BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
Down at the bottom of the thread there is an 'unnotify' button.   But don't use it.  There's a 50/50 chance it could start a nuclear war.

I'm tempted, DD.

[Sanguine]

nooooo!  let it die a natural death

There's nothing natural about this thread.

[Jazzhead]

Jazzhead is talking about the gallery.  If you scroll through the gallery photos, you will see cakes that Jazzhead insists are sitting on the shelf waiting for a buyer.  And it is these ficticious cakes that Jazzhead insists were denied to the plaintiffs.

I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?   

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty   @mystery-ak
Well I can stay here at my desk and write security policies for a healthcare organization or I can go put the finishing touches on my kayak.

hmmmm

I vote "Kayak" if the policy writing is low-paying.  Either would be a welcome relief from this thread.

[txradioguy]

I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

And as per the website they weren't making any wedding cakes.

As per testimony and court records...and despite your perfidy about what actually happened...the baker didn't make gay "wedding" cakes even if a straight person requested it...he didn't make Halloween cakes or divorce celebration cakes or any type of cake that violated his religious convictions.

Why are you so loathe to accept and admit the facts right there in black and white.

Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?

Physician heal thyself.

[Cyber Liberty]

I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?

Can you at least make a token effort to read the materials we did hard work to fish up and hand to you on a silver platter?

[driftdiver]

I vote "Kayak" if the policy writing is low-paying.  Either would be a welcome relief from this thread.

its pays ok but oh so boring, I shouldnt have fired my technical writer.

[Cyber Liberty]

Jazzhead is talking about the gallery.  If you scroll through the gallery photos, you will see cakes that Jazzhead insists are sitting on the shelf waiting for a buyer.  And it is these ficticious cakes that Jazzhead insists were denied to the plaintiffs.

The link I posted has a slide show of the Gallery.  They are examples of previous work, not advertisements to create duplicate work.  In fact, on the home page Phillips specifically states his cakes are custom works.

[driftdiver]

Can you at least make a token effort to read the materials we did hard work to fish up and hand to you on a silver platter?

@Cyber Liberty @HoustonSam
I don't believe @Jazzhead argues in good faith.    He simply has his agenda and pushes it.

[Jazzhead]

The are pictures of custom cakes previously made.  Not stock photos of their standard products.

The website states:  "Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design".   

The galleries, by implication, illustrate non-custom wedding cake designs.   I assume the consensus here is that Phillips will sell these non-custom designs to all customers.  After all, he obeys the law, right?    Phillips won't, however,  take custom wedding cake orders because he won't do those for gay customers.  And I predict he still won't following the SCOTUS decision, because the opinion provides him with no guidance about whether his "expressive conduct" is protected speech.

He was ill-served by this decision.   

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty @HoustonSam
I don't believe @Jazzhead argues in good faith.    He simply has his agenda and pushes it.

Yup!  And if enough of us start ignoring this two-days old thread to start looking at more important news that's out there, he'll be arguing in bad faith by himself.  Again.

[TomSea]

I don't think there should be any laws on a business in this matter. I think one should try to persuade the baker.

Say something like this:

"Hey, I know you don't approve of our lifestyle but this is just a one time deal. We'll never bother you again and we aren't bad people".

[thackney]

The website states:  "Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design".   

The galleries, by implication, illustrate non-custom wedding cake designs.   I assume the consensus here is that Phillips will sell these non-custom designs to all customers.  After all, he obeys the law, right?    Phillips won't, however,  take custom wedding cake orders.  And I predict he still won't following the SCOTUS decision, because the opinion provides him with no guidance about whether his "expressive conduct" is protected speech.

He was ill-served by this decision.

@Jazzhead

I found what you quoted here just a bit ago.  I agree with your interpretation.  I had already deleted my post while you were typing this response.  Sorry for adding to the confusion.

[driftdiver]

Yup!  And if enough of us start ignoring this two-days old thread to start looking at more important news that's out there, he'll be arguing in bad faith by himself.  Again.

Hey I posted two new stories and hardly anyone commented on them.   Starting to feel left out here.

[Jazzhead]

And as per the website they weren't making any wedding cakes.

No.  It says they aren't taking any custom orders for wedding cakes.  And the website continues to show a gallery of wedding cakes, which by implication represent non-custom designs that he (so folks here insist) will sell/make for any customer.   

