View Full Version : Let Them Eat Cake
I see we have a SCOTUS decision on the Colorado Christian baker case.
Rather than approach it from a First Amendment perspective, the Court simply observed how churlishly biased the Colorado Bias Police were in adjudicating the case. The larger issues will need to be resolved another day.
Chicken lady
6-6-18, 9:06am
At this point i’m happy with any official government position that translates “don’t be an @$$”
A friend just sent me cartoon that applies--it has a checkout clerk refusing to sell you condoms, referring you to another clerk, but they're Muslim and can't check out your ham, but you could try another clerk who can't sell you Coke because they're Mormon...Another clerk is a Jehovah's witness and won't sell you a birthday card...It suggests you try the LGBT guy on register 4 who isn't hiding behind his religion. Hyperbole, but it makes the point.
iris lilies
6-6-18, 9:22am
A friend just sent me cartoon that applies--it has a checkout clerk refusing to sell you condoms, referring you to another clerk, but they're Muslim and can't check out your ham, but you could try another clerk who can't sell you Coke because they're Mormon...Another clerk is a Jehovah's witness and won't sell you a birthday card...It suggests you try the LGBT guy on register 4 who isn't hiding behind his religion. Hyperbole, but it makes the point.
Hiding behind religion. Nope.
sincerely held beliefs, yep.
i cant see what is so hard to see about that.
Hiding behind religion. Nope.
sincerely held beliefs, yep.
i cant see what is so hard to see about that.I agree. Substitute the word 'conscience' for 'religion' and the same folks who deride the latter usually see things differently.
A friend just sent me cartoon that applies--it has a checkout clerk refusing to sell you condoms, referring you to another clerk, but they're Muslim and can't check out your ham, but you could try another clerk who can't sell you Coke because they're Mormon...Another clerk is a Jehovah's witness and won't sell you a birthday card...It suggests you try the LGBT guy on register 4 who isn't hiding behind his religion. Hyperbole, but it makes the point.
That sort of public accommodation argument has been made a lot in much less hamfisted ways, but I don't think it applies in this type of case. The baker said he would happily sell them one of his confections off the shelf. His objection was to being forced to perform the service of creating something new carrying a message he objected to. He wasn't hiding behind his religion. He was standing up for it. For his troubles he got a lecture from an officious twit about slavery and the Holocaust, and the usual pile of anonymous internet scorn.
I realize yesterday's opinion addresses the way the case was decided, rather than the issue itself.
I don't want to live in any kind of theocracy; I'm all for Jesus' admonition to pray in your closet.
On the other hand, it's good to know what kind of people are running the businesses I might potentially patronize.
Chicken lady
6-6-18, 9:39am
I agree with Jane.
There was a bar/food joint in a local small town that put up a sign in the window that said “for service, speak English.” They won their court case. They also went out of business.
I realize yesterday's opinion addresses the way the case was decided, rather than the issue itself.
I don't want to live in any kind of theocracy; I'm all for Jesus' admonition to pray in your closet.
On the other hand, it's good to know what kind of people are running the businesses I might potentially patronize.
It’s theocracy when government imposes values on citizens. It’s liberty when citizens are allowed to make their own value judgments.
I also think the admonition against virtue-signaling makes sense outside the religious sphere.
I don't want to live in any kind of theocracy; .....Sure you do, you just don't yet recognize Progressivism as a religion or Government as a Deity.
Teacher Terry
6-6-18, 10:54am
I agree with Jane and CL that let the customers decide what is acceptable or not.
Hiding behind religion. Nope.
sincerely held beliefs, yep.
i cant see what is so hard to see about that.
Woolworths, and plenty of other places, had sincerely held beliefs that the races shouldn't mix while eating.
Woolworths, and plenty of other places, had sincerely held beliefs that the races shouldn't mix while eating.
I think there’s a difference between making people offer public accommodations equally to all comers and forcing people to perform specific services or project messages they object to.
