"Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year. In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. [...]

"According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs. Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.

"The judge's decision states in its Finding of Facts that Phillips believes creating same-sex wedding cakes would be "displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible. In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, a CCRC investigation also showed evidence that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women. [...]

"Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for. He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. [...] Philips is currently considering an appeal of the judge's order."
(source)

------------

So, a cake for hetero dog marriage is no problem. But a cake for homosexual human marriage is an outrage before God and America; one that is holding poor Philip hostage for a paycheck.

Well, the solution is simple and obvious. Now that marriage equality has made the cake business so clearly against Philip's religion, it's time to either switch religions or get out of the cake business.

Tags: equality, marriage

Views: 892

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The case doesn't need to be weighed on that criterion. The ruling is based on prejudicially discriminatory exclusion from a facet of public life in which these men were otherwise entitled to participate by right. That exclusion doesn't become more legal or less legal based on the value of the service. You have the right or you don't. The judge ruled the gay couple does. You seem to think they don't. Cake is not relevant to the nature of the complaint. It is incidental.

The difference between us seems to boil down to you believing the government has the right to micro-manage trivial interactions. I think that is intrusive and unnecessary.

I don't believe the government has the right to micromanage transactions.

I believe that the law is a reasonable recourse where undue discrimination excludes or creates unwarranted inequalities in ordinary participation in public life.

I believe that the law is a reasonable recourse where undue discrimination excludes or creates unwarranted inequalities in ordinary participation in public life.

Your Canadian ways of thinking mystify. Define "due discrimination" for me. And who or what agency is it that undertakes to warrant inequalities?

It has nothing to do with my nationality. I have to say that because 'discrimination', in its most general, sense is not inherently bad, and you are the sort to argue odd points such as that if the loophole isn't closed.

I think a gynaecologist is rather sensible to turn me away based on my gender. In the general sense of the word, that is discrimination, even if in the context of this conversation most people wouldn't treat it as such.

Some inequalities are inherent. I could try to sue a paid matchmaking service because their pool of candidates available for gay men is dramatically smaller than their pool of candidates for straight men. That is an inequality in the service. No person would ever fault the making company though as that inequality is based on the fact that a single digit percentage of the general population identifies as gay, while over ninety percent of women identify as straight.

So let me see here.

One of the arguments made against gay marriage is that if you open the door to changing it from simply one man, one woman, where does it end?!?!  The next thing you know, polygamy, marrying animals, marrying children (and consummating it--why not if Mohammed did).... 

Picture someone running around with red hair, red because it's on fire.

And this place was willing to make a wedding cake for animals.  Why deal with actually sliding down a slippery slope when you can just move like a chess knight, magically to a point halfway down?

Now I do think that marriage should be limited to consenting adults.  Anything else is either meaningless (like this pet wedding) or exploitative.

Gallup: Thus, you elevate the bigotry of the majority, lower the minority into a sub-class, and burden them with a struggle to obtain goods and services that the majority must not endure; effectively denying the minority the same liberty and equality guaranteed to all by the Constitution.

Unseen: I don't believe the Constitution should be abused to make people be nice to each other.

Civil liberties are not a nicety. The Constitution establishes and protects civil liberties. It's not an abuse of the Constitution for courts of law to enforce its purpose.

You have it exactly backward. About 2/3 of Americans are in favor of gay marriage (and 2/3 means we're talking about a lot of Christians as well as others, BTW).

I have it exactly right: one in three Americans polled say homosexuality should not be accepted in society. This is from Pew research published in June 2013. If you want to dispute that, take it up with Pew.

Gallup: Freedom means civil liberties.
Unseen: Yes, for merchant's, too. 

Unseen, you're living in a fantasy world. To discriminate against minorities is not a civil liberty. Learn that.

Consider emigrating to Russia. They really shit on their gay minorities, most especially by coddling anti-gay bigots.

And there you have the difference between Russia, not a true democracy, and the US, where the majority of Americans are actually FOR gay marriage and equal rights for gays.

Just above half in a nationwide poll support marriage equality. The other half can still muster a considerable amount of discrimination; including the 33 states that banned gay marriage.

A bigot in the US should have the same right not to sell a cake to anyone he doesn't want to sell to for any reason that a gay merchant should have to be able to refuse service to a bigot.

I really don't care what you think it ought to be like. Abhorrent views are protected from discrimination and oppression by the Constitution. If a bigot wants to buy a cake, sell him a cake, or face the consequences.

That's your opinion. I'm extremely glad that, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, as a legal opinion, it's useless.

My opinion is intended as persuasion (not for you, but for those reading with open minds), not as proof or even evidence.

You offer opinion without supporting evidence, defending bigotry and discrimination, and tell me I'm not open-minded?

How can I put this?

HAAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gallup: Discrimination causes injury. The injured are victims. The Office of Administrative Court for the State of Colorado has found in fact that David Mullins and Charlie Craig were victims of anti-gay discrimination. That's good enough for me.

Unseen: Injury implies harm. It's hard to think of not getting a cake as harmful.

Well, that's your schtick, Unseen. Ignore everything I write about anti-gay discrimination, discrimination as injury, civil rights law, and keep writing stupid crap about a cake.

It's not that the point about civil rights and discrimination isn't clear, or that it's hard to understand. You're being argumentative and resistant, stubbornly refusing to see the point. You won't in any way recognize that it even exists.

It's one of your stupid games. As I said, I won't play.

