Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

[DCPatriot]

To tell the truth, I'm conflicted too, if there was some sort of advertisement, but it's odd one has not been produced.  Of course, we're not privy to all the evidence, but it bothers me a little what's not available.  In both these cases, all sorts of claims have been made about what was advertised, and what was said to the complainants, yet there are no pictures of ads on the walls, and no videos (or audio) of these encounters. 

I find that a little difficult to believe when it's patently obvious the aggrieved parties sought out these businesses to entrap them.

Amen! 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

/snicker

Go find me a case where a “mission” statement is a legally binding restriction on what an agency can do.

So you fail, the Oregon govt fails, and this is a trumped up event, like we all know it is.

You know, acting stupid is not the best way to actually win an argument.  It, well, makes you look stupid.

[HoustonSam]

Nope, you're right.  My bad.   I'm conflicted as hell on this.

   

@DCPatriot

I respect a man who can recognize and admit his own uncertainty.  Something I struggle with at times.

I figured if you advertise the service, you're obligated to the point you can't refuse on religious/sexual beliefs.  So bake the cake.

While I disagree on this point, I believe your position is not unreasonable.

I generally hate the emojis, but in this case I'll make an exception as an offer of good will : 

[roamer_1]

Isn't it just one particular Christian denomination that you mean to say?

Because several Christian denominations are okay with same sex unions.

Liberal apostate churches accept homos.

Any orthodox Christian denomination denounces homosexuality by definition. To include Catholic, Orthodox, and every Protestant flavor.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oceander has made it quite clear that he opposes the monetary penalty imposed on the baker.    I do as well.   The status of the baker's acts as unlawful was unclear, and to exact a punitive sanction in such a context is immoral and, well, just plain lousy.   Have the baker pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and promise not to do it again.  That would be justice.  Not running the baker out of business.   

You also failed to read the mission statement..  No where can one find that agency has the authority to pursue such an event.

[Cyber Liberty]

Amen!

 

I've learnt to be suspicious of dogs that don't bark...I wish more courts would read more Sherlock Holmes some days....

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.

Why is it you continue to think the Pope is writing the messages on this forum?

[Right_in_Virginia]

I've seen the argument several times here on the forum...and scanned the threads.  Nobody rebuts the charge that the bakers refused a request for a "special cake".   It was implied that a sign was on the premises that advertised they could accommodate special orders.  ....

Actually, based on the testimony before the SC, it appears the baker did not refuse a "special (or customized) cake" but a cake for an occasion (same sex marriage) that he did not support for religious reasons.

<snip>

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, was denied a wedding cake by Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips. The baker said he would sell the gay couple other kinds of cakes, but he could not in good conscience sell them a wedding cake, since same-sex weddings violate his religious beliefs.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that the cakeshop violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. When the state’s Supreme Court agreed with the gay couple, the baker appealed to the Supreme Court.

<snip>

At the heart of the baker’s case, his lawyers argue, is a battle over expression: not religious, per se, but artistic.

“Phillips is willing to serve any and all customers. He objects only to expressing certain messages through his custom art,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell in a statement. “Jack should have that basic freedom.”

Any law that would otherwise compel him is bad for artists, said ADF’s Kristen Waggoner. Such “laws are being used not only to silence, not only to punish, but to ruin creative professionals that don’t agree with the government’s ideology on marriage.”

As both parties have maintained, the couple left Phillips’s bakery before discussing the cake’s design, including any language they would have wanted included. But Waggoner says the act of crafting a cake that would be used during a same-sex wedding ceremony is an act of expression.


More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/05/wedding-cake-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_term=.b3f1b83c7211

[INVAR]

Better not tell him where your business is, because he'll have some Lavender Mafia types over to your place to scream "Bigot, but I don't want to put you out of business!" then sue you for $250K.

I'm mindful of my surroundings.

Idiots who think they can attempt a mugging are not going to like the reaction.

[Right_in_Virginia]

FWIW, the Department of Justice filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips  ...

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.72ebed5be350

[roamer_1]

Again, the big “L” libertarian in me says that the free market should rule and alone decide the winners and losers and that no one should be forced to engage in any business transaction or in employment, hiring decisions for that matter, with anyone they don’t want to engage with or object to and for whatever reason.  I would think that businesses who blatantly discriminates against enough groups will probably not be in business very long or will have only a limited clientele. But if that’s their choice then so be it.

^^ This, exactly.

