Masterpiece Cakeshop, back in the spotlight

[Grizzly Adams]

Colorado baker loses appeal over refusal to make gender transition cake

A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on Thursday lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake to celebrate a gender transition.

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on Thursday lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake to celebrate a gender transition.

The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with a trial judge that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, violated Autumn Scardina's rights by denying her service because of her identity as a transgender woman.

This seems destined to wind its way back onto the Supreme Court's docket.

What really doesn't make sense here is the contradiction between the two opening paragraphs of the story. The first paragraph says the refusal of service was based on the fact that the cake was for a gender transition celebration. The second paragraph says he denied service based on the customer's "identity as a transgender woman." These are not the same thing. My suspicion is that, like the facts of the original Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the owner was perfectly willing to serve the person, but was not willing to contribute anything to the event.

This case seems even flimsier than the original as well. The original basis for the original lawsuit was that Phillips made cakes for weddings, therefore his refusal to make a cake for a gay wedding was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (a dubious claim, as he would likely be no more willing to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding for straight customers than he would be to make the cake for gay customers). In order to make a similar claim, one would have to show he was willing to make cakes celebrating gender transitions for persons who didn't "identify as a transgender" person.

Unless one can show the customer was refused service based on his identification as a transgender woman (and the lower court's opinion at paragraph 6 on page 3 appears to make clear this was not the case), I don't see how there's any discrimination going on here at all.

 

[aociswundumho]

The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with a trial judge that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, violated Autumn Scardina's rights by denying her service because of her identity as a transgender woman.

What rights of hers were violated? None as far as I can tell. What harm did she suffer? Maybe hurt feelings, but that's about it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Colorado baker loses appeal over refusal to make gender transition cake

A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on Thursday lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake to celebrate a gender transition.

www.reuters.com

This seems destined to wind its way back onto the Supreme Court's docket.

What really doesn't make sense here is the contradiction between the two opening paragraphs of the story. The first paragraph says the refusal of service was based on the fact that the cake was for a gender transition celebration. The second paragraph says he denied service based on the customer's "identity as a transgender woman." These are not the same thing. My suspicion is that, like the facts of the original Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the owner was perfectly willing to serve the person, but was not willing to contribute anything to the event.

This case seems even flimsier than the original as well. The original basis for the original lawsuit was that Phillips made cakes for weddings, therefore his refusal to make a cake for a gay wedding was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (a dubious claim, as he would likely be no more willing to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding for straight customers than he would be to make the cake for gay customers). In order to make a similar claim, one would have to show he was willing to make cakes celebrating gender transitions for persons who didn't "identify as a transgender" person.

Unless one can show the customer was refused service based on his identification as a transgender woman (and the lower court's opinion at paragraph 6 on page 3 appears to make clear this was not the case), I don't see how there's any discrimination going on here at all.

The court should just start inching toward striking down the civil rights act in total as a violation of the constitution, which it obviously is since it has forced all kinds of questionable “rights” that were never subjected to the amendment process

 

[Hamish Howl]

The court should just start inching toward striking down the civil rights act in total as a violation of the constitution, which it obviously is since it has forced all kinds of questionable “rights” that were never subjected to the amendment process

We know you dream of being a peasant.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Colorado baker loses appeal over refusal to make gender transition cake

A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on Thursday lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake to celebrate a gender transition.

www.reuters.com

This seems destined to wind its way back onto the Supreme Court's docket.

What really doesn't make sense here is the contradiction between the two opening paragraphs of the story. The first paragraph says the refusal of service was based on the fact that the cake was for a gender transition celebration. The second paragraph says he denied service based on the customer's "identity as a transgender woman." These are not the same thing. My suspicion is that, like the facts of the original Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the owner was perfectly willing to serve the person, but was not willing to contribute anything to the event.

This case seems even flimsier than the original as well. The original basis for the original lawsuit was that Phillips made cakes for weddings, therefore his refusal to make a cake for a gay wedding was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (a dubious claim, as he would likely be no more willing to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding for straight customers than he would be to make the cake for gay customers). In order to make a similar claim, one would have to show he was willing to make cakes celebrating gender transitions for persons who didn't "identify as a transgender" person.

Unless one can show the customer was refused service based on his identification as a transgender woman (and the lower court's opinion at paragraph 6 on page 3 appears to make clear this was not the case), I don't see how there's any discrimination going on here at all.

This is just left wing BS. They don't want equality they want approval. Well the truth is they can't legislate approval. They may make far left decisions even in a case that is about someones right to freedom of speech that you don't like, but you can't force them to approve of slice and dice and hormone shots and puberty blockers to make believe men are women or women are men. A person's religious beliefs are their right and exercising them includes their behavior as well as beliefs. The left wants the right to approve of baby killing, gender transitioning for children, drag show for kids, pornography in school books and it's not going to happen. The left legislates from the bench for it's left wing social agenda but it can't force approval.

 

[nvflash]

I'm sure this "woman" did not chose this cake shop just to bring a case in law.

You don't go to Jewish butcher shop asking for bacon.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

What rights of hers were violated? None as far as I can tell. What harm did she suffer? Maybe hurt feelings, but that's about it.

It would be nice if the reich-wing would stop supporting those who discriminate.

