Masterpiece Cakeshop back to court.

[Ors Might]

Do you know the Muffin Man now, motherfucker?

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

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.

Break (and eat) the fucker’s legs.

[Uxupox]

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.

So is the holocaust free speech?

[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.

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.

What I said. Nowhere do the Supremacists say the baker did not violate public accommodations law. They decided the case based on their interpretation of the nature of the legal proceedings, not their substance.

[Bombadil]

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.

If they create custom Captain America's in a variety of ways other than refusing to make him black on religious grounds for you then yes..

[Len Hyet]

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!

And they are available. He would have cheerfully made, say, a birthday cake, a soccer-party cake, or any other custom cake for them. He did not refuse to make the cake because they were transgender, he refused to make a cake celebrating transgenderism. That is an important distinction.

[Proctopeo]

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.

Boxing isn't an art, and assault is a crime.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

Tell us where SCOTUS said that he did violate the law.

[Holy Tedalonia]

The real questions I want to ask is how far does the freedom to practice any religion gos? If a religion allowed cannibalism or human sacrifice should it be allowed, obviously no but it limits how far religious freedom it can go. The best form I would say is "allow anyone to practice any religion the so desire unless it inflicts harm upon another individual," but in reality it creates another question, what is included under "harm?" One could argue that offensive discrimination against other people!!e is "harmful". Until we decide what's under harm were going to continue having questionable religious freedom cases constantly.

And for the denial of services, services can be denied, bars deny servicing children due to their age per requirement of the government, and sometimes lawyers don't take on certain cases denying their service to an individual. Typically a small organization or person can get off easy, especially if they don't have a store, but big organization or stores have more difficulty, because we are used to them rarely denying such services due to the individual they're selling it to.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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.

So is the holocaust free speech?

Genocide is an art form.

[US-SSR]

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.

"I wanted to do in boxing what Bruce Lee was able to do in karate. Lee was an artist, and, like him, I try to get beyond the fundamentals of my sport. I want my fights to be seen as plays." - Sugar Ray Leonard.

Attack is only one half of the art of boxing. - Georges Carpentier

Two great boxers call themselves artists, ergo boxing is as much as an art as decorating cakes.

[Bombadil]

And they are available. He would have cheerfully made, say, a birthday cake, a soccer-party cake, or any other custom cake for them. He did not refuse to make the cake because they were transgender, he refused to make a cake celebrating transgenderism. That is an important distinction.

Fine.. and that is the distinction being tested in the courts.. if that is to be the debate here then all's good. Not that you made this claim but the whole 'they can go to another baker' is irrelevant because this is about such a distinction being applied to all manner of things that people might refuse on the basis of religion or beliefs.

[Len Hyet]

And they are available. He would have cheerfully made, say, a birthday cake, a soccer-party cake, or any other custom cake for them. He did not refuse to make the cake because they were transgender, he refused to make a cake celebrating transgenderism. That is an important distinction.

Fine.. and that is the distinction being tested in the courts.. if that is to be the debate here then all's good. Not that you made this claim but the whole 'they can go to another baker' is irrelevant because this is about such a distinction being applied to all manner of things that people might refuse on the basis of religion or beliefs.

Oh absolutely. The whole "lol just go to another baker" argument is entirely irrelevant.

[Des-Bal]

Two great boxers call themselves artists, ergo boxing is as much as an art as decorating cakes.

That would be a sensible comparison if the baker was an artist solely because he said so. But that's not the case, so that's not the case.

[Ors Might]

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.

"I wanted to do in boxing what Bruce Lee was able to do in karate. Lee was an artist, and, like him, I try to get beyond the fundamentals of my sport. I want my fights to be seen as plays." - Sugar Ray Leonard.

Attack is only one half of the art of boxing. - Georges Carpentier

Two great boxers call themselves artists, ergo boxing is as much as an art as decorating cakes.

You know damn well that’s not the same. Art has numerous meanings and martial arts has never been considered in the same vein as the art we’re discussing.

[Bombadil]

I would call baking a craft not an art exactly.. but by the by..

[Ors Might]

I would call baking a craft not an art exactly.. but by the by..

To be fair here, its not the baking that makes it an art. Its the decorating and design work.

[Des-Bal]

I would call baking a craft not an art exactly.. but by the by..

Disagree. If the Mona Lisa was delicious it would in no way diminish it's artistic merit.

[Des-Bal]

To be fair here, its not the baking that makes it an art. Its the decorating and design work.

Very much so. Chiseling a stone into a brick is not art, chiseling a stone into a statue is.

[Bombadil]

I would call baking a craft not an art exactly.. but by the by..

Disagree. If the Mona Lisa was delicious it would in no way diminish it's artistic merit.

I hope you take the time to reflect on the life choices that resulted in making this absurd statement.

[Dytarma]

Not sure if this has been made yet, but...

The cake is a lie...

[Des-Bal]

I hope you take the time to reflect on the life choices that resulted in making this absurd statement.

Engaging with your argument? I'm just going to have to live with it. You can make art out of food and custom cakes are a solid example of that.

[Ors Might]

Not sure if this has been made yet, but...

The cake is a lie...

You should be ashamed of yourself for that.

/s

[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.

Tell us where SCOTUS said that he did violate the law.

Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. (p.10)

Or as cited in the masterful, scathing dissent:

There is much in the Court’s opinion with which I agree. “[I]t is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Ante, at 9. “Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” Ante, at 10. “[P]urveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons [may not] put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ante, at 12. Gay persons may be spared from “indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” Ante, at 18.1

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Disagree. If the Mona Lisa was delicious it would in no way diminish it's artistic merit.

I hope you take the time to reflect on the life choices that resulted in making this absurd statement.

Well Bombadil, is not that absurd when you consider that indeed, some people make cakes into art form. There are competitions even.

It may not be as relevant as say, The Mona Lisa, but it is an art form in certain venues. And I've seen some masterpieces.

[Dytarma]

Not sure if this has been made yet, but...

The cake is a lie...

You should be ashamed of yourself for that.

/s

yeah, I'm pretty ashamed, considering it doesn't even apply well.