Masterpiece Cakeshop back to court.

[Vassenor]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

[Bombadil]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

I've yet to see evidence that because one's an artist one can discriminate against race, gender, sexuality or colour.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

Because the shop didn't deny her services. What she couldn't get was this guy making a custom cake for her. There were other cakes in the shop she could've bought.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

He's following the law though :\

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

Because the shop didn't deny her services. What she couldn't get was this guy making a custom cake for her. There were other cakes in the shop she could've bought.

It's worth adding that she could still have a custom cake made for her, just not to the specifications she wanted.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

I've yet to see evidence that because one's an artist one can discriminate against race, gender, sexuality or colour.

I've yet to see evidence that gender and sex are different, tbh. It's like making a cake that says,"Happy 6000th Birthday, Earth!"

[The South Falls]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

If the cake is considered art. But I've thought about it.

He didn't espouse those beliefs in the art. I can draw a swastika, doesn't mean I'm a Nazi. If I sell a hand-crafted toy gun, doesn't mean I'm in the NRA.

He was being a dick. But following the law, he was.

[Bombadil]

I've yet to see evidence that because one's an artist one can discriminate against race, gender, sexuality or colour.

I've yet to see evidence that gender and sex are different, tbh. It's like making a cake that says,"Happy 6000th Birthday, Earth!"

Not really.. those I cited are essentially just who someone is.. creationism is a belief. I feel that's the distinction here.. I'm fine with an 'artist' not providing work for not agreeing with a belief but not for basic discrimination against an entire class of people.

A comedian tested what people might do.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINOjXCfnQw

Fair enough, they can refuse those.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm fine with an 'artist' not providing work for not agreeing with a belief but not for basic discrimination against an entire class of people.

Good thing this artist is doing the former and not the latter.

I like how you put artist in quotes btw, as if cakes can't be art.

[Bombadil]

I'm fine with an 'artist' not providing work for not agreeing with a belief but not for basic discrimination against an entire class of people.

Good thing this artist is doing the former and not the latter.

I like how you put artist in quotes btw, as if cakes can't be art.

Well some of my finer shits have been works of art but I'd hardly call myself an artist. Cars can be works of art but primarily they're cars. It's not as though the primary purpose of the baker is to create art, he's a baker first who sometimes creates what could be considered art.

However these fine lines, whether it was the message or the messenger and whether he's a baker or an artist are, I'm sure, what the courts are deciding so anyone adamantly stating either way is possibly ahead of the curve in terms of whether truth is truth or not.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's not as though the primary purpose of the baker is to create art, he's a baker first who sometimes creates what could be considered art.

"He's not an artist because he's a baker first."
Nah, I don't buy that bullshit. He's an artist who makes art.

[Galloism]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

I've yet to see evidence that because one's an artist one can discriminate against race, gender, sexuality or colour.

I mean, the core question is "can the government compel a person to communicate a certain thought or message against their will".

I lean towards no, but other people may feel differently. The Supreme Court once ruled that compelled speech wasn't free speech, and I tend to concur.

Good thing this artist is doing the former and not the latter.

I like how you put artist in quotes btw, as if cakes can't be art.

Well some of my finer shits have been works of art but I'd hardly call myself an artist. Cars can be works of art but primarily they're cars. It's not as though the primary purpose of the baker is to create art, he's a baker first who sometimes creates what could be considered art.

However these fine lines, whether it was the message or the messenger and whether he's a baker or an artist are, I'm sure, what the courts are deciding so anyone adamantly stating either way is possibly ahead of the curve in terms of whether truth is truth or not.

To be honest, whether the cake is art or not is borderline irrelevant to the latest challenge.

[Galloism]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

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:

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:



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.

[The Two Jerseys]

Good thing this artist is doing the former and not the latter.

I like how you put artist in quotes btw, as if cakes can't be art.

Well some of my finer shits have been works of art but I'd hardly call myself an artist. Cars can be works of art but primarily they're cars. It's not as though the primary purpose of the baker is to create art, he's a baker first who sometimes creates what could be considered art.

However these fine lines, whether it was the message or the messenger and whether he's a baker or an artist are, I'm sure, what the courts are deciding so anyone adamantly stating either way is possibly ahead of the curve in terms of whether truth is truth or not.

