Masterpiece Cakeshop, back in the spotlight

[BlueTex]

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.

Sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado.

And?

He wasn't denied service on the basis of his identification as a transgender woman. He was denied service because the baker didn't want to aid in celebrating a particular event. If a regular male walked into the shop and asked for the same cake for the same event, I think it highly unlikely he would be served either. If so, no one has been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, since no one is being refused a service that someone else would get but for their orientation.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

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

She was discriminated against because of her identity. That is not acceptable.

The cakemaker was wrong in doing what he did. If he cannot keep his religion out of his business, he should not be in business.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

And?

He wasn't denied service on the basis of his identification as a transgender woman. He was denied service because the baker didn't want to aid in celebrating a particular event. If a regular male walked into the shop and asked for the same cake for the same event, I think it highly unlikely he would be served either. If so, no one has been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, since no one is being refused a service that someone else would get but for their orientation.

You are not correct.

It was discrimination, the cakemaker does not get to force his religion on other people.

The cakemaker was not being asked to celebrate. He was asked to bake a cake for other people who were going to celebrate. The cakebaker's religion has ZERO business being involved in that business.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

She was discriminated against because of her identity.

So, if not for his identity, the baker would have provided him a cake for his gender transition celebration? Unlikely.

The cakemaker was wrong in doing what he did. If he cannot keep his religion out of his business, he should not be in business.

YEAH, **** THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

 

[BlueTex]

And?

He wasn't denied service on the basis of his identification as a transgender woman. He was denied service because the baker didn't want to aid in celebrating a particular event. If a regular male walked into the shop and asked for the same cake for the same event, I think it highly unlikely he would be served either. If so, no one has been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, since no one is being refused a service that someone else would get but for their orientation.

LMAO...

Would it be discrimination if the baker refused to sell a cake to a black person to celebrate Kwanzaa?

Not even Phillip's lawyers tried such a childish argument...

 

[BlueTex]

So, if not for his identity, the baker would have provided him a cake for his gender transition celebration? Unlikely.


YEAH, **** THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

Can I use my religion to discriminate against black people?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You are not correct.

You have evidence he would provide a cake to be used at a gender transition celebration to someone else?

It was discrimination, the cakemaker does not get to force his religion on other people.

Declining to work for someone because of your religion is not forcing your religion on anyone.

The cakemaker was not being asked to celebrate. He was asked to bake a cake for other people who were going to celebrate.

And he declined because he did not approve of the celebration, not because of the customer's identity.

The cakebaker's religion has ZERO business being involved in that business.

The first amendment disagrees with you.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

So, if not for his identity, the baker would have provided him a cake for his gender transition celebration? Unlikely.

The fact that you dislike the situation is not at issue here.

YEAH, **** THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

Nobody said the baker wasn't allowed to speak. He decided to discriminate. That is not legal.

Just stop.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

That makes no difference whatsoever.

That is absurd. The fundamental purpose of a company is to separate investment from the investor; only the capital is at risk and the investor is not liable beyond the investment.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

LMAO...

Would it be discrimination if the baker refused to sell a cake to a black person to celebrate Kwanzaa?

Not based on the text of the Colorado law, which prohibits the use of certain criteria to deny "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." Since no person at all would (I assume) be provided a Kwanzaa celebration cake, that person is not being discriminated against because they are black.

Not even Phillip's lawyers tried such a childish argument...

Turns out they didn't need to.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Not based on the text of the Colorado law, which prohibits the use of certain criteria to deny "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." Since no person at all would (I assume) be provided a Kwanzaa celebration cake, that person is not being discriminated against because they are black.


Turns out they didn't need to.

The cake baker cannot discriminate.

Accept it and move on.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The fact that you dislike the situation is not at issue here.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that you have no evidence the man was denied service based on his identification as a transgender woman. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it.

Nobody said the baker wasn't allowed to speak.

The first amendment also prohibits impairing the ability to exercise your religion. Did you know that? Free civics lesson.

He decided to discriminate.

Again, if you have evidence he would have received a cake for a gender transition celebration but for the fact he identified as a transgender woman, present it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The cake baker cannot discriminate.

Accept it and move on.

You have not established that any discrimination occurred.

Accept it and move on, or present the evidence that it did.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

You have not established that any discrimination occurred.

Yes, I have. Your denial does not change that.

A transgendered individual was denied a cake because the baker did not want to make a cake for a transgendered person.

That is, by its very nature, discrimination.

The cakemaker was WRONG.

 

[Blue Dog]

Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition from male to female.


Just to add to the discussion:

“We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker,” said the court, which also rejected procedural arguments from Phillips.

Colorado baker loses appeal over transgender birthday cake

The Christian baker, Jack Phillips, maintains that the cakes he creates are a form of speech and plans to appeal.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I'll take that as a tacit admission that you have no evidence the man was denied service based on his identification as a transgender woman. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it.

Deflecting doesn't change what happened.

The first amendment also prohibits impairing the ability to exercise your religion. Did you know that? Free civics lesson.

The 1st Amendment does not allow for discrimination. Nor can persons be discriminated against because somebody says "my religion says I do not have to".

Again, if you have evidence he would have received a cake for a gender transition celebration but for the fact he identified as a transgender woman, present it.

The court of appeals decided this issue:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-over-refusing-cake

The color of the frosting is not protected speech.

