.   We'll see who screwed over whom.  One clue,  however, may be seen on the baker's own website - he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.   

[thackney]

Ah, but there is.  It's the law the prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation with respect to a customer's sexual orientation.   Not all jurisdictions have such laws - but Colorado does.   The status of same sex marriage in Colorado is irrelevant.   Lots of folks celebrate weddings in Colorado that are held elsewhere.   Bakers in Colorado that advertise wedding cakes are obliged not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is all lots of fun to argue about, but the bottom line is that the SCOTUS will soon rule who is right and who is wrong.  I'll abide by their decision.

Why wasn't Colorado sued for the same reason on the issuance of the marriage licences?

[Jazzhead]

Why wasn't Colorado sued for the same reason on the issuance of the marriage licences?

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.   

[Cyber Liberty]

One clue,  however, may be seen on the baker's own website - he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.

Then proving he once advertised wedding cakes for all should be a simple task for a bright-minded individual, yet we're still waiting.

[thackney]

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

That claim ignores the fact that he offered to sell them anything in his store.  He wasn't biased against them.  He was biased in participating in the custom design of a cake for a homosexual "marriage".  It did not matter what that design was wanted, he was not going to be forced to be part of it.

This is a baker that routinely made business decisions based upon his religious beliefs.  He had refused other work in the past that did not involve homosexuality due to his religious beliefs.

[Jazzhead]

That claim ignores the fact that he offered to sell them anything in his store.  He wasn't biased against them.  He was biased in participating in the custom design of a cake for a homosexual "marriage".  It did not matter what that design was wanted, he was not going to be forced to be part of it.

This is a baker that routinely made business decisions based upon his religious beliefs.  He had refused other work in the past that did not involve homosexuality due to his religious beliefs.

His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks.   His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly -  he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone. 

He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here,  just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake for these folks to celebrate their wedding.   As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that.  What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.   

[txradioguy]

His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks.   His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly -  he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone. 

He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here,  just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake to for these folks to celebrate their wedding.   As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that.  What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.

Do you have any link to anything that shows this baker specifically advertised to make wedding cakes?

Anything at all?  Usually at a bakery...because of the complexity of them...a wedding cake is a special request...special order kind of thing....something you have to specifically ask to find out if that particular baker does them.

So where is the link to something from this guys shop showing that he specifically advertised that he made wedding cakes?

[thackney]

His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks.   His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly -  he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone. 

He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here,  just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake to for these folks to celebrate their wedding.   As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that.  What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.

We disagree.  We will see what the SCOTUS says.

This baker would not even sell Halloween decorated cakes because of his religious beliefs.  The more I learn about the way he ran his business, the more I suspect he was targeted because of his religious beliefs.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-ts.pdf

Phillips gladly serves people from all walks of life,
including individuals of all races, faiths, and sexual
orientations. JA164. But he cannot design custom
cakes that express ideas or celebrate events at odds
with his religious beliefs. JA158-59, 164-66. For
example, Phillips will not design cakes that celebrate
Halloween; express anti-family themes (such as a
cake glorifying divorce); contain hateful, vulgar, or
profane messages (such as a cake disparaging gays
and lesbians); or promote atheism, racism, or
indecency. JA165. These limitations on Phillips’s
custom work have no bearing on his premade baked
items, which he sells to everyone, no questions asked.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you have any link to anything that shows this baker specifically advertised to make wedding cakes?

Anything at all?  Usually at a bakery...because of the complexity of them...a wedding cake is a special request...special order kind of thing....something you have to specifically ask to find out if that particular baker does them.

So where is the link to something from this guys shop showing that he specifically advertised that he made wedding cakes?

I've been requesting that proof.  First he said that there is no proof is actually proof.  When I pointed out the silliness of that approach, he started ignoring my request, and now I guess I'm the broken record.   

[txradioguy]

I've been requesting that proof.  First he said that there is no proof is actually proof.  When I pointed out the silliness of that approach, he started ignoring my request, and now I guess I'm the broken record.   

Nah the broken record is the one that keeps repeating the false bigotry meme and claims of discrimination with nothing to back up the claim.

[Jazzhead]

I've been requesting that proof.

Check out his website.  Check out the court briefs.  A long-standing portion of his business was the creation of wedding cakes.   The law requires him to serve his customers without discriminating on the basis of (among other things) sexual orientation.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Check out his website.  Check out the court briefs.  A long-standing portion of his business was the creation of wedding cakes.   The law requires him to serve his customers without discriminating on the basis of (among other things) sexual orientation.

You've been claiming he advertised to bake wedding cakes for anyone.  That is the claim I'm expecting you to prove, and for some strange reason you will not.

[Hoodat]

Ah, but there is.  It's the law the prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation with respect to a customer's sexual orientation.

Except that you know this not to be the case since the request of a heterosexual woman to bake a same-sex wedding cake was also denied.  Yet here you are lying about it once again.

[thackney]

Do you have any link to anything that shows this baker specifically advertised to make wedding cakes?

Silly argument:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130701000000*/http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/

http://masterpiececakes.com/

Masterpiece Cakeshop was The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012.

[txradioguy]

Silly argument:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130701000000*/http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/

http://masterpiececakes.com/

Masterpiece Cakeshop was The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012.

Amazing that you could find that and someone else here either couldn't or wouldn't.

[Hoodat]

I linked a SCOTUS brief that lays out the facts.  Read it before you accuse me of lying and spin.   Service was refused without any sort of discussion regarding the design or message on the cake.

  No discussion regarding the sexual preference of the customers occurred either.  But there was a discussion about what the cake was for.

The baker made wedding cakes.  Under Colorado law, weddings are between one man and one woman.  The customers were ordering something that did not fall under this definition.  They ordered something that the baker did not make nor ever offered to make to anyone.

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

[Jazzhead]

Except that you know this not to be the case since the request of a heterosexual woman to bake a same-sex wedding cake was also denied.  Yet here you are lying about it once again.

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