Industrial designers are artists, they put utilitarian devices into pretty packaging.

Car customization is also a thing.

[Bombadil]

I've yet to see evidence that because one's an artist one can discriminate against race, gender, sexuality or colour.

I mean, the core question is "can the government compel a person to communicate a certain thought or message against their will".

I think the real core question is: at what point is there a message to refuse?

Is the act of making a cake where the message only comes when the orderer specifically states it, as opposed to a clear written message on the cake.. a message.

Blue on the outside, pink on the inside has no message until the person attributes meaning to it. Writing 'Happy transgender day' is a message regardless of the meaning attributed - as in anyone can understand that is the message if written clearly whereas few, if any, would ascribe meaning to pink/blue decoration alone.

I think that's the core point..

[The South Falls]

The pink and blue cake is art, though because she said that the cake had a certain meaning, the cake man technically didn't have to honor that request.

[Proctopeo]

I mean, the core question is "can the government compel a person to communicate a certain thought or message against their will".

I think the real core question is: at what point is there a message to refuse?

Is the act of making a cake where the message only comes when the orderer specifically states it, as opposed to a clear written message on the cake.. a message.

Blue on the outside, pink on the inside has no message until the person attributes meaning to it. Writing 'Happy transgender day' is a message regardless of the meaning attributed - as in anyone can understand that is the message if written clearly whereas few, if any, would ascribe meaning to pink/blue decoration alone.

I think that's the core point..

Yes, the message only exists because the customer put it there, but that doesn't mean the message isn't actually there. That is the important part here.

The pink and blue cake is art, though because she said that the cake had a certain meaning, the cake man technically didn't have to honor that request.

Yes, exactly. Compelling speech is generally considered a "no-no", as I've said before (and as Gallo said, so did the Supreme Court once)

[Len Hyet]

I'm still not seeing how those religious convictions should give him a pass on following the law. Sounds like a pretty big Establishment clause violation to me.

Look I know reading the posts of people who disagree with you is hard, but it's been explained to you at least half a dozen times that's not the issue at hand.

So, yknow, make the effort Vass come on.

[Galloism]

I mean, the core question is "can the government compel a person to communicate a certain thought or message against their will".

I think the real core question is: at what point is there a message to refuse?

Is the act of making a cake where the message only comes when the orderer specifically states it, as opposed to a clear written message on the cake.. a message.

Blue on the outside, pink on the inside has no message until the person attributes meaning to it. Writing 'Happy transgender day' is a message regardless of the meaning attributed - as in anyone can understand that is the message if written clearly whereas few, if any, would ascribe meaning to pink/blue decoration alone.

I think that's the core point..

Not really.

Let's say someone comes to your cake shop and requests a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. They tell you it's to celebrate Stan finally getting accepted into SWAT. They're happy for him and holding a party.

An hour later, after you've made that cake, another guy comes in, and he wants a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. He tells you it's for an anti-Hillary rally entitled "Get Rid of Hillary".

Do those cakes carry messages? Do they carry the SAME message? Why or why not?

For bonus points, let's say they're putting out a card that says "Provided by Masterpiece Cakeshop", whether you like it or not.

[The South Falls]

I think the real core question is: at what point is there a message to refuse?

Is the act of making a cake where the message only comes when the orderer specifically states it, as opposed to a clear written message on the cake.. a message.

Blue on the outside, pink on the inside has no message until the person attributes meaning to it. Writing 'Happy transgender day' is a message regardless of the meaning attributed - as in anyone can understand that is the message if written clearly whereas few, if any, would ascribe meaning to pink/blue decoration alone.

I think that's the core point..

Yes, the message only exists because the customer put it there, but that doesn't mean the message isn't actually there. That is the important part here.

The pink and blue cake is art, though because she said that the cake had a certain meaning, the cake man technically didn't have to honor that request.

Yes, exactly. Compelling speech is generally considered a "no-no", as I've said before (and as Gallo said, so did the Supreme Court once)

He should have honored it, but he didn't need to.

[San Carlos Islands]

That lady or man or whatever was clearly a plant. At that point it's harassment.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think the real core question is: at what point is there a message to refuse?