[driftdiver]

I don't think there should be any laws on a business in this matter. I think one should try to persuade the baker.

Say something like this:

"Hey, I know you don't approve of our lifestyle but this is just a one time deal. We'll never bother you again and we aren't bad people".

@TomSea
Yeah just this one time ignore your devout faith and do something your creator considers to be sinful.   Don't worry you probably won't spend an eternity in hell for this one action.   We could go down the street to another merchant but we'd rather pressure you to violate your faith.

[driftdiver]

No.  It says they aren't taking any custom orders for wedding cakes.  And the website continues to show a gallery of wedding cakes, which by implication represent non-custom designs that he (so folks here insist) will sell/make for any customer.

@Jazzhead
Have you been retained by someone?  There has to be money in it for  you.   

[txradioguy]

No.  It says they aren't taking any custom orders for wedding cakes.  And the website continues to show a gallery of wedding cakes, which by implication represent non-custom designs that he (so folks here insist) will sell/make for any customer.

You clearly haven't dealt much with a small independent bakery have you?

Either that or you're purposely being obtuse because you absolutely refuse to let go of your erroneous set of facts related to this case.

[Hoodat]

I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?

Is this not your post here?

His website has said for several years now that he is not taking orders for custom wedding cakes.  But many wedding cakes are shown pictured on his website,  and I have seen photos of him in his shop where there are wedding cakes on display.  It seems that he continues to sell "off the shelf"
wedding cakes,  although not custom ones.    Can a gay couple come in and purchase one of those off-the-shelf wedding cakes?

And again here:

See my post above.   Custom wedding cake vs. off-the-shelf wedding cake.   A huge difference in how the Constitutional issues are approached.   A huge difference in the availability of the free speech argument.   If the baker won't sell an off-the-shelf product to a gay couple,  the Supreme Court decided years ago that claiming religion is no defense to a charge of unlawful discrimination.   

And here:

I meant an off-the-shelf wedding cake.  Mr. Phillips still makes those.  Are you saying he would sell such a wedding cake to a gay couple?

And here:

I'm not making stuff up.  Look at the Masterpiece website - he clearly sells off-the-shelf wedding cakes.

So you claim with zero ambiguity that this baker makes "off-the-shelf" wedding cakes.  Here is how the dictionary defines "off-the-shelf":

off-the-shelf

adj.  -  readily available from merchandise in stock.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/off-the-shelf?s=t


When asked again about proof of these "off-the-shelf" cakes, you responded with this:

I told you more than once - take a look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop website.   The gallery of items for sale and the instruction to choose from the items in the gallery or request a custom order.   If you don't like my term "off-the-shelf", then use the term "gallery" of items for sale that Phillips uses on his website.  These are non-custom designs, as per the website.

Looking at the link that CyberLiberty was so kind to provide on your behalf, there is indeed a "gallery" of cakes.  This is typical for any artist showcasing his/her work.  But they are still custom designs that he designed for marriages between one man and one woman (where two become one).  To describe these cakes as "off-the-shelf" is ludicrous.  Each required a substantial investment of time and money.  And each reflects the artistic anointing of the baker.

So no, just because you see a picture of a cake in what is essentially an art gallery does not disqualify its meaning, purpose, nor the labor and effort to create it.  Just because Matisse has a painting of a vase of sunflowers in his personal museum does not make it "off-the-shelf".

The bottom line here is that whether it was in the gallery or not, it still had to be created.  And the baker specifically offered to bake any other good for the plaintiffs, but would not create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

[Jazzhead]

So shoot me, @Hoodat, for using the term "off-the-shelf" rather than a "non-custom" cake design.  Of course, any quality cake, custom or non-custom, needs to be baked fresh.   You miss my point.  Go on the website.  It says one can "select" from a product in the gallery, or work with the baker to arrange for a custom design.   The baker clearly has non-custom designs for his wares, including wedding cakes.

