• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Masterpiece Cakeshop, back in the spotlight

Jesus loved cheesecake. The Buddha was wild about Italian wedding cake. Jerry Falwell Jr.’s wife likes beef cake.

Be careful. It’s a jungle out there.
 
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
Of course you are against civil rights.
 
Pressing you to establish that discrimination occurred isn't a deflection. It's the entire point.


Where does it say that?

Discrimination against a protected class is not allowed. The 1st amendment DOES NOT give a person the right to discriminate.

Whether frosting color is "protected speech" is divorced from the question as to whether discrimination occurred.

Not according to the court of original jurisdiction nor the appeals court. They decided that it mattered. If he cannot keep his religion to himself, then he is going to go out of business.

Can you present any evidence at all that the man was denied service that someone else would have received based on his identification as a transgender woman?
I do not have to prove what someone else would have done.

The baker refused to bake the cake because it was a celebration cake for the purpose of changing genders.





I guess you have nothing else to say about it, then. Feel free to waddle on out of this thread.
 
Discrimination against a protected class is not allowed. The 1st amendment DOES NOT give a person the right to discriminate.
Can a church refuse to hire a gay priest because it conflicts with their teachings?

Not according to the court of original jurisdiction nor the appeals court. They decided that it mattered.
That doesn't mean they aren't two different questions. I don't know that baking a cake with a specific color on the inside and another on the outside is "speech." Phillips' attorneys seem to have conceded it was not. It was a separate question as to whether discrimination occurred.

If he cannot keep his religion to himself, then he is going to go out of business.
Possibly, yes, because some people can't let a guy just do his thing.

I do not have to prove what someone else would have done.
No, you don't, because that's not the question. The question is whether a person was denied "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" of the shop on the basis of their gender identification. Since no one's presented any evidence that Phillips would have made a cake for a gender transition celebration for a person of some other gender identification, that question, by default, must be answered in the negative.

The baker refused to bake the cake because it was a celebration cake for the purpose of changing genders.
Now you're catching on. It wasn't because of his identification as a transgender woman.
 
Can a church refuse to hire a gay priest because it conflicts with their teachings?
Apples and oranges.

We are not talking about a church. We are talking about a public business that refused a customer because they were transgendered.

That doesn't mean they aren't two different questions. I don't know that baking a cake with a specific color on the inside and another on the outside is "speech." Phillips' attorneys seem to have conceded it was not. It was a separate question as to whether discrimination occurred.

No, the colors of the cake are NOT speech. Both the court of original jurisdiction and the appeals court both stated this point quite emphatically.

Possibly, yes, because some people can't let a guy just do his thing.

The man cannot discriminate based on his religious belief system. He has no legal right to force his beliefs on others. That is why he lost in court.


No, you don't, because that's not the question. The question is whether a person was denied "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" of the shop on the basis of their gender identification. Since no one's presented any evidence that Phillips would have made a cake for a gender transition celebration for a person of some other gender identification, that question, by default, must be answered in the negative.
Once again, you are missing the point. The decision is not based on what Phillips might have done for somebody else. The case was decided based on Phillips refusal to make a cake because the party who wanted it was transgendered. The color of the icing on the cake is not protected speech.

Now you're catching on. It wasn't because of his identification as a transgender woman.

Yes, it was.
 
That's an interesting position given this has NOTHING to do with the federal civil rights act...
The entire legal underpinning of non discrimination cases on private actors stems from the CRA. If it’s struck down on the reason it’s wholly unconstitutional then states couldn’t enforce one either
 
The entire legal underpinning of non discrimination cases on private actors stems from the CRA. If it’s struck down on the reason it’s wholly unconstitutional then states couldn’t enforce one either

Discrimination is not allowed.

The reich-wing can keep their religious bullshit to themselves. They can do business with all of the public OR NONE OF THE PUBLIC.
 
Apples and oranges.

We are not talking about a church.
But we are talking about the first amendment. Apples to apples.

We are talking about a public business that refused a customer because they were transgendered.
Will you make up your mind? You just said Phillips "refused to bake the cake because it was a celebration cake for the purpose of changing genders." Now you go back and say it was because the customer identified as transgender.

No, the colors of the cake are NOT speech. Both the court of original jurisdiction and the appeals court both stated this point quite emphatically.
But can you grasp that "did discrimination occur" and "are the colors of the cake protected speech" are two different questions?

The man cannot discriminate based on his religious belief system. He has no legal right to force his beliefs on others.
How is he forcing his beliefs on anyone else?

That is why he lost in court.
And women have no constitutional right to an abortion. That's why the proposition lost in court.

I imagine you'll disagree on that conclusion, but the point is that "he lost in court so he's wrong" isn't much of a debate point. If you're going to just parrot the lower opinion, just give up. We can read it just fine for ourselves.

Once again, you are missing the point. The decision is not based on what Phillips might have done for somebody else.
No, that's the entire point. That's what discrimination is. If a black guy drove up to an auto shop that exclusively serviced Fords and demanded they service his Mercedes, it doesn't matter at all if the shop employees are the most racist people you'll ever find. They don't service Mercedes vehicles. The customer was refused no service on the basis of his race that any other person would have received, so no discrimination occurred.

The case was decided based on Phillips refusal to make a cake because the party who wanted it was transgendered.
The refusal was based on the event. Even you acknowledged this fact.
 
But we are talking about the first amendment. Apples to apples.

The first amendment does not authorize discrination.

Will you make up your mind? You just said Phillips "refused to bake the cake because it was a celebration cake for the purpose of changing genders." Now you go back and say it was because the customer identified as transgender.

Knock off the spin. He discriminated and he paid for it.

But can you grasp that "did discrimination occur" and "are the colors of the cake protected speech" are two different questions?

THey are not. Read the decision of the appeals court. This EXACT ISSUE was the reason the appeals court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

How is he forcing his beliefs on anyone else?
His refusal to make a cake because his religion believes differently than those requesting the cake is exactly that.


And women have no constitutional right to an abortion. That's why the proposition lost in court.

We are no discussing abortion rights. Stop changing the subject.

I imagine you'll disagree on that conclusion, but the point is that "he lost in court so he's wrong" isn't much of a debate point. If you're going to just parrot the lower opinion, just give up. We can read it just fine for ourselves.

The man discriminated. The court held that to be the case.

No, that's the entire point. That's what discrimination is. If a black guy drove up to an auto shop that exclusively serviced Fords and demanded they service his Mercedes, it doesn't matter at all if the shop employees are the most racist people you'll ever find. They don't service Mercedes vehicles. The customer was refused no service on the basis of his race that any other person would have received, so no discrimination occurred.

Refusing to make a cake because your religion doesn't support those requesting the cake is discrimination.

The refusal was based on the event. Even you acknowledged this fact.

Irrelevant.
 
blah blah blah, I'm right and you're wrong because I say so
When you're ready to discuss the issue instead of just asserting your correctitude, I'll be here.
 
The entire legal underpinning of non discrimination cases on private actors stems from the CRA. If it’s struck down on the reason it’s wholly unconstitutional then states couldn’t enforce one either
There were no state public accommodation laws before the CRA?

Interesting...

 
Back
Top Bottom