What's Inside President Trump's New Religious Freedom Executive Order

[Hoodat]

Quote from: Hoodat on May 05, 2018, 09:16:07 PM

    Cakes are asexual.

So if a wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake .  .  .

@LauraTXNM

Uh, no.  Each wedding cake is a traditionally unique culinary creation for a singular ceremony.  Just because there is no sexuality assigned to a cake does not mean that all cakes are the same.

the baker wasn't explicit enough  .  .  .

Uh, no.  The baker was 100% explicit.  He said he made wedding cakes exclusively for wedding ceremonies between one man and one woman.  The court records are clear about this.  Nothing secret.  Nothing hidden.  It was his unabashed publicly spoken position from which he did not waver.

probably because he knew he'd get sued. 

Considering that he made no secret of his position, and considering that he was indeed sued, your assessment on this clearly does not reflect reality.

It shouldn't matter who someone is marrying, even if it's a tree or a bridge.

Shouldn't matter to whom?  It matters to the baker since his passion is to create cakes for a specific covenant ceremony.  It matters to the State of Colorado since there is only one type of marriage that they sanctioned a the time.  It matters to the judge who issued the ruling since there is only one class here allowed his protection.

As it stands now, the baker can still refuse to make a wedding cake for a man/woman couple (not a protected class).  He can still refuse to make a wedding cake for a man/woman/woman threesome (not a protected class).  He can refuse to make wedding cakes for people marrying trees, dogs, bridges, etc.  He can even refuse to make wedding cakes for two heterosexuals of the same gender who want to get married for any other purpose.  Because none of these are from the protected class designated by the fiat of this judge.

If this man sells wedding cakes, that includes to everybody who wants one of his designs.

His 'design' is to create the marriage covenant celebration of one man and one woman joined to become one.  If this couple really wanted one of his cakes, then one of them could have gone into his shop, ordered a cake, and kept his mouth shut about how he and his husband had to travel to Massachusetts to get married because Colorado law wouldn't sanction it.

But that's not what they did.  Their objective was to force this baker to sanction what the State of Colorado would not.

Unless he's too "busy" and booked that weekend, or only works with specific churches or venues.

I suppose you get to be the arbiter of that?  You get to decide when it is OK and when it's not OK for the baker to say 'no'?

[Hoodat]

Are Christians exempt from the requirements of the law?

The requirements of the law?  Seriously?  Show me the Colorado law which dictates what a baker must sell (at the point of a gun).  And please don't give me some statute about discrimination based upon sexual preference.  The court records already show that both homosexual and heterosexual were turned down for the same request.

[LauraTXNM]

So if a wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake .  .  .


@LauraTXNM

Uh, no.  Each wedding cake is a traditionally unique culinary creation for a singular ceremony.  Just because there is no sexuality assigned to a cake does not mean that all cakes are the same.


Uh, no.  The baker was 100% explicit.  He said he made wedding cakes exclusively for wedding ceremonies between one man and one woman.  The court records are clear about this.  Nothing secret.  Nothing hidden.  It was his unabashed publicly spoken position from which he did not waver.

So it was posted in his shop and on his menu, website, etc.?  That he only made wedding cakes for homosexuals?  Before he was sued?

...

I suppose you get to be the arbiter of that?  You get to decide when it is OK and when it's not OK for the baker to say 'no'?

No, the baker does.  It would be a legal way of declining a request for a cake.

[Hoodat]

So it was posted in his shop and on his menu, website, etc.?  That he only made wedding cakes for homosexuals?  Before he was sued?

The baker makes wedding cakes for specific wedding ceremonies.  At the time, it was the only type sanctioned by the State of Colorado.  The sexual preference of the customer has nothing to do with it, which the court records clearly show.

Again, if a couple comprised of a homosexual man and a homosexual woman decide to get married and ask this baker for a wedding cake, he would make them one.  And if a couple made up of two heterosexuals of the same gender were to make the same request for their wedding, the baker would have refused.

[Jazzhead]

Again, if a couple comprised of a homosexual man and a homosexual woman decide to get married and ask this baker for a wedding cake, he would make them one. 