Conscience can be a wonderful thing if it's used. If more people in power used their conscience, thousands of innocent refugee children wouldn't be languishing in prisons because their parents were desperate for a safe haven. A smug, self-righteous baker looks like small potatoes by comparison.
So if they object to interracial marriage should the baker be able to refuse to make a cake? Or if a muslim straight couple wanted a wedding cake should they be able to refuse?
And what if the gay couple didnt want the cake to he notably ‘gay’ in anyway. Just a generic wedding cake?
So if they object to interracial marriage should the baker be able to refuse to make a cake? Or if a muslim straight couple wanted a wedding cake should they be able to refuse?
Or what if a Muslim baker refused to decorate a cake with an image of Mohammed due to his/her religions ban on his image? Or, what if a Christian baker refused to cater a wedding party for a polygamist family celebrating their latest 15 year old sister wife's induction to the harem?
And what if the gay couple didnt want the cake to he notably ‘gay’ in anyway. Just a generic wedding cake?I think that was answered in the suit. It wasn't the cake that was refused, it was the decoration.
I think that was answered in the suit. It wasn't the cake that was refused, it was the decoration.
Actually no. The baker shut the discussion down before they got to cake details. He was not willing to make any wedding cake for them.
ApatheticNoMore
6-6-18, 1:00pm
A friend just sent me cartoon that applies--it has a checkout clerk refusing to sell you condoms, referring you to another clerk, but they're Muslim and can't check out your ham, but you could try another clerk who can't sell you Coke because they're Mormon...Another clerk is a Jehovah's witness and won't sell you a birthday card...It suggests you try the LGBT guy on register 4 who isn't hiding behind his religion. Hyperbole, but it makes the point.
I don't know, I kinda look forward to a world where clerks working at a grocery store have that much say in their job duties (even if the clerks are as depicted). I don't think there are any laws protecting the clerks employment (from firing) in such a case though. Maybe it needs to go before the Supreme Court! Freedom of conscience is at stake! At stake I tell you! Until the Mormon who refuses to check out the Coke buyer's job is protected!
As it is currently freedom of conscience is just another word for abuse of power (although if it was narrowly limited to non-monopoly non-incorporated tiny businesses, that power is pretty limited and so fairly benign). Corporations can't have consciences anyway and Woolworths was not a small business.
I remember when American values said that blacks weren't as good as whites so they shouldn't sit in certain areas in diners and on public transportation. I remember when American values said that a woman working was taking away a good job from a man. I remember when American values said that people should be free to beat their wives, Lynch their slaves, deny the handicapped access to buildings, and give students in the most affluent neighborhoods the best resources in a public education system (well, that's still going on).
"Values" and "conscience" are loaded words that have been used to justify laws and practices the promote hatred, bigotry, and as ANM rightly said, abuse of power.
A smug, self-righteous baker looks like small potatoes by comparison.
If the preponderance of smug self-righteousness, not to say naked bigotry, hadn’t been on the side of the commission, the Supremes wouldn’t have been able to punt on the larger constitutional issues.
How is this different than artist not allowing their music to be played at certain venues? Isn’t that also discrimination.
Actually no. The baker shut the discussion down before they got to cake details. He was not willing to make any wedding cake for them.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
If the preponderance of smug self-righteousness, not to say naked bigotry, hadn’t been on the side of the commission, the Supremes wouldn’t have been able to punt on the larger constitutional issues.
Point taken; I hope said commission member has learned to be more circumspect.
How is this different than artist not allowing their music to be played at certain venues? Isn’t that also discrimination.
Music has copyright law. A closer example, if one thinks making cakes is art, would be whether an artist who sells their paintings in a gallery they own could refuse to sell a painting to someone if the customer said ‘wow! I love this painting. I’m going to give it to my friends stteve and joe as a wedding present.’
Music has copyright law. A closer example, if one thinks making cakes is art, would be whether an artist who sells their paintings in a gallery they own could refuse to sell a painting to someone if the customer said ‘wow! I love this painting. I’m going to give it to my friends stteve and joe as a wedding present.’