Is the act of making a cake where the message only comes when the orderer specifically states it, as opposed to a clear written message on the cake.. a message.

Blue on the outside, pink on the inside has no message until the person attributes meaning to it. Writing 'Happy transgender day' is a message regardless of the meaning attributed - as in anyone can understand that is the message if written clearly whereas few, if any, would ascribe meaning to pink/blue decoration alone.

I think that's the core point..

Yes, the message only exists because the customer put it there, but that doesn't mean the message isn't actually there. That is the important part here.

The pink and blue cake is art, though because she said that the cake had a certain meaning, the cake man technically didn't have to honor that request.

Yes, exactly. Compelling speech is generally considered a "no-no", as I've said before (and as Gallo said, so did the Supreme Court once)

And may I add, the customer herself appended a message to it when she said she wanted the cake to be pink and blue to both celebrate her birthday and the 7th anniversary of her coming out as transgender. Masterpiece Cakes's owner is against that message because to him, religiously, there are only 2 genders.

[Bombadil]

I think the real core question is: at what point is there a message to refuse?

Is the act of making a cake where the message only comes when the orderer specifically states it, as opposed to a clear written message on the cake.. a message.

Blue on the outside, pink on the inside has no message until the person attributes meaning to it. Writing 'Happy transgender day' is a message regardless of the meaning attributed - as in anyone can understand that is the message if written clearly whereas few, if any, would ascribe meaning to pink/blue decoration alone.

I think that's the core point..

Not really.

Let's say someone comes to your cake shop and requests a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. They tell you it's to celebrate Stan finally getting accepted into SWAT. They're happy for him and holding a party.

An hour later, after you've made that cake, another guy comes in, and he wants a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. He tells you it's for an anti-Hillary rally entitled "Get Rid of Hillary".

Do those cakes carry messages? Do they carry the SAME message? Why or why not?

For bonus points, let's say they're putting out a card that says "Provided by Masterpiece Cakeshop", whether you like it or not.

Well.. I think the difference here is the nature of the cake.. it's just blue and pink.. no figure with a gun, no written message.. nothing but blue and pink..

If that’s all there is to the case, it’s not hard: Sardina should win under the Colorado anti-discrimination law, which protects customers in certain enumerated classes—including sexual orientation and transgender status—from the denial of service in places of public accommodation (like a bakery). The constitutional guarantee of free expression would likely defeat the anti-discrimination law if it applied in this case, since constitutional guarantees trump statutes—but it doesn’t. To see why, consider a case in which Sardina had asked for the exact same cake, but for a different reason. If she had told Debi Phillips that she wanted the blue/pink cake for a gender-reveal party, as a clever way of announcing that she was going to deliver boy/girl twins, we can safely assume the request would have been honored. The complaint admits that the “problem” with the cake is its association with a message the owners don’t agree with. But a pink/blue cake, without more, doesn’t send a “message” about gender transition.

It would be a different story if Sardina had also requested that Jack Phillips write “Happy Gender Transition Day!” because the government can’t compel a business owner to engage in speech he finds objectionable. But the simple act of creating a blue-pink cake doesn’t send any message at all—unless that message is that Phillips refuses to create a given cake for one class of people (those hosting gender-reveal parties) but not for others. At least part of the problem here is that the court has never been clear about when “expressive conduct” amounts to speech. Aside from clear cases, such as those involving clearly political expression (such as flag-burning or refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance), there’s a real danger in finding a wide range of human activity—like simply baking a two-color cake—to be protected expression. (In some states, there would also be a powerful freedom of religion argument, but not in Colorado. That’s because the state follows the rule that laws don’t violate the free exercise of religion by virtue of burdening religious practice, unless the law is created to have that effect.)

I mean.. this is the very decision the SC has kicked down the road so anyone stating one way or another from a legal point of view is jumping the gun..

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not really.

Let's say someone comes to your cake shop and requests a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. They tell you it's to celebrate Stan finally getting accepted into SWAT. They're happy for him and holding a party.

An hour later, after you've made that cake, another guy comes in, and he wants a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. He tells you it's for an anti-Hillary rally entitled "Get Rid of Hillary".