It is amusing, @Hoodat,  to see you contort yourself into knots rather than admit that this is a textbook case of discrimination.  How is a gay man marrying a gay woman an example of a Christian "covanant relationship"?   

Again - the baker refuses to provide the same wedding services to homosexual couples that he advertises and provides to heterosexual couples.   

If the SCOTUS finds for the baker, it won't be on the ground that the baker didn't discriminate.   It will be on the ground that, despite such discrimination,  he had the right to do so on the basis of his religion.     

[Hoodat]

It is amusing, @Hoodat,  to see you contort yourself into knots rather than admit that this is a textbook case of discrimination.

I realize that for you, embracing a lie is much easier than acknowledging the truth.  Not everyone thinks that way though.

How is a gay man marrying a gay woman an example of a Christian "covanant relationship"?   

Who said anything about 'Christian'?  Why do you continually insist on injecting your religious bigotry into this discussion?

Again - the baker refuses to provide the same wedding services to homosexual couples that he advertises  .  .  .

You keep repeating that claim while knowing full well that there is no such advertisement.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  This has been pointed out to you again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again, yet here you are once again LYING about the facts of this case.

.  .  .  and provides to heterosexual couples.

The court records clearly show that a request for a same-sex wedding cake was refused a heterosexual customer.  This has been pointed out to you again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again again and again and again, yet here you are once again LYING about the facts of this case.

If the SCOTUS finds for the baker, it won't be on the ground that the baker didn't discriminate.

Discriminate how?  Did the baker discriminate in what he chooses to create?  Absolutely!  Does he get to choose whipped egg whites over condensed milk?  Does he get to choose green cakes at the expense of blue ones?  Does he choose baked cakes over ice cream cakes?  Does he make cakes for basketball team celebrations at the expense of soccer?

Yes, yes, and yes again!  The baker (and the baker alone) gets to decide what he creates.

And if, through the baker's discrimination, he creates something and enters it into the commerce market by displaying it for sale on a store shelf, then anyone -- ANYONE -- has a right to purchase that creation.  But that's not what is happening here.  This case is about forcing a baker to create something against his conscience.  It is no different from forcing Degesh to manufacture Zyklon-B simply because they were in the cyanide business.

But if you are indirectly alleging here that the baker discriminated against the customers because of their sexual preference, you could not possibly be more wrong, as the court records show.  I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read them for yourself before posting again.  Because your posts reveal close-mindedness, laziness, and unwillingness - the textbook traits of a bigot.

he had the right to do so on the basis of his religion.   

He had the right to do so on the basis of inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator.  Liberty is not surrendered at the point where one decides to engage in commerce.  It is hypocrisy to champion personal liberty in all matters except when it comes to money.

[Jazzhead]

 

[roamer_1]

And if, through the baker's discrimination, he creates something and enters it into the commerce market by displaying it for sale on a store shelf, then anyone -- ANYONE -- has a right to purchase that creation.

NO. No one has a right to purchase anything.

[verga]

Shop owners who post that sign discriminate against people who dress--or don't dress---in a certain manner.  (Remember, "discrimination" only recently took on a completely negative meaning).  The prospective customers who are turned away can go to another store, just as gays can go elsewhere for a cake.

That and the signs that say: We reserve the right to refuse service....

[Hoodat]

NO. No one has a right to purchase anything.

Objection sustained.

My point being that a business cannot legally discriminate against someone based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc., for a product already introduced to the public for public sale.

[Hoodat]

That and the signs that say: We reserve the right to refuse service....

It should be noted here that the customers were not refused service.  Only a request for a specific product to be created was refused.  It would be like an artist having an art gallery full of paintings for sale.  A customer walks in and asks to purchase a painting on the wall.  The owner agrees.  But when the customer asks the artist to paint a new portrait, the owner refuses.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It should be noted here that the customers were not refused service.  Only a request for a specific product to be created was refused.  It would be like an artist having an art gallery full of paintings for sale.  A customer walks in and asks to purchase a painting on the wall.  The owner agrees.  But when the customer asks the artist to paint a new portrait, the owner refuses.

Homosexuals are one of the protected classes under the law.  Don't like that ... change the law.

