Masterpiece Cakeshop back to court.

[Proctopeo]

Because wanting to preserve part of our nations history = Throwing a tantrum like a two year old because you have to spend money somewhere else. For what It's worth though, the statues should be in museums.

So you're okay with some people being second-class citizens who have to consider where they shop to avoid the trouble of being refused because the merchant's religion or sensibilities are offended by them? That is what you're talking about. People who are straight can shop anywhere but if you aren't, well, better look around for someone who'll serve "your kind." Not my idea of America.

That's not really what's going on though. He will serve them, and even do commissions for them - just not specific types of commissions. Forcing him to do those specific types is compelled speech, which is regarded as a big "no-no" here.

[The Two Jerseys]

Making custom goods on commission is not a public accommodation.

He's willing to sell any off-the-shelf item to anyone who comes in and wants to buy it, therefore he is in compliance with public accommodation laws.

It is if you sell them out of a bakery. Review the last Supreme Court decision, even the majority agreed he had violated public accommodation law.

And which Supreme Court decision would that be, since we're not mind readers here?

[Len Hyet]

Not only are you wrong, you are laughably, incredibly, and completely wrong.

You are in fact, so wrong, that if you were any more wrong you would have to be literally saying that the 1st Amendment makes no mention of religion or speech at all.

Got an argument to go with that or are you too sophisticated for any of that? Who exactly is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion, or is he one of those bakery cultists?

Well if you'd bothered to read the last 21 or so pages of this discussion, you would see that once again Phelps did not refuse service. He refused to create a cake that celebrates something that his religion prohibits. To force him to do so would be compelled speech. Compelled speech is illegal.

Thus allow me to reiterate, you are wrong.

[Bombadil]

Not only are you wrong, you are laughably, incredibly, and completely wrong.

You are in fact, so wrong, that if you were any more wrong you would have to be literally saying that the 1st Amendment makes no mention of religion or speech at all.

Got an argument to go with that or are you too sophisticated for any of that? Who exactly is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion, or is he one of those bakery cultists?

The Muffinati!

[Len Hyet]

Got an argument to go with that or are you too sophisticated for any of that? Who exactly is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion, or is he one of those bakery cultists?

The Muffinati!

Shh! Be careful! You'll summon their Bakeful eye of Muffindor.

[Ors Might]

Got an argument to go with that or are you too sophisticated for any of that? Who exactly is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion, or is he one of those bakery cultists?

The Muffinati!

Do you know the Muffin Man now, motherfucker?

[Fartsniffage]

The Muffinati!

Do you know the Muffin Man now, motherfucker?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UovCFYhuWcI

[Bombadil]

The Muffinati!

Do you know the Muffin Man now, motherfucker?

Say bagel again. SAY BAGEL again! And I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker! Say bagel one more time.

[Radiatia]

On one hand I think it's ridiculous that the government are forcing a business to sell products to someone they wish to deny service to.

On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous that a business would turn down a paying customer at all... it's like they're asking for bankruptcy.

[The South Falls]

It is if you sell them out of a bakery. Review the last Supreme Court decision, even the majority agreed he had violated public accommodation law.

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

If it is my religious belief not to do business with anyone who's not of my religion, then I can shut down business for the majority of the population? You can shut down most of business if you twist the bible enough.

[US-SSR]

It is if you sell them out of a bakery. Review the last Supreme Court decision, even the majority agreed he had violated public accommodation law.

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

Tell you what, you read the decision and tell us where the Supremacists said the baker did not violate the law. They reversed because the Colorado Human Rights Commission said mean things about his homophobic beliefs and hurt his snowflake feels.

It is if you sell them out of a bakery. Review the last Supreme Court decision, even the majority agreed he had violated public accommodation law.

You don’t see the problem with the state forcing artists to accept commissions?

You don't see the problem with a guy who runs a bakery claiming to be an artist?

[Des-Bal]

If it is my religious belief not to do business with anyone who's not of my religion, then I can shut down business for the majority of the population? You can shut down most of business if you twist the bible enough.

