[W:108:129]Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

[maxparrish]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

From what few posts I’ve read on this thread, it seems the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop over the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is being mistaken as the right to deny service to the likes of gay couples on religious grounds. There was no such ruling. The ruling had to do with the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

SCOTUS found that “The (Colorado) Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his (Masterpiece Cakeshop) case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.” This conclusion was reached based on the comments made during the ruling by the Commission from one commissioner that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.” In effect, such comment prevented an unbiased ruling by the commissioner but does not go so far as to say the ruling was or wasn’t correct in and of itself.

The Commission has every legal right to file for gender discrimination. I would think the Commission has avoided making such bias comments in this most recent decision. I don’t know if the particular commissioner in question took part in the decision.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...es-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

The Commission may or may not have the right to coerce a person to violate his religious belief and make custom cakes. The Supreme Court punted on that issue, dodging the needless conflicts caused by the case law degeneration of discrimination law.

All this could be have been avoided by a three part test based on common law:

1) Was their price/customer discrimination by a government, a monopoly, common carrier or a cartel wherein the public had no choice?
2) If yes, does the discrimination's harm to the individual exceed the harm to the business by prohibiting its discrimination?
3) If yes then it is not allowed.

Hence there is no effect on freedom of association or right of contract except for monopolies and the like. Such a limited anti-discrimination law would be universal and treated like any other regulatory action.

The remainder of society can live and let live as it sees fit.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

The claim is that the transgender person was discriminated against on the basis of her sex. That's how the AD statute applies according to the plaintiff's complaint. The "event" thing you're claiming has no existence in reality. That's all I'm saying.

The message that he/she wanted Phillips to create was what he refused, not he/she. He did not refuse to serve he/she, Phillips refused to create something for an event that he religiously objected to.

Did Phillips say "I'm sorry, we don't create things for transgendered people"? Of course he didn't.

 

[Oborosen]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

You are quite correct.

On the other hand, you don't appear to know what the word "dysphoria" means.

You might want to attempt to wrap your mind around this

"Gender dysphoria" and "transgendered" do NOT mean the same thing.
​

Please do not indulge in "Humpty-Dumptyism" when attempting to make your points, it only reduces your credibility.

you seem to be omitting the first word in gender-dysphoria. Why?

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

Cont.

2) You claim I don't "grasp the distinction between private life and operation of a private individual in public life" because I not suffered from it. To the contrary I DO UNDERSTAND because neither a person's personal benefit or nor their personal loss is a principled basis of morality or ethics. To even suggest that right and wrong depends on how it does or does not rewarded or hurt you personally is repulsive.

Accordingly I do understand that the difference between a person only be allowed to live his values in Church or at home, and living his values in larger social associations - the difference is you don't like to see him live use his freedom as he sees fit ( UNLESS some of those lifestyle choices are CLOSETED). Hence you likely appreciate a baker whose value is honesty and personal integrity, but not if the baker's integrity denied a cake to a man dressed as a woman.

So yes, I understand that you wish a person to shed their rights and values when doing business or associating with others.

3) You claim the baker broke state law. If the plain text and commonsense meaning of it were determinative of law then he did not. Gender is not sex nor sexual orientation. Moreover, cake rituals over one's choice of self image is not necessary to living transgendered. You are free to demonstrate otherwise, which you have not done.

4) Finally you said: "I would caution you... against telling the victims of some discrimination that their experiences amount to "an overnight stay in jail" while the experiences of the victims of other discrimination amount to "the holocaust", especially considering that you've never even experienced the kinds of discrimination to which you pompously and insensitively attach arbitrary "proportion".

If so then you should remember to caution yourself and the judges who actually brought up the holocaust for having have "pompously and insensitively attached...(equal) proportion". Are y'all so oblivious to your own hypocrisy? Surely you are not going to tell me that you have experienced it, or for that matter, experienced a night in jail (as I have).