[Hoodat]

Homosexuals are one of the protected classes under the law.

But that violates equal protection.  (See:  Amendment XIV). 

Don't like that ... change the law.

There is no law that compels someone to manufacture something against their will.  (See:  Amendment XIII)

btw, the law in question here - Colorado state law - did not sanction nor even acknowledge marriage as being between anything other than one man and one woman.  So the request of the customer was for a ceremony that the State did not recognize.  Ironic, ain't it.

[Jazzhead]

NO. No one has a right to purchase anything.

That's not the issue.  The right at issue is that of the customer of a public accommodation to not be discriminated against for arbitrary reasons.   

A provider to the general public of wedding services unlawfully discriminates when it denies to a homosexual couple the wedding services that it advertises and provides to heterosexual couples.   

[Jazzhead]

That and the signs that say: We reserve the right to refuse service....

What is being discussed in unlawful discrimination.  No customer has the right to a service the baker does not generally provide, or to require the baker to place an offensive message on the cake.   But a gay couple has as much right to engage the baker to provide its customary wedding cake designs as does a heterosexual couple.   What will be critical, IMO, to the result in Masterpiece Cakeship is the fact that the baker rejected the gay couple's business before even discussing the design and messaging on the cake.   That, folks, is textbook unlawful discrimination.   

[Hoodat]

That's not the issue.  The right at issue is that of the customer of a public accommodation to not be discriminated against for arbitrary reasons.

The only problem with this statement is that the court records show explicitly that the customer was not discriminated against.  But then you knew that already.  Yet here you are again providing a false account of what happened.

A provider to the general public of wedding services

The baker is not a provider of wedding services.  He is a baker.  Hence the term 'baker'.  You would know this if you actually read the transcript.  But then knowing the truth might put a damper on your bigoted propaganda efforts here.

unlawfully discriminates when it denies to a homosexual couple the wedding services that it advertises 

See?  There you go lying AGAIN!  Pages and pages of court records.  Yet no 'advertisement' was ever introduced.  You have been called out on that again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again, yet here you are once more lying about it.

[Hoodat]

What is being discussed in unlawful discrimination.  No customer has the right to a service the baker does not generally provide

The baker does not provide cakes for marriages not sanctioned under Colorado law.  And by your own words, "no customer has a right" to that service.

What will be critical, IMO, to the result in Masterpiece Cakeship is the fact that the baker rejected the gay couple's business before even discussing the design and messaging on the cake.

The baker did not reject their business, as the court records prove.  The transcript clearly shows the baker told the customers "that he would be happy to make and sell them
any other baked goods." 

He only rejected their request for a same-sex wedding cake - a product that he does not make for a wedding not sanctioned under Colorado law.  That same request was rejected by a heterosexual customer the following day.

[Jazzhead]

The only problem with this statement is that the court records show explicitly that the customer was not discriminated against.  But then you knew that already.  Yet here you are again providing a false account of what happened.



The baker is not a provider of wedding services.  He is a baker.  Hence the term 'baker'.  You would know this if you actually read the transcript.  But then knowing the truth might put a damper on your bigoted propaganda efforts here.


See?  There you go lying AGAIN!  Pages and pages of court records.  Yet no 'advertisement' was ever introduced.  You have been called out on that again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again, yet here you are once more lying about it.

Stop hyperventilating, @Hoodat.  Of course Masterpiece Cakeshop advertises its business - vigorously.   It has always specialized in custom cakes, including wedding cakes.   Check out the business's website: http://masterpiececakes.com.     That website includes a gallery of wedding cakes, although it notes that it is "not currently accepting"  orders for custom wedding cakes..   But it retains to this day on its front page the factoid that "Masterpiece Cakeshop was The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012."

The Supreme Court has a difficult decision to make.   Should non-discrimination laws,  enacted to prevent members of the general public from arbitrary humiliation by bigots, give way when a shop owner claims a religious justification for denying service?    That may be a tough call,  but what isn't difficult at all is to ascertain that arbitrary discrimination did in fact occur.   I'll say it again: the baker advertised his wedding cake services - the best in Colorado, he still brags - but refused such service to homosexual couples. 