From a moral perspective, why not? Why shouldn't you be entitled to sell a product only to people you want to.

On one hand I think it's ridiculous that the government are forcing a business to sell products to someone they wish to deny service to.

On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous that a business would turn down a paying customer at all... it's like they're asking for bankruptcy.

When you're dealing with something like a custom cake to commemorate an event you're ultimately dealing in art. If someone doesn't want to make a custom product to celebrate an occasion they'd rather not be associated with that should be their decision.

[Proctopeo]

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

Tell you what, you read the decision and tell us where the Supremacists said the baker did not violate the law. They reversed because the Colorado Human Rights Commission said mean things about his homophobic beliefs and hurt his snowflake feels.

You don’t see the problem with the state forcing artists to accept commissions?

You don't see the problem with a guy who runs a bakery claiming to be an artist?

Cake decoration is an art. Commissioned cakes are commissioned art. Art is free speech.

[Len Hyet]

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

If it is my religious belief not to do business with anyone who's not of my religion, then I can shut down business for the majority of the population? You can shut down most of business if you twist the bible enough.

Okay, let me try this again. There seem to be a lot of people being confused on this point.

1. Phelps did not refuse service. He did not refuse service to the Gay couple in the original case, he did not refuse service to the Transgender woman in this case.

2. What Phelps did was refuse to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs.

3. Phelps offered to sell them a pre-made cake. So, again, and for the last fucking time, he did not refuse service. Refusing service would have been a violation of the Public Accommodation Law in Colorado.

4. The issue at hand is not a 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion issue. It is a 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue, that while it may derive from a Religious topic the case at hand is not, at its core, religious.

5. The case at hand is can you, or I, or anyone, be forced to speak contrary to our beliefs. The answer is no.

Your scenario is moot. It's not the case here.

[Ors Might]

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

Tell you what, you read the decision and tell us where the Supremacists said the baker did not violate the law. They reversed because the Colorado Human Rights Commission said mean things about his homophobic beliefs and hurt his snowflake feels.

You don’t see the problem with the state forcing artists to accept commissions?

You don't see the problem with a guy who runs a bakery claiming to be an artist?

Nope. Unless you’re going to try to claim that food can’t be used as an artistic medium or that commissions and premade goods are the exact same thing.

[US-SSR]

Got an argument to go with that or are you too sophisticated for any of that? Who exactly is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion, or is he one of those bakery cultists?

Well if you'd bothered to read the last 21 or so pages of this discussion, you would see that once again Phelps did not refuse service. He refused to create a cake that celebrates something that his religion prohibits. To force him to do so would be compelled speech. Compelled speech is illegal.

Thus allow me to reiterate, you are wrong.

He refused to make the one product the couple wanted him to make for them. That he would have sold them cookies, brownies, a sheet cake or a lifetime supply of sourdough is immaterial.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

Tell you what, you read the decision and tell us where the Supremacists said the baker did not violate the law. They reversed because the Colorado Human Rights Commission said mean things about his homophobic beliefs and hurt his snowflake feels.

That's fifty nine pages, I doubt even you have read it.

You don’t see the problem with the state forcing artists to accept commissions?

You don't see the problem with a guy who runs a bakery claiming to be an artist?

No?

Bakers are artists. Have you not seen the effort put into their craft making aesthetically pleasing cakes?

[Kowani]

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

If it is my religious belief not to do business with anyone who's not of my religion, then I can shut down business for the majority of the population? You can shut down most of business if you twist the bible enough.

I mean, if you want to stab yourself in the wallet, then go ahead. But it is helpful to use a religious allegory to make this easier to understand. The baker can’t say that people of other religions (Let’s use Muslims as an example.) However, he is under no obligation to make a cake saying Allah is great. It’s kinda like how you can’t make a Muslim butcher serve you a ham sandwich.

[Des-Bal]

You don't see the problem with a guy who runs a bakery claiming to be an artist?

Like half of being a cake is being pleasing to the eye. If David was made of fondant it wouldn't stop being art.

