Masterpiece Cakeshop back to court.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

More than that. Scardina appended a message to it herself when she said this cake was also to mark the 7th year anniversary of her coming out as transgender.

[Galloism]

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

More than that. Scardina appended a message to it herself when she said this cake was also to mark the 7th year anniversary of her coming out as transgender.

As a celebration, specifically.

To celebrate something IS speech.

[Bombadil]

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.

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.

Right.. so I think that's where discrimination comes in. Anti-Hillary doesn't really discriminate against a class of people as opposed to a class of beliefs.. whereas discriminating on the basis of gender, race, sexuality or colour specifically comes up against anti-discrimination laws.

I mean.. that's the tension.. where does it slide over from one to another.. the concept of what is a message that bangs against compelled speech and the idea of discrimination against a class over a set of beliefs.

[Galloism]

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.

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.

Right.. so I think that's where discrimination comes in. Anti-Hillary doesn't really discriminate against a class of people as opposed to a class of beliefs.. whereas discriminating on the basis of gender, race, sexuality or colour specifically comes up against anti-discrimination laws.

I mean.. that's the tension.. where does it slide over from one to another.. the concept of what is a message that bangs against compelled speech and the idea of discrimination against a class over a set of beliefs.

The Colorado law also specifies it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of creed - which, in addition to religion, includes strongly held political beliefs:

1.2 A set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.
‘liberalism was more than a political creed’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/creed

[Holy Tedalonia]

More than that. Scardina appended a message to it herself when she said this cake was also to mark the 7th year anniversary of her coming out as transgender.

As a celebration, specifically.

To celebrate something IS speech.

Mmm, sweet-speech. Makes me want to make a cake for wwii with red, white, and black on the outside representing hitlers rise to power; with the inside being red and white representing imperial japans greatness. And top it off with a smudge in the corner known as italy to represent Benitos contribution.

I think ill bake it at home, so some baker doesnt judge me. I mean do you think he'll believe me when I say "its for history class?"

[Galloism]

As a celebration, specifically.

To celebrate something IS speech.

Mmm, sweet-speech. Makes me want to make a cake for wwii with red, white, and black on the outside representing hitlers rise to power; with the inside being red and white representing imperial japans greatness. And top it off with a smudge in the corner known as italy to represent Benitos contribution.

I think ill bake it at home, so some baker doesnt judge me. I mean do you think he'll believe me when I say "its for history class?"

To be honest, if I lived in Colorado, I'd get a buddy to help me troll various businesses with ridiculous double message cakes and overwhelm the Colorado Civil rights Commission with utter craziness.

And if they just went along with the crazy, at least we would have cake to eat when it didn't work.

[Internationalist Bastard]

As a celebration, specifically.

To celebrate something IS speech.

Mmm, sweet-speech. Makes me want to make a cake for wwii with red, white, and black on the outside representing hitlers rise to power; with the inside being red and white representing imperial japans greatness. And top it off with a smudge in the corner known as italy to represent Benitos contribution.

I think ill bake it at home, so some baker doesnt judge me. I mean do you think he'll believe me when I say "its for history class?"

Disappointing
You used the right colors but then celebrate Hitler rather then the glorious reign of Wilhelm II?

[The South Falls]

Mmm, sweet-speech. Makes me want to make a cake for wwii with red, white, and black on the outside representing hitlers rise to power; with the inside being red and white representing imperial japans greatness. And top it off with a smudge in the corner known as italy to represent Benitos contribution.

I think ill bake it at home, so some baker doesnt judge me. I mean do you think he'll believe me when I say "its for history class?"

Disappointing
You used the right colors but then celebrate Hitler rather then the glorious reign of Wilhelm II?

Put a spike in the cake., and you've got it. How about the fat reign of Goering?

[New haven america]

Mmm, sweet-speech. Makes me want to make a cake for wwii with red, white, and black on the outside representing hitlers rise to power; with the inside being red and white representing imperial japans greatness. And top it off with a smudge in the corner known as italy to represent Benitos contribution.

I think ill bake it at home, so some baker doesnt judge me. I mean do you think he'll believe me when I say "its for history class?"

