I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

[The_Reader_David]

Obviously, the person wanting the shirt made didn't think it was offensive.

Are you sure?  Pour épater la bourgoisie has been a sentiment in effete cultural circles since the turn of the 20th century.  The person wanting the shirt made have have precisely wanted to offend people with the sentiment printed on it.

[Sanguine]

Are you sure?  Pour épater la bourgoisie has been a sentiment in effete cultural circles since the turn of the 20th century.  The person wanting the shirt made have have precisely wanted to offend people with the sentiment printed on it.

Yes, that was my thought too.  Don't tell me that people wearing a "F**k you" shirt don't know that it's offensive.  That's why they are wearing it.

[Free Vulcan]

Except the facts are even worse for the baker.   The Brief in Opposition, as noted above, describes the refusal of service as rooted in the baker's animosity toward same-sex weddings;  he never questioned the customer regarding the "artistry" to be deployed on the cake.  Even an off the shelf cake, it appears, would have been verboten.

According to an affidavit filed with the Brief in Opposition, another customer sought cupcakes for a same-sex commitment ceremony.  Not an artistic wedding cake, but cupcakes.  Not a wedding, but merely a commitment ceremony.  And the baker refused service.   The more I read into this case, the more I can see why the SCOTUS took it.  This is going to be no great victory for the baker.  His conduct was bigoted and deplorable, and I expect the Court to uphold the efficacy of the community's laws against arbitrary discrimination.

But all your supporting arguments here are based on morality, by assigning moral epithets to the bakers actions based on vague and nebulous suspicions of his state of mind, and you are using it to dance around the issue with it.

If we have separation of church and state then it applies both directions. We don't base legal decisions of moral epithets. Even the administrative law judge ruled with a coulda-shoulda-woulda ruling that the baker was supposed to know the state of mind of the gay couple, who may have wanted a nondescript cake. Yet the judge ignored the fact that if their cake was so nondescript then they could have gotten it off the shelf.

Cupcakes are no different. If they wanted anything but off the shelf cupcakes then they were asking the baker to use his talents and creativity to make something specifically for them. That's commandeering someone's effort and creativity to cater to your morality.

Which highlights the real issue here - this is really a case of a gay couple trying to make their morality dominant over another's morality via the courts, which is a violation of separation of church and state and the 14th amendment. They simply disguise that by calling it bigotry.

It becomes even more ludicrous if it had happened to be two transsexuals, who's status is entirely belief based.

[INVAR]

Which highlights the real issue here - this is really a case of a gay couple trying to make their morality dominant over another's morality via the courts, which is a violation of separation of church and state and the 14th amendment. They simply disguise that by calling it bigotry.

I had a homo activist once tell me that he laughed at those of us who "hid behind the bible".  He declared that "while you religious nuts hold hands, pray and light candles - we are going to leapfrog over your heads and force our lifestyle down your throats using the courts and the government.  You will either accept and participate in our lifestyle or you will be forced to".

That was 1989.

Today it's homosexual "marriage". 

Tomorrow it will be pedophiles and child "marriage".

and on and on the efforts to impose behaviors as 'civil rights' will ever dominate what remains of a crumbling society into moral and civil anarchy.

[Hoodat]

But all your supporting arguments here are based on morality, by assigning moral epithets to the bakers actions based on vague and nebulous suspicions of his state of mind, and you are using it to dance around the issue with it.

@Free Vulcan

Jazzhead is also making bigoted assumptions about the sexual preferences of the customers and is expecting the baker to make those exact same assumptions.  However, there is no way to know for sure without each customer volunteering that information.  I happen to know a man who married another man in California purely for insurance reasons.  The man is strictly heterosexual and never did anything to 'consummate' the marriage.  But the caveat here is that his sexual preference should not be assumed.  Yet Jazzhead does not hesitate to make assertions about the sexual preference of these two customers.  And by doing so, he purposely taints the issue, making it a 'gay' issue instead of about forcing a baker to make a cake celebrating a 'marriage' not sanctioned under Colorado law.

And thus the big irony.  The State of Colorado has ruled that the baker discriminated against a same-sex couple, while that same State of Colorado didn't allow same-sex marriage.

But all your supporting arguments here are based on morality, by assigning moral epithets to the bakers actions based on vague and nebulous suspicions of his state of mind, and you are using it to dance around the issue with it.

If we have separation of church and state then it applies both directions. We don't base legal decisions of moral epithets. Even the administrative law judge ruled with a coulda-shoulda-woulda ruling that the baker was supposed to know the state of mind of the gay couple, who may have wanted a nondescript cake. Yet the judge ignored the fact that if their cake was so nondescript then they could have gotten it off the shelf.

