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.
And?Sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado.
Again, which rights of hers were violated? What harm did she suffer?
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.
So, if not for his identity, the baker would have provided him a cake for his gender transition celebration? Unlikely.She was discriminated against because of her identity.
YEAH, **** THE FIRST AMENDMENT!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.
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.
So, if not for his identity, the baker would have provided him a cake for his gender transition celebration? Unlikely.
YEAH, **** THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
You have evidence he would provide a cake to be used at a gender transition celebration to someone else?You are not correct.
Declining to work for someone because of your religion is not forcing your religion on anyone.It was discrimination, the cakemaker does not get to force his religion on other people.
And he declined because he did not approve of the celebration, not because of the customer's identity.The cakemaker was not being asked to celebrate. He was asked to bake a cake for other people who were going to celebrate.
The first amendment disagrees with you.The cakebaker's religion has ZERO business being involved in that business.
So, if not for his identity, the baker would have provided him a cake for his gender transition celebration? Unlikely.
YEAH, **** THE FIRST AMENDMENT!
That makes no difference whatsoever.
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.LMAO...
Would it be discrimination if the baker refused to sell a cake to a black person to celebrate Kwanzaa?
Turns out they didn't need to.Not even Phillip's lawyers tried such a childish argument...
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.
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.The fact that you dislike the situation is not at issue here.
The first amendment also prohibits impairing the ability to exercise your religion. Did you know that? Free civics lesson.Nobody said the baker wasn't allowed to speak.
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.He decided to discriminate.
You have not established that any discrimination occurred.The cake baker cannot discriminate.
Accept it and move on.
You have not established that any discrimination occurred.
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.
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".The first amendment also prohibits impairing the ability to exercise your religion. Did you know that? Free civics lesson.
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.
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.Yes, I have. Your denial does not change that.
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.A transgendered individual was denied a cake because the baker did not want to make a cake for a transgendered person.
The court of appeals already decided the issue. Your side lost.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.
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.
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.
Pressing you to establish that discrimination occurred isn't a deflection. It's the entire point.Deflecting doesn't change what happened.
Where does it say that?The 1st Amendment does not allow for discrimination.
Whether frosting color is "protected speech" is divorced from the question as to whether discrimination occurred.The color of the frosting is not protected speech.
The discrimination happend.
I guess you have nothing else to say about it, then. Feel free to waddle on out of this thread.The court of appeals already decided the issue. Your side lost.
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.
For some reason I thought that was a reference to the original Masterpiece Cakeshop case that went to the Supreme Court.Yeah, because they got their assess handed to them at the district and appeals court...
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?