A more comparable situation would be the artist declining a commission to paint a portrait of Joe and Steve.
A more comparable situation would be the artist declining a commission to paint a portrait of Joe and Steve.
Not compared to a generic wedding cake. The baker shut the conversation down just at the idea of a wedding cake, not a custom wedding cake.
Chicken lady
6-6-18, 4:38pm
No, a more comparable situation would be an artist declining to paint a picture FOR Joe and Steve. And then being willing to admit it was because they were gay.
my college roommate was once confronted by a guy we were trying to avoid socially with the words “you just don’t like me because i’m Black.” Her honest response was “no, we don’t like you because you’re a jerk.” Except she didn’t say jerk.
Chicken lady
6-6-18, 4:39pm
The baker did say they could buy any existing cake, he just wouldn’t make a new one for them.
My understanding was that he said he didn’t make wedding cakes for gay couples but that they could purchase other baked goods.
Presumably he doesnt keep pre-made wedding cakes in stock since most people dont walk in off the street expecting to walk out with one five minutes later.
Chicken lady
6-6-18, 5:34pm
True. He does have cakes though. Just not the kind of cake they wanted - again, not willing to paint the picture, willing to say why.
What if I was a religous baker and someone wanted me to write something obscene/vulgar/anti-my-religion on a cake. Do I have the right to say "sorry, I won't do that"?
ToomuchStuff
6-7-18, 1:39am
Or what if a Muslim baker refused to decorate a cake with an image of Mohammed due to his/her religions ban on his image? Or, what if a Christian baker refused to cater a wedding party for a polygamist family celebrating their latest 15 year old sister wife's induction to the harem?
I think that was answered in the suit. It wasn't the cake that was refused, it was the decoration.
What if I was a religous baker and someone wanted me to write something obscene/vulgar/anti-my-religion on a cake. Do I have the right to say "sorry, I won't do that"?
I think Alan asked that already.
How about a friend of mine who years ago, went into a bible store, and while turning bibles upside down, was asked if he needed assistance. He asked for a copy of the satanic bible and was chased out of the store. Wouldn't this be the same?
I think Alan asked that already.
How about a friend of mine who years ago, went into a bible store, and while turning bibles upside down, was asked if he needed assistance. He asked for a copy of the satanic bible and was chased out of the store. Wouldn't this be the same?
Only if the bible store normally sold satanic bibles. The wedding cake store presumably does sell wedding cakes. Just not to yucky gay people because of their deeply held superstition.
I think Alan asked that already.
Yes I did, and it was not answered. I have a theory for that if anyone's interested.
It seems to me that those who view society through a lens of outside factors, such as gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, etc., have differing standards based upon how high or low they place people on their internal social ladder. They seem to perceive white, male, straight Christians as being at the top of the ladder while other variations are limited to the lower rungs. Those at the top are also perceived as a group rather than as individuals and that entire top group of ladder dwellers are expected to relinquish their personal beliefs and conscience in favor of everyone else perceived to be inferior. This makes everyone feel better about themselves as it wouldn't be fair to hold the lower castes to the same standards because, well, they're lower on the observers social hierarchy scale through no fault of their own and should receive special accommodation.
So, if you go to 10 Muslim bakers and ask them to violate their personal belief structure, and they all refuse, you should probably go to a non-Muslim baker and hope you have better luck. That's the conservative way, that you've asked someone to violate their beliefs and they rightfully refused so you move on. But, if you go to 100 white Christian bakers in order to find one who is willing to stand his/her ground and not violate their beliefs, that person must be brought to heel. That's the SJW way because acquiring the finished product is not the point, it's punishing those who do not act the way you want them to.
The question isn't answered because it would expose the fact that they don't have enough respect for the lower castes to hold them to the same standard and would also expose the same biases that the Colorado board used against the Christian baker and were so rightly struck down by the Supremes.
flowerseverywhere
6-7-18, 12:04pm
Yes I did, and it was not answered. I have a theory for that if anyone's interested.
