Christian Baker Again Under Fire for Refusing Transgender Cake Despite Supreme Court Win

[Wingnut]

Many, many of them.  And, they're all fluid.

Rum Cake!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You would have thought that after getting their hands smacked once by the SCOTUS this Colorado Civil Rights Commission would have simply decided to not hear this case...since it's almost exactly the same charges that were rejected just a couple months ago.

Some people have to learn the hard way I guess.

The June decision by SCOTUS was weak, and basically invited this exact same thing to happen again.

[Fishrrman]

Sometimes you got to open your eyes and see reality and how your personal situation is impacted by it.

The best advice I could give Jack Phillips is to put a "closed" sign on the bake shop door.
Then go home, pack up, and move to Wyoming, Montana, Idaho or Utah.

Colorado ain't gonna leave him alone.
Get out of there, and out of Colorado's "reach"...

Or else... be prepared to GO BACK to the Supreme Court and get his case further adjudicated...

[Sanguine]

Sometimes you got to open your eyes and see reality and how your personal situation is impacted by it.

The best advice I could give Jack Phillips is to put a "closed" sign on the bake shop door.
Then go home, pack up, and move to Wyoming, Montana, Idaho or Utah.

Colorado ain't gonna leave him alone.
Get out of there, and out of Colorado's "reach"...

Or else... be prepared to GO BACK to the Supreme Court and get his case further adjudicated...

Or, stay in his home and his community and fight those SOBs with all he's got. 

[goatprairie]

The key issue is not so much freedom of religion but the right of a business owner to create what products he or she wishes to make and not be forced to make something they do not want to make.
Again, the business owner is quite willing to sell their products that they choose to make/create to any buyer. This is not an issue of a business owner refusing to sell a customer their product.
If the leftists can force the cake baker to make these new ridiculous items, they can force any business owner to make whatever a customer asks for. Like the Satanist cake with the sexual objects on them.  Clearly unconstitutional.

[roamer_1]

The key issue is not so much freedom of religion but the right of a business owner to create what products he or she wishes to make and not be forced to make something they do not want to make.
Again, the business owner is quite willing to sell their products that they choose to make/create to any buyer. This is not an issue of a business owner refusing to sell a customer their product.
If the leftists can force the cake baker to make these new ridiculous items, they can force any business owner to make whatever a customer asks for. Like the Satanist cake with the sexual objects on them.  Clearly unconstitutional.

In the end, yes it is about the right to refuse to do business.
Every business transaction in a capitalist system is a voluntary exchange of goods.
This is ultimately attacking the 'voluntary' aspect.

[Hoodat]

The key issue is not so much freedom of religion but the right of a business owner to create what products he or she wishes to make and not be forced to make something they do not want to make.

Next thing you know, they will be forcing Willy Messerschmitt to build fighter jets.

Oh wait. .  .  .

[Free Vulcan]

The problem I have is the idea that no one can have a religious conviction that objects to something that goes against their beliefs. It essentially allows the state to then dictate morality based on what whims it has at the moment and pushed by those activists that use it as a vehicle to enforce their agenda.

It's even worse when you have this kind of biological fiction being imposed because someone feels they are this or that today, and wants to force a business to honor a fantasy totally unsupported by science.

Worse, the Colorado Civil Commission is known to give Muslims a pass while targeting Christians.

[Bigun]

In the end, yes it is about the right to refuse to do business.
Every business transaction in a capitalist system is a voluntary exchange of goods.
This is ultimately attacking the 'voluntary' aspect.

@roamer_1

Spot on correct!  as usual! 

[Jazzhead]

The June decision by SCOTUS was weak, and basically invited this exact same thing to happen again.

That's right.   The SCOTUS decision was a punt, and virtually worthless, providing no guidance whatsoever on the interaction between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and the religious rights of shopowners.   Another lawsuit was inevitable - and Jack Phillips likely knew it, since he never removed the statement on his website that his bakery is not now accepting custom orders for wedding cakes.

As for why the SCOTUS punted, it is likely the inability to get Justice Kennedy on board with a substantive ruling.  And that may be just as well, because the case lacked the right facts to support a substantive ruling.   

But I am on Jack Phillips side this time.    In the case that went to the SCOTUS,  he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, before even questioning his customer about the design or message on the cake.   But the new kerfluffle doesn't involve a blanket denial of service - the baker objected to the message on the cake (blue icing on a pink cake, in order to promote the customer's message of transgenderism.)     That's really no different from a Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it.   