And again, my question is - is Phillips willing to sell his non-custom wedding cakes to his gay customers?   If so, then I'll agree with you that he has obeyed the law.  But if he insists that his non-custom products are also off-limits, then the facts of the case fall squarely within that of Piggie Park.  He cannot claim religion as an excuse to avoid a law of general application.   That's clear, that's settled.  It is only with respect to a custom-made product, where his "expressive conduct" is at issue,  that he has a chance of prevailing as a Constitutional matter.   The question is whether he can turn away his gay customer on free speech grounds.  Perhaps he can, as Thomas articulates.  But not on the basis of his free exercise of religion.   Piggie Park shut that door.     

[Cyber Liberty]

For a big-city guy, you sure don't know much about how bakeries work.  The Gallery is examples of his work, to help prospective customers decide what they want.  None of those examples will ever be made again.  Thinking any of those gallery cakes is not "custom" is naive.  I think you are just trying to slice this into itty bitty pieces so you can try to buffalo us on the larger issues you've been papering over.

Done, bye.

[Sanguine]

For a big-city guy, you sure don't know much about how bakeries work.  The Gallery is examples of his work, to help prospective customers decide what they want.  None of those examples will ever be made again.  Thinking any of those gallery cakes is not "custom" is naive.  I think you are just trying to slice this into itty bitty pieces so you can try to buffalo us on the larger issues you've been papering over.

Done, bye.

Yep.  As an artist, you create a gallery of your art, and sell those as is, or use them to help a prospective customer decide what they would like to ask you to create for them.  If it is something that doesn't fit within your artistic vision, you don't agree to do it. 

[Jazzhead]

For a big-city guy, you sure don't know much about how bakeries work.  The Gallery is examples of his work, to help prospective customers decide what they want.  None of those examples will ever be made again.  Thinking any of those gallery cakes is not "custom" is naive.  I think you are just trying to slice this into itty bitty pieces so you can try to buffalo us on the larger issues you've been papering over.

Done, bye.

Again, from the website:  "Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design"

The truth hurts; sorry.   

[Hoodat]

The cakes in his gallery ARE custom designs.  Are you intentionally being obtuse?

[INVAR]

So you claim with zero ambiguity that this baker makes "off-the-shelf" wedding cakes. 

Once again our resident Lefty Tyrant Wannabe is reframing the issue to comport with his particular argument of how this baker is in criminal violation of not serving homos.

Cakes have to be MADE.  If they want one of his gallery cakes 'as is' and tell him it is for a homosexual wedding ceremony, he would again refuse to make that cake - and rightfully so.  He said "I do not make cakes for same-sex weddings".

I would refuse likewise and then some.

Regardless, the mother of Craig had brought into the store with her a design book of things they wanted put on the cake, so they were not going to just buy an existing cake.

To describe these cakes as "off-the-shelf" is ludicrous. 

As has already been explained to him, and like always when it does not fit the narrative he wants to frame the argument - he ignores it.  The 'gallery' at Masterpiece is no different than a 'portfolio' of artwork created to give clients an idea of the artist's capabilities.  I know this, because as a Graphic Artist/Art Director, this is EXACTLY what my business does.  I do not have 'off-the-shelf designs' people can just buy and use for their marketing and advertising vehicles.  They showcase my abilities and often are instrumental in helping steer a client towards explaining the kind of design they would like to see for their own project.

Likewise, the gallery on the website and the fake cakes on display in the shop are a showcase of the artist's capabilities and possible design configurations a prospective client can see for their particular project.  As Phillips said to the two homos who targeted his business for precisely the punishment they intended to be visited upon it, "I don't make cakes for same sex weddings".  Period.  End of sentence.

He does not create cakes for homosexual ceremonies.  Neither does he make cakes for divorces, Halloween or demonic themed events.

But homosexuals and their perverted behavior are a protected and preferred class of peoples by decree of the courts, and one may not refuse any advance or request they make of you, lest you be charged with discrimination or a hate crime.

The bottom line here is that whether it was in the gallery or not, it still had to be created.  And the baker specifically offered to bake any other good for the plaintiffs, but would not create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

Exactly.   Which our resident tyrant wannabe has already said is criminal and should be prosecuted as discrimination, voiding this entire silly pretend argument he is making over whether free speech or artistic expression are applicable here.  His verdict is NO, the Baker has no right to refuse baking a homosexual wedding cake and can be compelled by force to make it, or lose his business and be denied the ability to operate a business. He is just playing his usual stupid silly games to hide those facts behind a bunch of legalspeak bullshit to mask what he truly is.