But with that, understand that if Christians can decide who and who they will not do business with based on their religious beliefs and objecting to others who do not hold to their same beliefs, then others of other religions or those of no religion should also then be able to decide not to do business with Christians.

Of course - I am fine with that. I don't do business with folks that don't want to - I walk off and find someone who likes my money.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

I don't get buttsore about it, I just go find another vendor.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Oceander

So an artist who paints portraits for a living is legally not permitted to refuse to paint a particular portrait?

Actually, do not expect a coherent response.  He throws mud around to see what sticks.  Like saying there is some constitutional difference between a 'commercial' enterprise vs a 'non-commericial' enterprise.

It sounds so important and legal, but is simply garbage.  And since I think he believes he is a lawyer, he knows it.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm mindful of my surroundings.

Idiots who think they can attempt a mugging are not going to like the reaction.

I'm not talking about a physical mugging.  I'm talking about the kind of mugging these bakers are getting.

[Cyber Liberty]

^^ This, exactly.

Of course - I am fine with that. I don't do business with folks that don't want to - I walk off and find someone who likes my money.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

I don't get buttsore about it, I just go find another vendor.

You aren't a SJW trying to push a higher agenda, either.

[roamer_1]

Since homosexuality is not exclusive to humanity, but rather found in virtually every species on the planet...on what basis is it "evil behavior"?

OK FINE. Let's extend that out to cannibalism, theft of property, theft of mate, territory defined by strength, and all the other things animals do. That'll be friggin peachy.

[INVAR]

Each year now it seems, it's not "evil behavior" to more and more of the population.  (Or so, we're told).

I don't care if I am the last person in the country who finds that behavior evil.  My morality is not based on public barometers.

Make the ***king cake.   

Get bent.  Put a gun in my face to try and get me to bake an effing cake celebrating homosex - you'll get one shoved right back up into yours.

You want a cake or sign or ad or poster or billboard or TV commercial celebrating faggotry?  Go find a business that will gladly do so for your money. There's plenty out there where money is all that matters.    But if you think you can force me to make any of those things to celebrate perversion, you got another thing coming. 

People have gone to war for far less intrusion and overt despotism in this country than what is advocated by Homosharia advocates.

[roamer_1]

If I advertised "custom orders" on cakes...., I'm obligated.

The hell you say, I advertise and do custom work all the time - I am under NO obligation to take on ANY job, PERIOD.

[HoustonSam]

Actually, do not expect a coherent response.  He throws mud around to see what sticks.  Like saying there is some constitutional difference between a 'commercial' enterprise vs a 'non-commericial' enterprise.

It sounds so important and legal, but is simply garbage.  And since I think he believes he is a lawyer, he knows it.

Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR.  I've gotten one deflection already, mildly seasoned with personal insult, which I take as a subconscious indicator of intellectual fear and insecurity.  I've responded but received no further reply yet.  We'll see.

[INVAR]

I'm not talking about a physical mugging.  I'm talking about the kind of mugging these bakers are getting.

Same difference.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The hell you say, I advertise and do custom work all the time - I am under NO obligation to take on ANY job, PERIOD.

Yep, we are either free or a slave.  There really is no in-between.

[Cyber Liberty]

Same difference.

If it was my own business (as you suggest), I'd be compelled to agree with you on that.

[Bigun]

Yep, we are either free or a slave.  There really is no in-between.

@IsailedawayfromFR

Pretty simple isn't it?

[Jazzhead]

That is the crux of the matter.  The business is not refusing to sell an item to a customer...the business is refusing to make an item exactly to the specifications of the customer.
And that is the business's absolute right.
.

But those aren't the facts of the case before the Supreme Court.   Jack Phillips held no discussion with his customer about the specifics of the project,  he simply refused service.   This wasn't about crafting a penis cake.   This wasn't even about putting a rainbow flag on a cake.   The subject of customization didn't arise before he had refused them service because the cake was for a civil wedding of which he did not approve.   He cited his conscience, but his sign said he sold wedding cakes.   Justice must be done,  but not at the price of his ruination.     

[goodwithagun]

Make the ***king cake.   

Indeed.

[Cyber Liberty]

But those aren't the facts of the case before the Supreme Court.   Jack Phillips held no discussion with his customer about the specifics of the project,  he simply refused service.   This wasn't about crafting a penis cake.   This wasn't even about putting a rainbow flag on a cake.   The subject of customization didn't arise before he had refused them service because the cake was for a civil wedding of which he did not approve.   He cited his conscience, but his sign said he sold wedding cakes.

So, you really do have a tape proving the claim!  Good news.  Now show it to us.