All that the public accommodation law requires is that a customer's business not be rejected merely for who he or she is.   It does not compel a shopowner to produce a product with a message with which he disagrees.   Jack Phillips was within his rights to refuse the customer's requested message on the cake.   Indeed, it appears the customer chose Phillips' store because he/she knew the message would be provocative to him.   

See the difference between the two incidents?   To me, it's crucial.  So my best wishes to Mr. Phillips and his attorneys as he fights the good fight for free speech.   

[thackney]

Indeed, it appears the customer chose Phillips' store because he/she knew the message would be provocative to him.

Absolutely, the same lawyer first had him turn down a Satanic Cake but the lawsuit didn't go anywhere.

[goatprairie]

In the end, yes it is about the right to refuse to do business.
Every business transaction in a capitalist system is a voluntary exchange of goods.
This is ultimately attacking the 'voluntary' aspect.

But that isn't the issue here. The customer is trying to make a business person make a certain kind of product. The business owner has not refused to sell his wares to the customer. He has refused to make a certain kind of product for the customer.

[goatprairie]

That's right.   The SCOTUS decision was a punt, and virtually worthless, providing no guidance whatsoever on the interaction between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and the religious rights of shopowners.   Another lawsuit was inevitable - and Jack Phillips likely knew it, since he never removed the statement on his website that his bakery is not now accepting custom orders for wedding cakes.

As for why the SCOTUS punted, it is likely the inability to get Justice Kennedy on board with a substantive ruling.  And that may be just as well, because the case lacked the right facts to support a substantive ruling.   

But I am on Jack Phillips side this time.    In the case that went to the SCOTUS,  he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, before even questioning his customer about the design or message on the cake.   But the new kerfluffle doesn't involve a blanket denial of service - the baker objected to the message on the cake (blue icing on a pink cake, in order to promote the customer's message of transgenderism.)     That's really no different from a Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it.   

All that the public accommodation law requires is that a customer's business not be rejected merely for who he or she is.   It does not compel a shopowner to produce a product with a message with which he disagrees.   Jack Phillips was within his rights to refuse the customer's requested message on the cake.   Indeed, it appears the customer chose Phillips' store because he/she knew the message would be provocative to him.   

See the difference between the two incidents?   To me, it's crucial.  So my best wishes to Mr. Phillips and his attorneys as he fights the good fight for free speech.   

In both cases the medium is the message to twist McLuhan's phrase a tad.
Both you are wrong....both cases involve  a customer demanding a business owner make a certain kind of product for them.
Where in the constitution does it give a customer the right to demand a business owner make a certain kind of product for him or her?
The baker wasn't refusing to bake the homosexual couple a cake. He was refusing to bake a certain kind of cake. It is no different than refusing to bake a Satanic cake. None.
No customer has the right to demand a business owner make a certain kind of product for them.  The message on the product makes no difference.
It's a customer demanding a business owner make them a certain kind of product. Unconstitutional.

[roamer_1]

But that isn't the issue here. The customer is trying to make a business person make a certain kind of product. The business owner has not refused to sell his wares to the customer. He has refused to make a certain kind of product for the customer.

Yes, it is exactly the issue here. If every transaction is a voluntary exchange of goods, then necessarily that includes the right of non-participation, for any reason whatsoever.
If I don't like your socks and don't want to do business with you, that's perfectly fine.

The key is that it is voluntary. If it is not, it is not capitalism, and if it is not capitalism, we are no longer free. One of the hinge pins of liberty is that voluntary exchange.

[Jazzhead]

No customer has the right to demand a business owner make a certain kind of product for them.  The message on the product makes no difference.
It's a customer demanding a business owner make them a certain kind of product. Unconstitutional.

No, you're wrong.  Phillips didn't have to make wedding cakes, but he chose to do so.  Advertised the fact right on his website.   That being his choice,  he is obliged to abide by the community's nondiscrimination rules that require him to sell what he's advertised to provide to all comers, without regard to the race, gender or sexual orientation of the customer.   Phillips refused service to his gay customer for the very product he advertised to provide, before having any discussion about the design or message on the cake .  The design or message didn't matter - the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was.   To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer. 

But in the instant situation,  the customer has asked for a specific design or message on the cake.  Here, the situation of ARBITRARY discrimination is not, IMO, present.   The baker can reject any design or message he deems offensive. 

 

[verga]

I agree!  There has to be a legal remedy and his lawyers need to find and pursue it to the max!