[Len Hyet]

Mm, no. The Majority held that Phelps did not violate the Public Accommodation law, because he was willing to sell them a cake. He was not however, willing to create a cake that would celebrate gay marriage, which would have been compelled speech.

Tell you what, you read the decision and tell us where the Supremacists said the baker did not violate the law. They reversed because the Colorado Human Rights Commission said mean things about his homophobic beliefs and hurt his snowflake feels.

Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented.
He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to
make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in
his own voice and of his own creation. As Phillips would
see the case, this contention has a significant First
Amendment speech component and implicates his deep
and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker
likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers’
rights to goods and services became a demand for him to
exercise the right of his own personal expression for their
message, a message he could not express in a way consistent
with his religious beliefs

And any decision in favor of the baker would have
to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods
and services who object to gay marriages for moral and
religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying
“no goods or services will be sold if they will be used
for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious
stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was
entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his
claims in all the circumstances of the case.

But the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell
“birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,”
App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant.
The treatment of the other cases and Phillips’ case could
reasonably be interpreted as being inconsistent as to the
question of whether speech is involved, quite apart from
whether the cases should ultimately be distinguished. In
short, the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious
objection did not accord with its treatment of these other
objections.

[Proctopeo]

Well if you'd bothered to read the last 21 or so pages of this discussion, you would see that once again Phelps did not refuse service. He refused to create a cake that celebrates something that his religion prohibits. To force him to do so would be compelled speech. Compelled speech is illegal.

Thus allow me to reiterate, you are wrong.

He refused to make the one product the couple wanted him to make for them. That he would have sold them cookies, brownies, a sheet cake or a lifetime supply of sourdough is immaterial.

It's a commission, and a commission of art. Artists can reject commissions for any reason they wish. It's very simple.

[US-SSR]

Tell you what, you read the decision and tell us where the Supremacists said the baker did not violate the law. They reversed because the Colorado Human Rights Commission said mean things about his homophobic beliefs and hurt his snowflake feels.



You don't see the problem with a guy who runs a bakery claiming to be an artist?

Cake decoration is an art. Commissioned cakes are commissioned art. Art is free speech.

Boxing is an art. Art is free speech. Beating the crap out of a homophobe is free speech.

Or if you prefer, God is love, love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, Ray Charles is God.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well if you'd bothered to read the last 21 or so pages of this discussion, you would see that once again Phelps did not refuse service. He refused to create a cake that celebrates something that his religion prohibits. To force him to do so would be compelled speech. Compelled speech is illegal.

Thus allow me to reiterate, you are wrong.

He refused to make the one product the couple wanted him to make for them.

Does this mean I can sue Marvel for not making Captain America black? Because that's the product I want from them and they're not making it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Cake decoration is an art. Commissioned cakes are commissioned art. Art is free speech.

Boxing is an art. Art is free speech. Beating the crap out of a homophobe is free speech.

They're so much that's retarded in this quote, but it all can be undone just by pointing out that boxing isn't an art.

[Bombadil]

If it is my religious belief not to do business with anyone who's not of my religion, then I can shut down business for the majority of the population? You can shut down most of business if you twist the bible enough.

Okay, let me try this again. There seem to be a lot of people being confused on this point.

1. Phelps did not refuse service. He did not refuse service to the Gay couple in the original case, he did not refuse service to the Transgender woman in this case.

2. What Phelps did was refuse to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs.

3. Phelps offered to sell them a pre-made cake. So, again, and for the last fucking time, he did not refuse service. Refusing service would have been a violation of the Public Accommodation Law in Colorado.

4. The issue at hand is not a 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion issue. It is a 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech issue, that while it may derive from a Religious topic the case at hand is not, at its core, religious.

5. The case at hand is can you, or I, or anyone, be forced to speak contrary to our beliefs. The answer is no.

Your scenario is moot. It's not the case here.

Well no.. he offers a range of services, off the shelf and custom made baked goods.. so those services should be available without discrimination against someone based on race, colour, sexuality or gender.

Having said that now that I know he's a tortured artist not a baker that changes everything!