Cupcakes are no different. If they wanted anything but off the shelf cupcakes then they were asking the baker to use his talents and creativity to make something specifically for them. That's commandeering someone's effort and creativity to cater to your morality.

Which highlights the real issue here - this is really a case of a gay couple trying to make their morality dominant over another's morality via the courts, which is a violation of separation of church and state and the 14th amendment. They simply disguise that by calling it bigotry.

Ditto and ditto.

[Hoodat]

Why is that relevant?   The State of Colorado is compelling a Colorado baker to not discriminate in violation of the law.

@Jazzhead

It is relevant because it is hypocritical for the state to compel someone else not to discriminate while it discriminates.  It is a clear-cut double-standard.  And from your posting history, it is clear that you would be blind to it.

You imply,  I suppose, that the baker's opposition wasn't religious at all, but political.

I have never implied anything at all about the baker's reason for refusing to make a cake.  It doesn't matter whether it is religious or political.  It simply has no bearing on whether his actions are legal.  The legality of any action is not dependent on what the perpetrator was thinking at the time.  This has been explained to you again and again and again, yet you still fail to see it.  The baker could have been a hardline America-hating California liberal who poses on Conservative forums for all I know.  And the couple could have asked him to make a special July 4 cake which is something the baker simply does not do.  So does the baker have the right to refuse?  Absolutely, positively, hell yes, he does.  Does it matter that he hates July 4?  Absolutely not.

So enough already.  Stop trying to guess what the baker was thinking, and stop making assumptions about the sexual preference of customers.  None of that matters.  Thoughts are not crimes (yet).  Maybe you pine for the day when Big Brother puts the rat cage on the face of the baker.  But until then, try exercising a modicum of objectivity, and stop judging the criminality of acts based on what you assume the person was thinking.

[Jazzhead]

So enough already.  Stop trying to guess what the baker was thinking, and stop making assumptions about the sexual preference of customers.  None of that matters.  Thoughts are not crimes (yet).  Maybe you pine for the day when Big Brother puts the rat cage on the face of the baker.  But until then, try exercising a modicum of objectivity, and stop judging the criminality of acts based on what you assume the person was thinking.

I'm not "guessing" what the baker was thinking;  I'm reciting the descriptions of his actions in the Brief in Opposition.   The baker didn't give a damn about "artistry";  he would have declined an off-the shelf cake, and did in fact refuse to provide another gay couple with cupcakes - cupcakes! - when he was informed it was for a "commitment ceremony".    Not a marriage, a "commitment ceremony" between two human beings.  No, Jesus, no we can't allow cupcakes for that!   

Sorry, hoodat,  the man's a bigot.   He's backpeddling to construct legal arguments to support his bigotry, and maybe it's your position that his bigotry simply doesn't matter - he has the legal right to treat his customers like dirt. 

We'll see what the SCOTUS says. 

[Jazzhead]

I have never implied anything at all about the baker's reason for refusing to make a cake.  It doesn't matter whether it is religious or political.  It simply has no bearing on whether his actions are legal.  The legality of any action is not dependent on what the perpetrator was thinking at the time.  This has been explained to you again and again and again, yet you still fail to see it. 

Well, the baker thinks his reason for not making the cake should carry the day.  But you're right, his religious opinions don't mean squat.   What matters are his actions - in advertising that he makes wedding cakes,  and then unfurling an unwritten "policy" to deny service to gay customers. 

[Free Vulcan]

I'm not "guessing" what the baker was thinking;  I'm reciting the descriptions of his actions in the Brief in Opposition.   The baker didn't give a damn about "artistry";  he would have declined an off-the shelf cake, and did in fact refuse to provide another gay couple with cupcakes - cupcakes! - when he was informed it was for a "commitment ceremony".    Not a marriage, a "commitment ceremony" between two human beings.  No, Jesus, no we can't allow cupcakes for that!   

Sorry, hoodat,  the man's a bigot.   He's backpeddling to construct legal arguments to support his bigotry, and maybe it's your position that his bigotry simply doesn't matter - he has the legal right to treat his customers like dirt. 

We'll see what the SCOTUS says.

But your basis of your objection is moralistic, and your trying to apply those arguments and concepts toward a legal argument. It just doesn't hold water.

[Free Vulcan]

Well, the baker thinks his reason for not making the cake should carry the day.  But you're right, his religious opinions don't mean squat.   What matters are his actions - in advertising that he makes wedding cakes,  and then unfurling an unwritten "policy" to deny service to gay customers.