To be honest, if I lived in Colorado, I'd get a buddy to help me troll various businesses with ridiculous double message cakes and overwhelm the Colorado Civil rights Commission with utter craziness.

And if they just went along with the crazy, at least we would have cake to eat when it didn't work.

TBH, that would only really work in the Denver-Aurora area (Where this whole situation is taking place). Rest of the state is pretty conservative and wouldn't really give a damn about things like that, so you'd have to be strategic about it.

[Bombadil]

Right.. so I think that's where discrimination comes in. Anti-Hillary doesn't really discriminate against a class of people as opposed to a class of beliefs.. whereas discriminating on the basis of gender, race, sexuality or colour specifically comes up against anti-discrimination laws.

I mean.. that's the tension.. where does it slide over from one to another.. the concept of what is a message that bangs against compelled speech and the idea of discrimination against a class over a set of beliefs.

The Colorado law also specifies it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of creed - which, in addition to religion, includes strongly held political beliefs:

1.2 A set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.
‘liberalism was more than a political creed’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/creed

Sure, but the transgender person isn't doing the discriminating here.

Look, we can all agree that you cannot compel someone to say 'I love gay people'. Similarly you cannot compel someone to print a t-shirt that says 'I love gay people'. I'd even say you cannot compel someone to print a rainbow t-shirt. That would be instantly recognised by near anyone - does an equivalent to the Man on the Clapham Omnibus exist in the US?.

Those are relatively specific messages. However a pink and blue t-shirt, well anyone could wear with no message attached.

So that's the one line of debate.. does ascribing a message equal forcing speech? Many of you say 'yes', I'm not super sure but I could lean to saying 'kind of' at least.

However.. then we hit up against discrimination.. free speech as constitutional trumps state law here but.. not with discrimination. Where free speech does protect against forcing someone to make a statement, given a pink and blue cake is not a statement per se, and would be made for anyone, to refuse to make it just because someone is transgender, ie, discriminating against a protected class.. is discrimination.

I will say I'm not swayed either way on this one, I lean to the idea that if the message is not clear to the MotCO and personal to the specific person and that person is discriminated against then it's discrimination.

One might prefer a more clear cut case but interpretations of the law are not made on such things.

[Galloism]

The Colorado law also specifies it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of creed - which, in addition to religion, includes strongly held political beliefs:



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/creed

Sure, but the transgender person isn't doing the discriminating here.

You seem to have lost the thread - I was talking about the guy with a gun and the anti-Hillary rally.

I will say I'm not swayed either way on this one, I lean to the idea that if the message is not clear to the MotCO and personal to the specific person and that person is discriminated against then it's discrimination.

I mean, but the context in which it's delivered might MAKE it clear to anyone who views it, which means it's a message. Would YOU know what the black armband meant if I didn't point it out? Would it have carried a message to you? Does it now?

One might prefer a more clear cut case but interpretations of the law are not made on such things.

Yeah, well, we can't have nice things. This case seems pretty clear cut to me, but then again, I'm not a SCOTUS judge.

I predict a 5-4 scotus ruling in about 5-6 years saying the dude did nothing wrong, along with lots of screaming. That's my prediction. If we're still here in 5-6 years, we'll see.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Mmm, sweet-speech. Makes me want to make a cake for wwii with red, white, and black on the outside representing hitlers rise to power; with the inside being red and white representing imperial japans greatness. And top it off with a smudge in the corner known as italy to represent Benitos contribution.

I think ill bake it at home, so some baker doesnt judge me. I mean do you think he'll believe me when I say "its for history class?"

Disappointing
You used the right colors but then celebrate Hitler rather then the glorious reign of Wilhelm II?

I would but im in a WWII class this year.

Im that weird kid who wears a tricorn hat and trenchcoat to history class when they decide to cover the revolutionary era.

[Bombadil]

Yeah, well, we can't have nice things. This case seems pretty clear cut to me, but then again, I'm not a SCOTUS judge.

I predict a 5-4 scotus ruling in about 5-6 years saying the dude did nothing wrong, along with lots of screaming. That's my prediction. If we're still here in 5-6 years, we'll see.

