Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v CCCR

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Dec 4, 2017.

  1. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #226
    While I do agree with the fact that gay people have been unjustly persecuted, this is not about that. It’s about 1A rights.

    I strongly suggest that you read the brief by the African American leaders on why this case should not be identified with racial discrimination (esp. interracial marriage). Not to agree or disagree, but because it’s an interesting read.
     
  2. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #227
    I am not deny that at all, but this baker says he will not make his good for others as well. I am simply stated that his refusal of making this wedding cake does not stop with a gay wedding. The topic you bring up is something entirely different.
     
  3. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #228
    Man, you are hungup on (and hide behind) this expressive artistic crap way too much. It is a cop out. If they can tell the couple to their face that they won't do it, neither you nor they should have an issue with a sign in the window stating the same thing.
     
  4. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #229
    No I am truly not hiding behind that. I am sorry that you think that, I thought we were having a good conversation.
    The fact that the couple is gay could be irrelevant, do you agree? Or do you think that since they are gay nothing should be denied to them?
     
  5. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #230
    No it's not. It is inherently related to the problem. If it wasn't a big deal to the gay couple on their special day, it wouldn't be an issue.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    Yeah that's exactly what I am saying...gay people should be given winning lottery tickets too. :rolleyes: Please.

    You can deny us something, but it needs to be equitable, lawful and non discriminatory. And as I stated earlier with my example, I would have the same issue with a baker who said that due to their beliefs they could not bake a cake for an interracial couple's wedding either.
     
  6. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #231
    (Let me know if you get a winning lottery ticket. Remember I am your friend).
    It is equitable and non-discriminatory. The baker never said that he doesn’t do things for gays. He said, clearly, that he doesn’t do things for gay weddings. It is a very, very important distinction. At the same time he doesn’t do things for halloween, any pagan celebration, or anything that celebrates sex, drugs, and alchool (=all the fun stuff). As far as I know he doesn’t even do things for Hannukah because Jews don’t believe in Christ.
    He refuses those services to gay, straight, white, blacks, and interracial alike.
     
  7. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #232
    the "artistic expression" argument is sort of the "Hail Mary pass" of this case. The baker has lost his appeal on other grounds and has now added the artistic expression concept to his appeal.

    Actually he's had to go a step further since there wasn't any actual "artistic expression" involved. He's added the issue of whether he can be compelled to do something that involves "artistic expression". It's possible he may finding himself in the same position as an employee faced with an assignment that runs contrary to some personal belief. His choice might end up being "quitting his job" instead of making the cake.

    so he might be a serial offender when it comes to breaking anti-discrimination laws :p
     
  8. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #233
    Bingo! But in the case of weddings, he will do some couple's but not others. There is where the problem lies. I mentioned this earlier in a point you did not reply to regarding the person who will not make pork sandwiches for anyone. It's not like they make them for some and not others.
     
  9. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #234
    This is completely incorrect. The subjext was there already during the time the case was at the CCRC’s
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    Do you realize that a wedding is not a constitutional right, correct? Also, he will refuse a gay wedding cake to a straight customer.
     
  10. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #235
    Don't you see how this is just hiding the ball? Anyone can craft a seemingly non-discriminatory reason to not render a target group their services, which will have the effect not rendering services to a single race, or religion, or sexual orientation. That's why discrimination isn't evaluated literally, but rather we look at disparate effect.

    This kind of thing is a super common way landlords discriminate against potential tenants. It's not "no black people," rather they say "must have a college degree and proof of gainful employment and a clean credit history" knowing the black people in the neighborhood are less likely to have graduated from college and no marks on their credit. It's not "no families with kids," rather they say "cannot park a car longer than 170 inches in the parking spot" knowing most family cars are longer than this. It's not "no single moms," rather they say "we won't rent to anyone involved in civil litigation within the past 5 years" knowing that nearly all single moms have a recent divorce or custody case in their recent history.

    In a vacuum, all these things are seemingly innocent and reasonable. But if you look at the effect it has over time, you find the real truth. It's the same with the cake guy - you can't just take his word for it and evaluate his rules in a vacuum. This is the real world - saying he doesn't do gay weddings is not a distinction to saying no gays if the effect is he turns away 98% of gay people that enter his establishment.
     
  11. Macky-Mac, Dec 7, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017

    Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #236
    what? I'm wrong? link please

    Assuming you're correct about when his lawyers first asserted the claim, then he's already lost the argument at multiple levels of appeals

    (it isn't just the spell checker! :p )
     
  12. yaxomoxay, Dec 7, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017

    yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #237
    He offered services. He just refused the theme. If he said “no cakes for you” I would’ve agreed with the above.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    @Macky-Mac
    To answer your request for a source.
    Link to the very first decision: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/craig-and-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop-decision

    See Page 3 Item 14. Also look at page 7, at the decision.
     