The discrimination happend.

Just stop.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yes, I have. Your denial does not change that.

No, you've asserted that it did, but you haven't shown it. Your repeated assertions don't change the fact that they remain your assertions.

A transgendered individual was denied a cake because the baker did not want to make a cake for a transgendered person.

You haven't established this. I've seen no evidence presented that the person was denied a service that would be provided to anyone else.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

No, you've asserted that it did, but you haven't shown it. Your repeated assertions don't change the fact that they remain your assertions.

The court of appeals already decided the issue. Your side lost.

You haven't established this. I've seen no evidence presented that the person was denied a service that would be provided to anyone else.

The court of appeals already decided the issue. Your side lost.

 

[BlueTex]

Not based on the text of the Colorado law, which prohibits the use of certain criteria to deny "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." Since no person at all would (I assume) be provided a Kwanzaa celebration cake, that person is not being discriminated against because they are black.


Turns out they didn't need to.

Yeah, because they got their assess handed to them at the district and appeals court...

This case requires us to resolve a dispute between the parties arising out of important rights that each enjoys. The plaintiff, Autumn Scardina, contends she was denied service by a bakery because of her identity as a trans woman, in violation of her right to be free from discrimination in a place of public accommodation. In contrast, the defendants, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. (Masterpiece) and its proprietor, Jack Phillips, contend their decision not to make a cake for Scardina was based on their firm and sincere religious beliefs and the right to be free from compelled speech that would violate those beliefs. We agree with the trial court’s judgment in favor of Scardina and therefore affirm

LMAO...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Deflecting doesn't change what happened.

Pressing you to establish that discrimination occurred isn't a deflection. It's the entire point.

The 1st Amendment does not allow for discrimination.

Where does it say that?

The color of the frosting is not protected speech.

The discrimination happend.

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

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?

The court of appeals already decided the issue. Your side lost.

I guess you have nothing else to say about it, then. Feel free to waddle on out of this thread.

 

[BlueTex]

I'll take that as a tacit admission that you have no evidence the man was denied service based on his identification as a transgender woman. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it.

No evidence except all that evidence listed in the opinion...

Scardina stated she wanted to purchase a custom birthday cake for six to eight people and that she would need it in a few weeks. Scardina ordered a pink cake with blue frosting. She did not request that the cake contain any words, symbols, or details — just a pink cake with blue frosting. Debra confirmed that Masterpiece could make the requested cake.

Scardina then told Debra that the custom birthday cake had personal significance, reflecting Scardina’s birthday as well as celebrating her transition from male to female. Debra replied that she did not think the shop could make the cake “because of the message” and said she would get Phillips on the phone. Before Phillips could speak to Scardina, the call was disconnected.

When Scardina called back, Eldfrick answered. Scardina again requested a custom pink and blue cake celebrating her birthday and her transition from a man to a woman. Eldfrick explained that the shop could not make the requested cake. Phillips never spoke to Scardina regarding the requested cake. He testified, however, that he “won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with [his] Bible’s teachings” and that “he believes that God designed people male and female, that a person’s gender is biologically determined.” For these reasons, Phillips testified, he will not create a custom cake to celebrate a gender transition.

More generally, Phillips agreed that a pink cake with blue frosting has no “particular inherent meaning” and does not express any message. The trial court found that Phillips would make the same pink and blue cake for other customers and would even sell an identical premade (as opposed to custom ordered) cake to Scardina, even if she disclosed the purpose of the cake.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yeah, because they got their assess handed to them at the district and appeals court...

For some reason I thought that was a reference to the original Masterpiece Cakeshop case that went to the Supreme Court.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No evidence except all that evidence listed in the opinion...

Scardina stated she wanted to purchase a custom birthday cake for six to eight people and that she would need it in a few weeks. Scardina ordered a pink cake with blue frosting. She did not request that the cake contain any words, symbols, or details — just a pink cake with blue frosting. Debra confirmed that Masterpiece could make the requested cake.

Scardina then told Debra that the custom birthday cake had personal significance, reflecting Scardina’s birthday as well as celebrating her transition from male to female. Debra replied that she did not think the shop could make the cake “because of the message” and said she would get Phillips on the phone. Before Phillips could speak to Scardina, the call was disconnected.

When Scardina called back, Eldfrick answered. Scardina again requested a custom pink and blue cake celebrating her birthday and her transition from a man to a woman. Eldfrick explained that the shop could not make the requested cake. Phillips never spoke to Scardina regarding the requested cake. He testified, however, that he “won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with [his] Bible’s teachings” and that “he believes that God designed people male and female, that a person’s gender is biologically determined.” For these reasons, Phillips testified, he will not create a custom cake to celebrate a gender transition.

More generally, Phillips agreed that a pink cake with blue frosting has no “particular inherent meaning” and does not express any message. The trial court found that Phillips would make the same pink and blue cake for other customers and would even sell an identical premade (as opposed to custom ordered) cake to Scardina, even if she disclosed the purpose of the cake.

I see nothing there that says he was denied service because of his identification as a transgender woman, only that service was denied after the baker was told about the event.

 

[BlueTex]

I see nothing there that says he was denied service because of his identification as a transgender woman, only that service was denied after the baker was told about the event.

Then why do you suppose TWO courts DID find discrimination?