Do those cakes carry messages? Do they carry the SAME message? Why or why not?

For bonus points, let's say they're putting out a card that says "Provided by Masterpiece Cakeshop", whether you like it or not.

Well.. I think the difference here is the nature of the cake.. it's just blue and pink.. no figure with a gun, no written message.. nothing but blue and pink..

The blue and pink are a symbol for the transgender community.

[Bombadil]

That lady or man or whatever was clearly a plant. At that point it's harassment.

Well the cake guy is funded by a conservative Christian group.. but this keeps coming back to the idea that this is just a transgender person asking for a cake from a specific shop - it's not, it's a case that is required to create clarification in the law. It's like those who say 'just go to another shop', that's not the point.. it's not just about two people in a court case but clarification of the boundaries between discrimination and free speech.

[Galloism]

Not really.

Let's say someone comes to your cake shop and requests a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. They tell you it's to celebrate Stan finally getting accepted into SWAT. They're happy for him and holding a party.

An hour later, after you've made that cake, another guy comes in, and he wants a cake with an armored man holding a combat rifle. He tells you it's for an anti-Hillary rally entitled "Get Rid of Hillary".

Do those cakes carry messages? Do they carry the SAME message? Why or why not?

For bonus points, let's say they're putting out a card that says "Provided by Masterpiece Cakeshop", whether you like it or not.

Well.. I think the difference here is the nature of the cake.. it's just blue and pink.. no figure with a gun, no written message.. nothing but blue and pink..

If that’s all there is to the case, it’s not hard: Sardina should win under the Colorado anti-discrimination law, which protects customers in certain enumerated classes—including sexual orientation and transgender status—from the denial of service in places of public accommodation (like a bakery). The constitutional guarantee of free expression would likely defeat the anti-discrimination law if it applied in this case, since constitutional guarantees trump statutes—but it doesn’t. To see why, consider a case in which Sardina had asked for the exact same cake, but for a different reason. If she had told Debi Phillips that she wanted the blue/pink cake for a gender-reveal party, as a clever way of announcing that she was going to deliver boy/girl twins, we can safely assume the request would have been honored. The complaint admits that the “problem” with the cake is its association with a message the owners don’t agree with. But a pink/blue cake, without more, doesn’t send a “message” about gender transition.

It would be a different story if Sardina had also requested that Jack Phillips write “Happy Gender Transition Day!” because the government can’t compel a business owner to engage in speech he finds objectionable. But the simple act of creating a blue-pink cake doesn’t send any message at all—unless that message is that Phillips refuses to create a given cake for one class of people (those hosting gender-reveal parties) but not for others. At least part of the problem here is that the court has never been clear about when “expressive conduct” amounts to speech. Aside from clear cases, such as those involving clearly political expression (such as flag-burning or refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance), there’s a real danger in finding a wide range of human activity—like simply baking a two-color cake—to be protected expression. (In some states, there would also be a powerful freedom of religion argument, but not in Colorado. That’s because the state follows the rule that laws don’t violate the free exercise of religion by virtue of burdening religious practice, unless the law is created to have that effect.)

I mean.. this is the very decision the SC has kicked down the road so anyone stating one way or another from a legal point of view is jumping the gun..

Fair, but here's the thing - a man with a combat rifle carries NO intrinsic message apart from its context. It carries none at all. However, in context, it can mean different things. Heck, you could put in a third person who also wants the cake - because their kid loves call of duty and it's what he wants for his birthday.

But see, that context is important. That's why I keep going back to the case of the black armbands during the Vietnam War. Right now someone wearing a black armband means next to nothing - it carries no message at all. However, the context of the time gave it a message.

Similarly, a blue and pink cake, by itself, carries no message at all particularly - until the customer gave it a message. The fact that the customer had to give it a message for it to have one doesn't make it not a message, and doesn't magically keep it from being a compelled speech issue. It just gives it a certain context.

Essentially, if you applied the same standard to the guy with the gun cake as you did to the blue/pink cake, you would be required by law to provide said cake to the anti-Hillary rally, even though it represents an implicit threat of violence - even if you abhor said violence. Because it doesn't have words on it.