Gallup: Generally, a protected class is created when a case has been made, and a court of law has found, that there is a (not necessarily, but often pervasive) problem with discrimination against that class.
Unseen: That's procedure, not justification. You're going to stop getting responses from me if you are simply quoting law or explaining procedures.

A problem with discrimination IS justification to create a protected class. That I briefly described how it's usually done doesn't obviate the point.

So stop responding. You're not contributing much of value anyway.

That leaves 2/3 of the public not feeling that way, and in 10 years it'll probably be 3/4 and in 50 years there may be hardly anyone who feels that way

In 50 years, maybe there won't be any need for sexual orientation to be a protected class. But today, with 1/3 of the public saying gays should not be accepted in society, that is fertile ground for problems with anti-gay discrimination in society, as was the case at this cake shop.

I, too, am getting tired of us repeating ourselves. I'm aware of what the law is and don't need to have responses padded with recitations of common knowledge. 

I do marvel that you take the 2/3 pro-gay marriage and equal rights for gays stats as somehow showing that a majority of Americans are anti-gay.

I don't think we need laws taking away the rights of merchants to refuse to serve a customer absent a pervasive (or even common) problem. At best, situations like the one this case is about are so rare as to be, well, news.

The government has better things to do than to try to provide a simulation of good will that isn't there.

As a minority, gays do not have serious problems overall in the economic sphere. A far bigger problem (and a real one) is gay bashing where gays minding their own business are set upon by gangs. 

But economically, gays are not an underclass by any means. Cases like the one this discussion revolves around are more noteworthy for their being so uncommon rather than the opposite.

Forcing people to play nice where there is no serious overriding problem to fix will just increase anti-gay resentment and give the anti-gays more to talk about.

I'm aware of what the law is and don't need to have responses padded with recitations of common knowledge.

You keep demonstrating lack of awareness of the law, such as asking if couples can be denied service, denying as fact there is no right to deny service to blacks at a business, and misunderstanding the concept of a public institution.

I do marvel that you take the 2/3 pro-gay marriage and equal rights for gays stats as somehow showing that a majority of Americans are anti-gay.

Well, as long as you've taken to issuing fabricated statements and attributing them to me falsely; I do marvel at how you somehow managed to wedge that 3-foot dildo up your ass. I didn't need to hear about the hot custard ejaculation feature, though.

As for me, I said Americans discriminate against gays in numbers significant enough to make it a problem, not in a majority.

You're playing another stupid game.

I don't think we need laws taking away the rights of merchants to refuse to serve a customer absent a pervasive (or even common) problem.

You're a shockingly ignorant man, Unseen. You're not simply ignorant, but wilfully ignorant in refusing to acknowledge that discrimination-- not just against gays, but against all sorts of minorities-- has a long history as a common and pervasive problem in society.

At best, situations like the one this case is about are so rare as to be, well, news. The government has better things to do than to try to provide a simulation of good will that isn't there. As a minority, gays do not have serious problems overall in the economic sphere. A far bigger problem (and a real one) is gay bashing where gays minding their own business are set upon by gangs. But economically, gays are not an underclass by any means.

Right. So when people smash your face in it's a "real" problem. But when people won't give you a job, rent you an apartment, give you health services, serve you at a restaurant, properly insure you, let you get married, or accept your money in exchange for goods and services, it's not a "real" problem. You're not an underclass by any means.

Cases like the one this discussion revolves around are more noteworthy for their being so uncommon rather than the opposite. Forcing people to play nice where there is no serious overriding problem to fix will just increase anti-gay resentment and give the anti-gays more to talk about.

That you refuse to acknowledge discrimination exists beyond one news story does not mean it is rare, or that there is no serious problem. It means you're a wilfully ignorant man trying desperately to ignore the presence and minimize the impact of widespread discrimination against LGBT people.

It's a matter of minutes to find case studies showing high rates of discrimination against LGBT people in the workplace, in housinghealth care, and public accommodation (1, 2).

"A report by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, including an analysis of 21 different local surveys between 1980 and 1991, found widespread discrimination across the country against gay men and lesbians. According to the report, as many as 44 percent of respondents in some cities reported employment discrimination as a result of their sexual orientation. Thirty-two percent reported discrimination in renting a housing unit. The study also said that gay men and lesbians reported discrimination in public restaurants and in receiving health services, obtaining insurance and in education."

Beyond the research, if you commonly sought out news on these issues, you would not tell me they are so uncommon.

I'm done wasting my time with you on this, Unseen. You've done little but resist with stupid games while refusing to become informed about problems with discrimination against gays.

In a way, I appreciate what you've done. Encounters with people who dismiss the great worth of the Constitution make me value and want to defend civil liberties that much more.

It's a matter of minutes to find case studies showing high rates of discrimination against LGBT people in the workplace, in housinghealth care, and public accommodation (12).

"A report by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, including an analysis of 21 different local surveys between 1980 and 1991, found widespread discrimination across the country against gay men and lesbians. According to the report, as many as 44 percent of respondents in some cities reported employment discrimination as a result of their sexual orientation. Thirty-two percent reported discrimination in renting a housing unit. The study also said that gay men and lesbians reported discrimination in public restaurants and in receiving health services, obtaining insurance and in education."

THOSE are the sorts of cases government prosecutors should be working on. Cases where the ability to earn a living, get ESSENTIAL services, obtain accommodations, etc., are worthy of bringing the force of government to bear. Pastrry disputes, instances where a guy wouldn't sell a gay a pack of gum, etc.,  should be left to the people involved to settle. 

Since you won't be replying to this (unless you're a liar), I'll take the opportunity to tell ya, it's been nice.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 6 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service