Masterpiece Cakeshop back to court.

[Estanglia]

He didn't deny service, he was perfectly willing (at least, in the first case) to sell them other cakes. He wasn't willing to bake them a cake with a message he disagreed with, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

Custom orders is a service. He denied that service. And there was no message on the cake. We've established that.

We've also established that the cake was to celebrate her coming out, which is a message. He also doesn't have to accept commissions (which the cake was).

[Bombadil]

>Can I order a cake
>Of course you can
>I'd like a blue cake on the outside with pink inside
>That sounds lovely, any reason?
>Yes, it's my birthday and it's a 7 year celebration of becoming a woman
>Mais Madame.. JE SUIS UN ARTISTE!

[Vassenor]

Custom orders is a service. He denied that service. And there was no message on the cake. We've established that.

We've also established that the cake was to celebrate her coming out, which is a message. He also doesn't have to accept commissions (which the cake was).

So "I'm denying you this service that I offer to everyone else on the grounds of your identity" isn't discrimination now?

[Estanglia]

We've also established that the cake was to celebrate her coming out, which is a message. He also doesn't have to accept commissions (which the cake was).

So "I'm denying you this service that I offer to everyone else on the grounds of your identity" isn't discrimination now?

How did you get 'It's not discrimination' from my post?

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

[Right wing humour squad]

Just another example that anti discrimination has either run its course or was vastly over extended to begin with.

This guy should have every right to choose who he wants to sell his products to, or not.

[Vassenor]

So "I'm denying you this service that I offer to everyone else on the grounds of your identity" isn't discrimination now?

How did you get 'It's not discrimination' from my post?

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

So yes on the grounds of her identity. Considering she didn't say anything about the coming out bit.

[Estanglia]

How did you get 'It's not discrimination' from my post?

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

So yes on the grounds of her identity. Considering she didn't say anything about the coming out bit.

She said that it was to celebrate her 7th anniversary of coming out, and that the cake was to represent that. So no.

[Page]

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

If a non transgender person had ordered the same exact product for a different reason, they would not have been denied service.

It's one thing to refuse to make something you disagree with, like refusing to make a swastika in cake frosting. But in that case, that's someone saying "I'm not going to make a swastika cake for anyone." In this case, it is the person saying "I would make this same exact cake for someone else, but not for you because you are trans."

[Estanglia]

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

If a non transgender person had ordered the same exact product for a different reason, they would not have been denied service.

Because he disagreed with the message. If the transgender person had ordered the exact same cake exclusively to celebrate her birthday, and not also her transitioning, he would've made the cake. He was willing to make it up until he found out the message the cake would have.

It's one thing to refuse to make something you disagree with, like refusing to make a swastika in cake frosting. But in that case, that's someone saying "I'm not going to make a swastika cake for anyone." In this case, it is the person saying "I would make this same exact cake for someone else, but not for you because you are trans."

Again, he disagreed with the message. He was willing to make it until he found out the message.

[Galloism]

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

If a non transgender person had ordered the same exact product for a different reason, they would not have been denied service.

It's one thing to refuse to make something you disagree with, like refusing to make a swastika in cake frosting. But in that case, that's someone saying "I'm not going to make a swastika cake for anyone." In this case, it is the person saying "I would make this same exact cake for someone else, but not for you because you are trans."

“For a different reason” is key here.

Would it be different to make a swastika cake for a Hindu vs a Neo nazi?

[Galloism]

How did you get 'It's not discrimination' from my post?

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

So yes on the grounds of her identity. Considering she didn't say anything about the coming out bit.

That’s a funny thing to assert, given her complaint explicitly states that she explained the colors were to celebrate her coming out and that’s when they objected.

Were you on the phone that you know what she said better than she did?

Incidentally:

He didn't deny service, he was perfectly willing (at least, in the first case) to sell them other cakes. He wasn't willing to bake them a cake with a message he disagreed with, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

Custom orders is a service. He denied that service. And there was no message on the cake. We've established that.

Stop lying Vass. Symbols have meanings and carry messages.

Unless you think that when you’re traffic and someone does this, it carries no message:

By the way, and I can't believe I have to explain this, but not all speech has to be verbal in order to be speech. Symbols are communicative, and are therefore covered under free speech.

Legally, we can look at Supreme Court history and find this.

Tinker v. Des Moines wiki, and actual ruling.

Now, these students weren't speaking out loud. In fact, if you saw someone wearing a black armband today, you probably would have no message communicated at all except "what's that woman wearing that weird black armband for? Is there an ipod in there?" However, in the context of the time, it was a protest - against the Vietnam War. Wearing the armband was, by itself, a communicative act, and therefore covered by the first amendment.

It's not even a particularly artful armband, but it's about whether or not it was communication:

(Image)

The court ruled it was - because it carried a message.

So how does that relate to this case? Well, just as today a black armband would carry no message to speak of, but it did in the context at the time, the blue/pink cake carried no known message to speak of, until the customer expressed what message it was intended to convey and would be conveying if he made it.

Nabbing Gravlen's image:

(Image)

The relevant part is:

and that I wanted my birthday cake to celebrate my transition by having a blue exterior and a pink interior

A celebration, much like a protest, is an act of communication, and she made it a free speech issue when she stated it was a celebratory act for an action they find deplorable. They may be douches, but the constitution generally protects douchey behavior, provided that it's one of the protected rights - in this case speech.