That is also not a legit legal argument. Every business advertises services, but that doesn't mean they will perform all requests that fall under that service. The standard you're trying to hold the baker to is vague and nebulous.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I remember my first semester in college, I gave a speech arguing that anyone should be able to not do business with anyone else, for whatever reason.  I thought I made it clear that I believed some businesses would therefore fail, as they should.  I also pointed out that I don't see anything special about which party refuses to do business -- the business has something the customer wants, and the customer has something the business wants, so why should only one of the two parties be able to not engage in a transaction?

I still remember the look on the faces of most of the class.  You'd have thought I just argued that Hilter was a good guy who just wasn't motivated enough.  Today I'd probably be sued for micro-aggression or something.  I think that was the day I understood just how thoroughly I don't understand liberals.

[Hoodat]

Well, the baker thinks his reason for not making the cake should carry the day.  But you're right, his religious opinions don't mean squat.

Yet you continue to be the one judging his innocence or guilt based upon your opinion of what his opinions and motives were.

Don't you think that is hypocritical of you?

What matters are his actions - in advertising that he makes wedding cakes.

Nowhere in that advertising does he say he makes cakes for same-sex weddings, nor should he have to since same-sex marriages were not allowed in Colorado at the time.  But then you knew that already.

. . . and then unfurling an unwritten "policy" to deny service to gay customers.

There you go again making that bigoted assumption about the sexual preferences of the customers.  If a homosexual man was marrying a homosexual woman, and they went in and asked him to make a wedding cake, he would have had no problem with it, even though both customers were gay.  So stop with the 'deny service to gay customers' lie.

[Jazzhead]

But your basis of your objection is moralistic, and your trying to apply those arguments and concepts toward a legal argument. It just doesn't hold water.

The legal argument is simple - a public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  The baker advertised that he makes wedding cakes.   No, that doesn't mean he can be forced to write an offensive message on a wedding cake.  But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.   

His motivation is irrelevant.  He thinks he's best buddies with Christ.   I think he's a bigot.  The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service,  provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.     

[INVAR]

Sorry, hoodat,  the man's a bigot. 

A crime worthy of imprisonment, death and destruction of property and business in Jazzhead's world.

Of course anti-Christian bigotry is perfectly permissible and encouraged in his sick, twisted and perverted worldview.

[Hoodat]

The legal argument is simple - a public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

That did not happen here.  The sexual preferences of the customer were unknown to the baker at the time the order was placed.

But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.

Again, that did not happen.  But you knew that already.  Yet here you are again citing something you know to be false.

His motivation is irrelevant.

Yet you continue making his motivation the issue.  (See:  Above)

I think he's a bigot.

I think you are a bigot.

The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service,  provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.     

Which he did.  If a heterosexual had come into his store and ordered a same-sex wedding cake, he would have refused.

[INVAR]

But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.   

His motivation is irrelevant.  He thinks he's best buddies with Christ.   I think he's a bigot.  The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service,  provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.     

Some things are worth dying for, such as the refusal to comply with tyranny.

Let us see if the agents of the state are willing to do the same to enforce what you advocate.

[Free Vulcan]

The legal argument is simple - a public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  The baker advertised that he makes wedding cakes.   No, that doesn't mean he can be forced to write an offensive message on a wedding cake.  But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.   

His motivation is irrelevant.  He thinks he's best buddies with Christ.   I think he's a bigot.  The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service,  provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.     

But no vendor that advertises a service fulfills every request, and has the legal right to do so.

Now you are saying some requests are protected, some are not. That violates the 14th amendment.

[goatprairie]

Are you sure?  Pour épater la bourgoisie has been a sentiment in effete cultural circles since the turn of the 20th century.  The person wanting the shirt made have have precisely wanted to offend people with the sentiment printed on it.

True, you are correct. But nevertheless,  it doesn't matter if the person wanted to offend or thought it inoffensive. He wanted a particular kind of shirt.
If some person demands a particular kind of shirt, the shirt-maker must have the right to refuse.   
And if homosexuals can force bakers to make a particular kind of cake, how can any business turn down a request for a product they deem offensive? According to what happened to the baker (and other bakers who turned down requests for homosexual-themed items),  the business has to make what the customer wants.
I've never heard of such an outrageous thing.  To claim homosexuals can't be turned down because it's "hate" or "discrimination" is not at issue here.
The issue is a business being forced to make a product they don't want to make. That is not the same thing as refusing to sell a product already made.
If you can be forced to make something you don't want to make, you have lost some of your freedom. It's unconstitutional, undemocrat, and immoral.