The suing lawyer needs to be disbarred for harassment and frivolous lawsuits, and then someone needs to kick his @$$.

[roamer_1]

Actually, anti-discrimination law needs to be overturned, as it will only continue to be abused.
Let the market do what the market does.

[thackney]

The suing lawyer needs to be disbarred for harassment and frivolous lawsuits, and then someone needs to kick his @$$.

You are talking about the color of the frosting and not the inner cake.

[goatprairie]

No, you're wrong.  Phillips didn't have to make wedding cakes, but he chose to do so.  Advertised the fact right on his website.   That being his choice,  he is obliged to abide by the community's nondiscrimination rules that require him to sell what he's advertised to provide to all comers, without regard to the race, gender or sexual orientation of the customer.   Phillips refused service to his gay customer for the very product he advertised to provide, before having any discussion about the design or message on the cake .  The design or message didn't matter - the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was.   To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer. 

But in the instant situation,  the customer has asked for a specific design or message on the cake.  Here, the situation of ARBITRARY discrimination is not, IMO, present.   The baker can reject any design or message he deems offensive. 

 

Think of what you're saying. You're saying a business owner has the duty/obligation to make anything a customer demands.
Discrimination is practiced in every business as a business owner decides what they are going to make and sell.  Nobody has the right to demand a business make them what they want. Nobody.

[verga]

Think of what you're saying. You're saying a business owner has the duty/obligation to make anything a customer demands.
Discrimination is practiced in every business as a business owner decides what they are going to make and sell.  Nobody has the right to demand a business make them what they want. Nobody.

Ignore him, he just says stuff like this to irritate people. He has done the same thing on half a dozen threads already this year.

[Jazzhead]

Think of what you're saying. You're saying a business owner has the duty/obligation to make anything a customer demands.
Discrimination is practiced in every business as a business owner decides what they are going to make and sell.  Nobody has the right to demand a business make them what they want. Nobody.

Not at all.   The rule is simple.  Decide whether or not you'll make wedding cakes.  if you don't, no problem - no one can demand that you do.   But if you do decide to make wedding cakes, sell them to all customers on the same basis (that is, any wedding cake I make so long as the design or message isn't offensive).

IMO, Phillips originally violated the law when he refused service without even inquiring about the design or message on the cake.    That's because his discrimination was arbitrary.   But in the new scenario,  I'll back his right to refuse to make any cake the design or message of which he deems offensive.   

[INVAR]

Ignore him, he just says stuff like this to irritate people. He has done the same thing on half a dozen threads already this year.

Yup.

It's why I call him our resident Leftist and tyrant wannabe.

He's perfectly good and fine using government guns to force someone to make a product they do not offer and are not willing to create for homosexuals, then couches his tyranny inside of paper-thin justification that only 'the message on the cake' is an area where the business owner is able to refuse.

A cake for a homosexual celebration IS a message in and of itself.  And no one goes into a bakery to ask for a wedding cake without ideas for how it is to be decorated.

[txradioguy]

No, you're wrong.  Phillips didn't have to make wedding cakes, but he chose to do so.  Advertised the fact right on his website.   That being his choice,  he is obliged to abide by the community's nondiscrimination rules that require him to sell what he's advertised to provide to all comers, without regard to the race, gender or sexual orientation of the customer.   Phillips refused service to his gay customer for the very product he advertised to provide, before having any discussion about the design or message on the cake .  The design or message didn't matter - the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was.   To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer. 

But in the instant situation,  the customer has asked for a specific design or message on the cake.  Here, the situation of ARBITRARY discrimination is not, IMO, present.   The baker can reject any design or message he deems offensive. 

 

You'll say that until someone comes into your office and lets just pretend that you're a tax lawyer and they need a criminal defense lawyer.

You inform them you can't (you refuse) to take their case because you know tax law not criminal law.

They tell you "I don't care...I want YOU to be my lawyer".

You again tell them you can't (you refuse) take the case.


They leave and three days later a process server walks into your office and serves you with papers.  You're being sued because you violated the 5th Amendment right to due process of law of the person you refused to represent...because you know...you're a tax lawyer and not a criminal court lawyer. 


In your own words:

the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was.   To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer. 

[kevindavis007]

So I now have to bake a cake to celebrate someone cutting off their ding dong??

[txradioguy]

So I now have to bake a cake to celebrate someone cutting off their ding dong??

@kevindavis

Yes you do.  Or you'll be sued and run out of business and your livelihood destroyed in the name of tolerance and acceptance.