And much like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, they may be suing on religious grounds, but this is really a free speech case.

Edit: That last case is important for another reason. The argument from the district was the students didn’t have to believe the speech, or even agree with it, just say it. So when people suggest he could just engage in the speech and privately not believe it, this is not new territory we find ourselves in. You’re just using the conservative arguments of yesteryear to defend compelled speech. Just like the West Virginia State Board of Education did all those years ago.

[Dytarma]

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

You’re going to meme jail, buddy, along with the people still making Harambe references.

Aww jeez Rick...

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

I assumed that you meant it was a lie because the customer was probably a plant to test the law and never wanted them to make the cake at all. But now you've confessed and I see you for a fraud sir.

I have failed everyone I know, Robbie, Spongegar, Gru, and countless others.

[Proctopeo]

We've also established that the cake was to celebrate her coming out, which is a message. He also doesn't have to accept commissions (which the cake was).

So "I'm denying you this service that I offer to everyone else on the grounds of your identity" isn't discrimination now?

I'd rather not repeat what everybody else has already told you, but it wasn't on the grounds of her identity. It was on the grounds of the message behind the cake.
Should an artist be obligated to take any and every commission that comes their way, no matter the content?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

He didn't deny service, he was perfectly willing (at least, in the first case) to sell them other cakes. He wasn't willing to bake them a cake with a message he disagreed with, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

Custom orders is a service. He denied that service.

He did not.

And there was no message on the cake. We've established that.

no, we've established, multiple times, that there was a message in the cake.

>Can I order a cake
>Of course you can
>I'd like a blue cake on the outside with pink inside
>That sounds lovely, any reason?
>Yes, it's my birthday and it's a 7 year celebration of becoming a woman
>Mais Madame.. JE SUIS UN ARTISTE!

Colorado, not Louisiana.

[Thermodolia]

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

Well you’re wrong.

[Thermodolia]

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.

Well sure.. but in general a baker doesn't think 'today I shall express the duality of the human conditions of hate and love in my interpretation of the classic Apple Pie through the contradiction between the sweet and bitter cinnamon taste'..

I mean.. while baking can be taken to an artistic form it's primary purpose is to make something that can be eaten. That is not the same as painting the Mona Lisa.

No be honest no artist outside of the new age peeps think like that

[Thermodolia]

He didn't deny service, he was perfectly willing (at least, in the first case) to sell them other cakes. He wasn't willing to bake them a cake with a message he disagreed with, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

Custom orders is a service. He denied that service. And there was no message on the cake. We've established that.

Custom orders are not a service. You can refuse such orders on any ground.

[Thermodolia]

It wasn't on the grounds of her identity, it was because the cake was to celebrate her coming out (and her birthday) and he did not agree with that message.

If a non transgender person had ordered the same exact product for a different reason, they would not have been denied service.

I would have denied them. Mainly because pink is not cake color

It's one thing to refuse to make something you disagree with, like refusing to make a swastika in cake frosting. But in that case, that's someone saying "I'm not going to make a swastika cake for anyone." In this case, it is the person saying "I would make this same exact cake for someone else, but not for you because you are trans."

Intent is everything. I could make a swastika for a Buddhist but refuse the same for a nazi.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

A lot of people in this thread really seem to hate gays.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Custom orders is a service. He denied that service. And there was no message on the cake. We've established that.

Custom orders are not a service. You can refuse such orders on any ground.

I was looking at their webpage and they're very clear on why Jack, the owner, won't create every custom cake ordered either and state the reasons.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

http://masterpiececakes.com/

Masterpiece Cakeshop will happily create custom cakes for anyone. But like many cake artists, Jack cannot create all custom cakes. He cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.

[The Two Jerseys]

A lot of people in this thread really seem to hate gays.

Some people in this thread really seem to like strawmen.

[Thermodolia]

A lot of people in this thread really seem to hate gays.

No. I don’t hate myself. I just hate compelled speech

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A lot of people in this thread really seem to hate gays.

Only the usual suspects.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

A lot of people in this thread really seem to hate gays.

Some people in this thread really seem to like strawmen.

Yep. I'm a member of the LGBT community myself and my issue here is with compelled speech. Do I think this guy is a dick? Yeah. It's, IMO, just a cake. But on the same token, he sees his creations as art, plus, he has a right to reserve the right to not make custom cakes that celebrate or carry messages that conflict with his religious convictions.

Scardina wanted a custom cake to celebrate her birthday (no problem there) and to celebrate the 7 year anniversary of her coming out as transgender, by her admission (not really an issue to me, but that is something that goes against the baker's religious convictions). To force him to make a cake for Scardina is what I am against of. His religious convictions tell him there are only two genders and you can't change that. Scardina was not denied service, what she was denied was to have a custom cake made by this man. She could have bought any of the other cakes available, just not one custom made by this man.

And maybe he has no case, like some have said. Maybe he's doing this out of being an ass. Forcing him to make a custom cake that celebrates something he doesn't agree with it as per his religious convictions is not the way to go either.

[Rostavykhan]

A lot of people in this thread really seem to hate gays.

I hate gays so fucking much, it just makes me want to cuddle with my boyfriends who look like girlfriends to make me forget how much I hate gays.