It seems to me that those who view society through a lens of outside factors, such as gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, etc., have differing standards based upon how high or low they place people on their internal social ladder. They seem to perceive white, male, straight Christians as being at the top of the ladder while other variations are limited to the lower rungs. Those at the top are also perceived as a group rather than as individuals and that entire top group of ladder dwellers are expected to relinquish their personal beliefs and conscience in favor of everyone else perceived to be inferior. This makes everyone feel better about themselves as it wouldn't be fair to hold the lower castes to the same standards because, well, they're lower on the observers social hierarchy scale through no fault of their own and should receive special accommodation.
So, if you go to 10 Muslim bakers and ask them to violate their personal belief structure, and they all refuse, you should probably go to a non-Muslim baker and hope you have better luck. That's the conservative way, that you've asked someone to violate their beliefs and they rightfully refused so you move on. But, if you go to 100 white Christian bakers in order to find one who is willing to stand his/her ground and not violate their beliefs, that person must be brought to heel. That's the SJW way because acquiring the finished product is not the point, it's punishing those who do not act the way you want them to.
The question isn't answered because it would expose the fact that they don't have enough respect for the lower castes to hold them to the same standard and would also expose the same biases that the Colorado board used against the Christian baker and were so rightly struck down by the Supremes.
I believe much of what you say is true
all Mexicans are rapists and murderers so let’s build a wall. Perhaps this is more acceptable:
A wall of some type is not a bad idea in many areas, as well as enforcement of our immigration walls. This will help screen immigrants who come to work or visit, while helping keep out drug dealers etc.
Women who have abortions are murderers vs. each case is unique and matters are best left between patients and their physicians. I will support planned parenthood since they provide so much preventitive and birth control care since I know federal money cannot be used for abortions.
Unfortunately for for some reason we are a very judgmental and mean species. However, it’s great to be the king, or at least have a seat at the table.
What if I was a religous baker and someone wanted me to write something obscene/vulgar/anti-my-religion on a cake. Do I have the right to say "sorry, I won't do that"?
Actually yes, at least in Colorado. Around the same time as the Masterpiece Cake situation was happening another bakery, Azucar cakes was approached by a customer who wanted a bible shaped cake but with it decorated with things like a picture of two men holding hands and a circle with a slash over it, and various extremely paraphrashed bible verses that supposedly show that jesus hates gays. The bakery had done plenty of bible cakes and was even owned by a Catholic woman. Despite knowing what he wanted the cake to say she agreed to make a bible cake but refused to do the customization of in the way he wanted. She did, however, even offer to sell him frosting and one of those bags that one uses to write with frosting on cakes, so that he could put whatever message on it he wanted. That seems reasonable to me. She was willing to sell him a product that was "generic" and routinely available to any other customer and even the tools to customize it in a way she found offensive so that she wouldn't have to create the offensive message herself.
In contrast, in the Masterpiece situation the owner of the bakery shut down the discussion before there was ever any talk of customization. He simply refused to make even a generic wedding cake for the couple. I'm willing to accept that a cakemaker may not be willing to write "Charlie and David. Love Forever" or whatever the plaintiffs may have wanted inscribed on the cake, but it never got to that point. THe owner simply refused to bake any wedding cake, even a completely generic one that he would have sold to any straight couple.
In my perfect world people wouldn't be using religion to justify hating a certain group of people. But the world will never be perfect. So I'd at least be willing to accept as a minimum that a gay couple can go into any business and buy any product that is 100% the same as what they could buy if they were a straight couple.
Back in the jim crow era black people planning to take road trips would buy "The Negro Motorist Green Book" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book because there were not many motels, car repair places, and restaurants that would serve black people because of the "strongly held" beliefs of the owners that they shouldn't have to. It would be really sad if we have to create a modern day version of it for gay people who want to get married but don't happen to live near a large, progressive metropolitan area.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.