 

[aociswundumho]

It would be nice if the reich-wing would stop supporting those who discriminate.

Again, which rights of hers were violated? What harm did she suffer?

 

[BlueTex]

The court should just start inching toward striking down the civil rights act in total as a violation of the constitution, which it obviously is since it has forced all kinds of questionable “rights” that were never subjected to the amendment process

That's an interesting position given this has NOTHING to do with the federal civil rights act...

 

[BlueTex]

Again, which rights of hers were violated? What harm did she suffer?

That's not really the question.. The question is did the baker violate Colorado STATE law?

 

[aociswundumho]

That's not really the question..

Yes, it is the question. From the article:

The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with a trial judge that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, violated Autumn Scardina's rights by denying her service because of her identity as a transgender woman.

As far as I can tell, none of her rights were violated.

The question is did the baker violate Colorado STATE law?

No, that's not the question, because government laws prohibit all kinds of things which are not criminal in any sense of the word.

 

[BlueTex]

Yes, it is the question. From the article:



As far as I can tell, none of her rights were violated.



No, that's not the question, because government laws prohibit all kinds of things which are not criminal in any sense of the word.

Good lord.. Her rights under COLORADO law...

 

[aociswundumho]

Good lord.. Her rights under COLORADO law...

What rights? Be specific.

 

[BlueTex]

What rights? Be specific.

Have you actually read the opinion of the court? Here, I will help...

Lastly, we address whether the trial court properly determined that Masterpiece and Phillips violated Scardina’s right to be free from discrimination based on her identity as a trans woman, and whether such a conclusion violates Masterpiece and Phillips’ right to be free from compelled speech or their right to freely exercise their religious faith.

 

[aociswundumho]

Have you actually read the opinion of the court? Here, I will help...

Lastly, we address whether the trial court properly determined that Masterpiece and Phillips violated Scardina’s right to be free from discrimination based on her identity as a trans woman, and whether such a conclusion violates Masterpiece and Phillips’ right to be free from compelled speech or their right to freely exercise their religious faith.

There is no right "to be free from discrimination". If I want to buy something from you and you don't want to sell it to me you are not violating my rights. The proof is the fact that I have suffered no harm.

 

[BlueTex]

There is no right "to be free from discrimination". If I want to buy something from you and you don't want to sell it to me you are not violating my rights. The proof is the fact that I have suffered no harm.

LOL…. So , have you actually read the opinion?

If the cake was a link cake with blue frosting and no writing, is that expressive speech? Even if the baker sells that exact cake style to heterosexuals, can they refuse to sell it to a transsexual?

 

[aociswundumho]

LOL…. So , have you actually read the opinion?

If the cake was a link cake with blue frosting and no writing, is that expressive speech? Even if the baker sells that exact cake style to heterosexuals, can they refuse to sell it to a transsexual?

Of course. The alternative is to force people into contracts, and coercion makes contracts void.

Consider the dating/sex/marriage market, where the participants regularly discriminate based on race, age, sex, looks, religion, etc. That market is 100x more important to our lives than the cake market, yet you have no problem with the widespread discrimination that goes on there.

 

[BlueTex]

Of course. The alternative is to force people into contracts, and coercion makes contracts void.

Consider the dating/sex/marriage market, where the participants regularly discriminate based on race, age, sex, looks, religion, etc. That market is 100x more important to our lives than the cake market, yet you have no problem with the widespread discrimination that goes on there.

Horseshit... Colorado has the power to prohibit discrimination and has done so...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

LOL…. So , have you actually read the opinion?

If the cake was a link cake with blue frosting and no writing, is that expressive speech? Even if the baker sells that exact cake style to heterosexuals, can they refuse to sell it to a transsexual?

From the lower court's opinion, it sounds like they didn't care who it was for. They were perfectly willing to furnish the cake without regard for who was asking for it. It wasn't until they learned what the event it was going to be celebrating that they objected.

Was any evidence presented that the shop was willing to produce a gender transition cake for anyone at all, let alone a person who did not identify as transgender? If not, there's no discrimination going on here.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Horseshit... Colorado has the power to prohibit discrimination and has done so...

...in the dating market?

 

[BlueTex]

From the lower court's opinion, it sounds like they didn't care who it was for. They were perfectly willing to furnish the cake without regard for who was asking for it. It wasn't until they learned what the event it was going to be celebrating that they objected.

Was any evidence presented that the shop was willing to produce a gender transition cake for anyone at all, let alone a person who did not identify as transgender? If not, there's no discrimination going on here.

LMAO... Do Colorado public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation? If the baker discriminated against all black people would that constitute discrimination?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Of course. The alternative is to force people into contracts, and coercion makes contracts void.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. is a limited liability company, not a person.

 

[aociswundumho]

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. is a limited liability company, not a person.

That makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

LMAO... Do Colorado public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation? If the baker discriminated against all black people would that constitute discrimination?

Discrimination is refusing service based on a protected class. I see no customer who was denied a service that would have been provided to someone else.

 

[Taylor]

What rights of hers were violated? None as far as I can tell. What harm did she suffer? Maybe hurt feelings, but that's about it.

I doubt it. Probably targeted the business and was hoping for this outcome.