Tell me, Hoodat,  why shouldn't my neighbors be able to have their wedding cake made by "The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012"?   Why should they have to accept an inferior choice?       

[INVAR]

Tell me, Hoodat,  why shouldn't my neighbors be able to have their wedding cake made by "The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012"?   Why should they have to accept an inferior choice?     

Because they choose not to serve homosexual celebrations that you people have decided to call marriage.  They can go elsewhere.

If you want to use government agents to put a gun to his head to try and force him to bake their cake - you illustrate yourself no different than any Communist thug like Stalin or Mao.

This is issue is not about getting a cake bake for a homosexual celebration anyway.

It's about targeting and destroying a Christian business and getting rich off of it.

[roamer_1]

That's not the issue.  The right at issue is that of the customer of a public accommodation to not be discriminated against for arbitrary reasons.   

Yes, in fact, it IS the issue. No one has the right to be served, for any reason. Your rights leave as you cross my private threshold. I am not obliged to sell you or anyone anything, for any reason.

A provider to the general public of wedding services unlawfully discriminates when it denies to a homosexual couple the wedding services that it advertises and provides to heterosexual couples.

bullshit.

[Hoodat]

Stop hyperventilating, @Hoodat.  Of course Masterpiece Cakeshop advertises its business - vigorously.

Still waiting for you to produce that advertisement you claim exists.

But it retains to this day on its front page the factoid that "Masterpiece Cakeshop was The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012."

Wedding, as defined under Colorado law.

The Supreme Court has a difficult decision to make.   Should non-discrimination laws,  enacted to prevent members of the general public from arbitrary humiliation .  .  .

Really?  Humiliation?  Now we're discussing the right against having one's feelings hurt?  Please.  If you want to talk 'humiliation', then maybe your ire should be directed at the State of Colorado for not sanctioning the marriage?  Heck, the baker was simply following their lead.

Sorry, I don't believe 'humiliation' will have any legal bearing here, especially considering that the customers made no claim of being humiliated.  You simply made it up out of thin air, as you are often prone to do.

.  .  .   by bigots

Bigots.  Those are people who slam other people's religions, and arbitrarily demand how others are to think, say, and do.  Right?

give way when a shop owner claims a religious justification for denying service?

The owner also claimed a legal justification, which you would know if you bothered to actually read the case.  By the way, what was Colorado's justification for not sanctioning the marriage to begin with?

That may be a tough call,  but what isn't difficult at all is to ascertain that arbitrary discrimination did in fact occur.

You may want to check your dictionary for the meaning of the word 'arbitrary'.  I don't think that word means what you think it means.  There was nothing arbitrary about the baker's decision.  He remained steadfast in what he would and would not do based on a principle that he was not willing to deviate from.

I'll say it again: the baker advertised his wedding cake services - the best in Colorado, he still brags - but refused such service to homosexual couples.

He makes wedding cakes.  He does not sell wedding services.

- but refused such service to homosexual couples.

If you read the court transcript, you would learn that he did not refuse service to a homosexual couple.  Here it is again:

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery
in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and
create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips
declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for
same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising
Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them
any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left
Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their
wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn,
called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make
wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious
beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.

[/i][/b]

Do you see the part there where he offered to make or sell them any other baked good?  In fact, it says he would be "happy" to do so.  And do you see the part where the heterosexual woman was turned down for the same same-sex wedding cake request?  That is straight out of the Colorado appeals court transcript which has been freely given to you already.

But you aren't interested in 'truth'.  Even with the written text supplied for you, you continue to lie and lie and lie again about the facts of this case.

Tell me, Hoodat,  why shouldn't my neighbors be able to have their wedding cake made by "The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012"?   Why should they have to accept an inferior choice?     

Your neighbors could easily have had their wedding cake made by "The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012".  All they had to do was for one of them to walk in the store, order the cake, and keep their friggin' mouth shut.  But that's not what happened here.  In this case, getting a wedding cake was secondary to forcing the baker to accept the lifestyle choice of two people that was contrary to his deeply held belief.

But in this case, envy wins the day.  If Craig and Mullins can't get a cake, then no one gets a cake.