Your "stance" is unraveling, best you take a break and figure out a coherent and principled stance without your ignorance and own contradictions.

I'm not gonna lie. I didn't read your two pages of tragically uneducated and unaffected discourse of discrimination because as you demonstrated earlier and as I tried to explain to you at that time, you don't know what discrimination is. I'll just hope to find you in another thread in which you might have something worthwhile to say. Take care until then.

 

[maxparrish]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

I'm not gonna lie. I didn't read your two pages of tragically uneducated and unaffected discourse of discrimination because as you demonstrated earlier and as I tried to explain to you at that time, you don't know what discrimination is. I'll just hope to find you in another thread in which you might have something worthwhile to say. Take care until then.

So you judged the contents, without reading it, to be uneducated because I "don't know what discrimination is."

Makes me wonder why someone would be on the forum who doesn't read posts before they characterizing them, then flees.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

you seem to be omitting the first word in gender-dysphoria. Why?

Because the important word is "dysphoria". There can be "height dysphoria", "race dysphoria", "weight dysphoria", and even "sexual preference dysphoria".

Some one who suffers anxiety because of the fact that they are only 4'6" tall suffers from "height dysphoria". Someone who is 4'6" tall and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "height dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they are "White" suffers from "racial dysphoria". Someone who is "White" and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "race dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they weigh 350 pounds suffers from "weight dysphoria". Someone who weighs 350 pounds and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "weight dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they have a sexual preference for persons of the opposite gender suffers from "sexual preference dysphoria". Someone who has a sexual preference for persons of the opposite gender and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "sexual preference dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they have a sexual preference for persons of the same gender suffers from "sexual preference dysphoria". Someone who has a sexual preference for persons of the same gender and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "sexual preference dysphoria".

Once again, you do not appear to understand what the word "dysphoria" means. Things like that happen and are remediable.

On the other hand, you could simply be pretending to be a dolt. That, unfortunately, appears to be one of those "genetic conditions" that is simply unremediable.

 

[Oborosen]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

Because the important word is "dysphoria". There can be "height dysphoria", "race dysphoria", "weight dysphoria", and even "sexual preference dysphoria".

Some one who suffers anxiety because of the fact that they are only 4'6" tall suffers from "height dysphoria". Someone who is 4'6" tall and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "height dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they are "White" suffers from "racial dysphoria". Someone who is "White" and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "race dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they weigh 350 pounds suffers from "weight dysphoria". Someone who weighs 350 pounds and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "weight dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they have a sexual preference for persons of the opposite gender suffers from "sexual preference dysphoria". Someone who has a sexual preference for persons of the opposite gender and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "sexual preference dysphoria".

Someone who suffers anxiety because they have a sexual preference for persons of the same gender suffers from "sexual preference dysphoria". Someone who has a sexual preference for persons of the same gender and does not suffer anxiety because of that fact does NOT suffer from "sexual preference dysphoria".

Once again, you do not appear to understand what the word "dysphoria" means. Things like that happen and are remediable.

On the other hand, you could simply be pretending to be a dolt. That, unfortunately, appears to be one of those "genetic conditions" that is simply unremediable.

Lets just ignore the personal attacks at this point.

I asked that, simply because I was wondering if you were going to lead into exactly what you did. You railed on definition, not just on meaning, or statement. Though you seem to forget that definition and application are two very different things and when you shift a simple noun around. The implication of that definition changes immensely.

It's doesn't change the fact that my office and many more still consider being trans as what it is. A disorder and as such, is a condition that should be helped in any way possible.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Colorado baker back in court after refusing to make cake celebrating gender transition

So you judged the contents, without reading it, to be uneducated because I "don't know what discrimination is."

Makes me wonder why someone would be on the forum who doesn't read posts before they characterizing them, then flees.

I didn't flee anywhere. I just find discussion with you to be unproductive. You're entitled to your opinions of course, but you keep telling me that my equally valid opinions are wrong and that yours are right. It's a worthless dialogue.