[goatprairie]

The legal argument is simple - a public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  The baker advertised that he makes wedding cakes.   No, that doesn't mean he can be forced to write an offensive message on a wedding cake.  But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.   

His motivation is irrelevant.  He thinks he's best buddies with Christ.   I think he's a bigot.  The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service,  provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.     

"He thinks he's best buddies with Christ.   I think he's a bigot."

And some people might think you are a fascist. But in the court of law what those people think is totally irrelevant. A court that understands the constitution that is.
You still fail to understand the issue of forcing a business to make a product they don't want to make. If homosexuals can force bakers to make a certain kind of cake, anybody asking for a particular kind of bakery item cannot be turned down according to your sloppy legal allegation of discrimination.
"Make me a Nazi-themed cake" says the Nazi.  "No" says the baker, "it's hateful."
"Not according to the law" says the Nazi. "I'm a member of a legal entity, and you must not discriminate."
And according to your "ethics," the baker is checkmated. He must bake the Nazi-themed cake or be guilty of "hate."

[INVAR]

True, you are correct. But nevertheless,  it doesn't matter if the person wanted to offend or thought it inoffensive. He wanted a particular kind of shirt.
If some person demands a particular kind of shirt, the shirt-maker must have the right to refuse.   
And if homosexuals can force bakers to make a particular kind of cake, how can any business turn down a request for a product they deem offensive? According to what happened to the baker (and other bakers who turned down requests for homosexual-themed items),  the business has to make what the customer wants.
I've never heard of such an outrageous thing.  To claim homosexuals can't be turned down because it's "hate" or "discrimination" is not at issue here.
The issue is a business being forced to make a product they don't want to make. That is not the same thing as refusing to sell a product already made.
If you can be forced to make something you don't want to make, you have lost some of your freedom. It's unconstitutional, undemocrat, and immoral.

Jazzhead would like everyone to think that refusing to serve sexual perverts is the same thing as denying a black man or a woman to sit at a lunch counter, ride a bus or drink from a public water fountain.

Their insipid argument is that BEHAVIOR is now a civll right, and as such - aberrant and deviant behavior is protected and given special status, because as you know, government-sanctioned behaviors are more equal than others in their perverted and twisted worldview.

Therefore we must SERVE THE BEHAVIOR.  We must acknowledge, celebrate and serve it.  "Public accommodation' mandates that we must create and craft our services and products to cater to men having sex with men and women engaged in deviancy with other women by decorating, writing and printing that their behaviors are celebrated and good.  Notwithstanding the fact there are businesses that specifically cater to such deviant communities, the issue tyrants like Jazzhead push is that ALL Must comply and submit to serving and providing whatever it is the wicked demand we must do for them, or be punished as a bigot.  Lawsuits today.  Prisons tomorrow.  Firing squads and gas chambers later.

It is time to say no, and if they want to put guns to our heads to force us to cater to evil and thus violate our consciences and religion - then, the very definition of a hard tyranny is being thrust in our faces and we have an inherent right to resist it by every means at our disposal.

I will not comply.

[Jazzhead]

"You still fail to understand the issue of forcing a business to make a product they don't want to make.

Sigh. 

This has nothing to do with forcing a business to make a product it doesn't want to make.  The baker advertises that he makes wedding cakes.   He's in business to make wedding cakes.  The law merely says - fine - stay true to your word.  Don't deny service on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. 

 

[Jazzhead]

I will not comply.

More drama-queen insinuations of violence. 

[Mod1]

More drama-queen insinuations of violence.

Jazzhead, knock off the insults.

[Jazzhead]

Jazzhead, knock off the insults.

<************>

 

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not "guessing" what the baker was thinking;  I'm reciting the descriptions of his actions in the Brief in Opposition.   The baker didn't give a damn about "artistry";  he would have declined an off-the shelf cake, and did in fact refuse to provide another gay couple with cupcakes - cupcakes! - when he was informed it was for a "commitment ceremony".    Not a marriage, a "commitment ceremony" between two human beings.  No, Jesus, no we can't allow cupcakes for that!   

Sorry, hoodat,  the man's a bigot.   He's backpeddling to construct legal arguments to support his bigotry, and maybe it's your position that his bigotry simply doesn't matter - he has the legal right to treat his customers like dirt. 

We'll see what the SCOTUS says.

As I have pointed out innumerable times,  the question always devolves down to "who's morality is going to get imposed by the power of the state?"