Well with Kavanaugh on the bench I'd agree, or they'll just kick it up, back and down..both sides of the decision have fairly weighty implications.

[Galloism]

Yeah, well, we can't have nice things. This case seems pretty clear cut to me, but then again, I'm not a SCOTUS judge.

I predict a 5-4 scotus ruling in about 5-6 years saying the dude did nothing wrong, along with lots of screaming. That's my prediction. If we're still here in 5-6 years, we'll see.

Well with Kavanaugh on the bench I'd agree, or they'll just kick it up, back and down..both sides of the decision have fairly weighty implications.

They do.

That being said, I don't even really see this as a religion case. I see it more as a free speech case, in the same vein as West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (which was also had fairly weighty implications on both sides of the decision).

[Bombadil]

Well with Kavanaugh on the bench I'd agree, or they'll just kick it up, back and down..both sides of the decision have fairly weighty implications.

They do.

That being said, I don't even really see this as a religion case. I see it more as a free speech case, in the same vein as West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (which was also had fairly weighty implications on both sides of the decision).

..or The People vs. Larry Flynt - can I deliberately and knowingly set out to ruin a person's reputation through lies if that person is a public figure, which is to say at what point is satire protected by free speech.

[The Two Jerseys]

Disappointing
You used the right colors but then celebrate Hitler rather then the glorious reign of Wilhelm II?

I would but im in a WWII class this year.

Im that weird kid who wears a tricorn hat and trenchcoat to history class when they decide to cover the revolutionary era.

Trench coat?

FARB!

[Bombadil]

They do.

That being said, I don't even really see this as a religion case. I see it more as a free speech case, in the same vein as West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (which was also had fairly weighty implications on both sides of the decision).

..or The People vs. Larry Flynt - can I deliberately and knowingly set out to ruin a person's reputation through lies if that person is a public figure, which is to say at what point is satire protected by free speech.

That is.. what constitutes 'satire' and given satire to what extent is it protected, much as what constitutes 'discrimination' and to what extent is it protected?

[Holy Tedalonia]

I would but im in a WWII class this year.

Im that weird kid who wears a tricorn hat and trenchcoat to history class when they decide to cover the revolutionary era.

Trench coat?

FARB!

How dare you! We all know that the spanish inquisition used comfy pillows!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Trench coat?

FARB!

How dare you! We all know that the spanish inquisition used comfy pillows!

What's more, nobody expected it.

[The Two Jerseys]

Trench coat?

FARB!

How dare you! We all know that the spanish inquisition used comfy pillows!

You should try and pick up a surplus Navy peacoat, the length is about right for a cavalryman's or light infantryman's coat, plus you can button the lapels back for the proper effect.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

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

Damn, someone should really crack down hard on the people who make all those baby products in blue and pink, clearly trying to turn young children transgender.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

[edit]

[Harmonian Hegemony]

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.

His 'convictions' are irrelevant. He refused to serve her because she was trans. That is discrimination regardless of what you or any other self-hating gay homophobe says.

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.

Again, his religion is not relevant. Him disrespecting a trans woman by denying her service is.

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.

As he was all set to make it before finding out she was not cis I call bullshit.

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.

Then maybe he shouldn't be a baker.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

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

Some people in this thread really seem to like strawmen.

>sides with a homophobe, defends a homophobe

>gets pissy when someone calls them a homophobe

[Estanglia]

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.

His 'convictions' are irrelevant. He refused to serve her because she was trans. That is discrimination regardless of what you or any other self-hating gay homophobe says.

How many times do we have to go through this? He refused the cake because he disagreed with the message, not because she's trans.

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.

As he was all set to make it before finding out she was not cis I call bullshit.

He was all set to make it until he found out the message.

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.

Then maybe he shouldn't be a baker.

He shouldn't be a baker because he is doing legal stuff?

Some people in this thread really seem to like strawmen.

>sides with a homophobe, defends a homophobe

>gets pissy when someone calls them a homophobe

He's defending the homophobe's right to not be compelled to speak. Art is considered speech, and he didn't like the message the art had, so he refused to make the cake. Unless you don't believe homophobes have the same rights as everyone else? Because you can believe somebody has the right to do or not do something and not agree with them.