  13. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #238
    How on earth was the gay marriage case argued on then? There is a reason that bans on both interacial and gay marriages were struck down. The court didn't say hey...marriage isn't a constitutional right, so you shouldn't have to be treated equally in the administration of one.

    And saying he would deny a heterosexual a gay wedding cake is disingenuous at best as a heterosexual would not be sitting down with a baker deciding on a cake for someone else. But even if they did, the ultimate destination and ultimate recipients are still being treated in a different manner from their hetrosexual counterparts.
     
  14. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #239
    I said wedding, not marriage.
     
  15. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #240
    You are trying to have a logical argument when the opposing views are mostly ideological, your case makes complete sense but those arguing against aren't using logic. We're sort of spinning our wheels here.
     
  16. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #241
    Are you married? Have you ever been cake shopping for big wedding? It's not: hey we want a cake, for what? for a gay wedding? nah, we don't do gay weddings.

    Typically you meet the baker, you talk about the wedding, the color themes, you try different cakes, different frostings, you come up with a design, and you chit-chat the whole time about marriage and life and how crazy wedding planning is and on my god my crazy aunt lucy is going to get so drunk and such.

    Do you really think the baker went through that whole conversation with two men, and when they said "it is for our wedding when we marry each other," that is when the baker stopped the conversation and said no? Or did he say no the moment it was clear the two guys were gay and clearly it wasn't a birthday cake?

    Also - Would the baker bake a cake for a gay birthday party? A gay graduation party? What's the difference between "theme" and "people who are celebrating with the cake"?
     
  17. yaxomoxay, Dec 7, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2017

    yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #242
    They sat at the table, the couple said “our wedding”, the baker refused, and they left. Design was not discussed.

    The difference between theme and the people at a party is the same difference between refusing serving to someone beacuse he’s white, and someone because he wants to celebrate his KKK membership.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    Sure, the Supreme Court has time to waste on illogical stuff.
     
  18. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #243
    Your missing the point. I am not saying that gay people have not been harassed and humiliated, but that’s not what is being discussed here. This is about the law and whether it’s been wrongly set in Colorado. Yes Colorado is trying to protect people with this law (including gays), but you talking about how gays have been humiliated for years has nothing to do with that. Yes it’s an issue, but also this is an issue of infringing on someone’s religious rights. Whether you agree or not, that is up for debate here. Let’s not go deeper into the rabbit hole.
     
  19. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #244
  20. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #245
    You stated that a wedding is not a constitutional right. Okay. But equal treatment is. Baking something for a heterosexual couple's wedding, but not a gay couple's wedding is discrimination based on the gender makeup of the two couples. I think it's hard to justify. And laws and lawyers of Colorado State as well as at least one court ruling on this case have agreed.

    Now, having said that, I do understand the religious argument. However I guess I have to ask why someone's religious rights are valid when it comes to baking a cake, but not valid when renting a hotel room, a cemetary plot, a funeral service, or issuing a marriage license at the county clerk's office? All places where religious arguments against homosexual people have been asserted and later shot down.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    It has everything to do with that. These laws of equal protection would not exist if people did not feel humiliated, discriminated against, etc. The laws exist due to people's feelings on the matter.
     
  21. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #246
    Um.. a wedding cake usually connotes a marriage celebration.

    Yep. Be interesting to see what the Court says.

    There is almost always a way to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and not savage your principles. When that seems not to be the case, maybe you are in the wrong secular business, at least in the USA.

    Of course I don't know how the Court's going to view this thing. It will be fascinating to read the opinion and dissents, whatever they are and whichever way they will have gone.
     
  22. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #247
    Totally. Doesn't have any legal bearing. It's just an expressive event. Not doing it does not limit marriage rights (which ARE constitutional).
     
  23. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #248
    So would you feel the same if myself (a Christian) walked into a baker owned by a Jewish person, and I asked for a cake that said I wanted a cake celebrate Christmas, and he told me he would not make that I could buy another product has his that was not Christmas theme. Would you be ok with that? I know I would have no issue.
     
  24. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #249
    I do not disagree with you in general, but you would still have to prove that his was discrimination against gays and not the event. The fact that they are gay could be totally irrelevant. I know that you're gay, and if I key your car it could be just because I disagree with you on MR, and not because you're gay. It would be up to you to prove that it was hate crime. Now, since I give you that it is VERY difficult to prove it, I'd like also to point out to the fact that I do believe in harsh, almost merciless punishment for those who commit hate crime.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    Yes but they don't protect a category over another.
     
  25. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #250
    If they rule for the baker, they will have to twist themselves into all sorts of pretzels to narrow it in such a way that there aren't a bunch of unintended consequences that fall into their lap later on. Not like they haven't done that before...reading some of the opinions on cases can be as twisted and illogical as some as the posts here.

    But that's what happens when you try and sugarcoat animus against gay people and try to paint it as something else.
     

Share This Page