Page 23 of 52 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 513
Thanks Tree156Thanks

Thread: Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake

  1. #221
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    22,900
    Thanks
    3798

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
    Yeah except not serving isn't what is happening here. You keep conflating how the service is provided versus if it is provided.



    You fall into the trap of your own bad reasoning. He offered them generic products. He is being sued because he didn't offer them a custom product with speech on it that violated his beliefs. A generic wedding cake would not satisfy the plaintiffs.



    They weren't denied the right to do business with the bakery. When he said he wouldn't make them a cake with a specific, not generic, message, they decided to leave. They weren't thrown out, harangued or anything like that.


    To me it is pretty simple. There is a difference between service and speech. When Amazon decides to not sell Confederate flags, it is because they don't want that message associated with their business. The baker isn't declining business, he is declining a message.



    You sound like a TERF. How dare you be so bigoted as to associate gender with anatomy! You may think you are being funny but given the current climate I wouldn't be shocked to see the very lawsuit you elude to here.



    You show both the solution and the problem here. The couple wanted a custom cake with a specific message and the baker wouldn't do that. You'd have a good point if he refused to sell them a generic cake, and two groom cake toppers for sale in his shop. If they brought the cake and two toppers to the register and he refused to ring them up declaring they had to put one back and grab a bride, then that case would be a clear winner.

    Likewise you talk about impacting others. Reverse the scenario because in this case it is the customer that is suing. A Muslim woman goes to a hospital and needs emergency operation. She declares that if the hospital doesn't have a female doctor on site at all times, they are discriminating against her religion and her ethnicity since she can only be touched by her husband.

    We've seen this trend happening in reverse where men are being chased out of train cars, or pools for certain hours or days as an example and for no other reason than they are men.




    Creativity is often defending as artistry. Likewise a message is speech. Can a hair salon refuse to serve homosexuals? Not when giving a haircut. However if you go to the neighborhood barbershop which specializes in shaving shapes and logos into into your head and they refuse to shave a pentagram into your head, or the gay pride symbol, I'd support their rights based free speech and free expression of religion. This would especially be true if they had a book of generic shaving they could do and your requested a custom shave of something they find offensive. There is a big difference between doing business with someone and letting them dictate all the terms of business you must operate under as a business.

    I'm reminded of the movie "Do the Right Thing" where you had Italians running a pizza shop in a majority black neighborhood. On one wall there were pictures of famous Italians. An activist demanded the wall now include famous black persons. The owner refused. He didn't refuse to sell them pizza or take their money. He refused to run his business according to the demands of specific people and the message they wanted it to spread.

    Could a contractor refuse to build a house for homosexuals? Of course not. There is nothing about a house that is inherently homosexual or heterosexual. However if they wanted him to consult on custom furniture to communicate a specific message that might be different.



    Wrong again. If you demand I take the pulled pork sandwich, which is generic and instead shape it into a giant penis and present it in that manner on your plate with "I LOVE COCK" written in BBQ sauce, then that is speech and demands the business accommodate a message rather than just offer a product.

    It's really telling that your perspective on this seems locked into some view from 50 years ago. This isn't some business with a "No Gays" sign in the window and they went and did a sit in to get a cupcake. They wanted a custom cake that celebrated and spoke to the fact that they were becoming a married same-sex couple.

    The baker argues, correctly that he is being forced to endorse speech and viewpoints with his products that he doesn't endorse.

    So to fix your faulty analogy, you have your restaurant. The black customers come in and you gladly will serve them anything on the menu. However they declare your menu is not to their satisfaction since it is "white". They demand the right to alter your menu, which needs correction due to your unconscious bias and privilege, to something that reflects black sensibilities. They come back with a revised menu that would turn your restaurant into a soul food restaurant. You refuse and they double down on the claims of racism.

    The plaintiffs in this case have demanded a specific custom product with a specific custom message.
    You make an intelligent argument.

    But I don't believe asking for a specific custom product with a specific custom message really matters here because the baker specifically told the gay couple that he did not do these types of cakes for gay weddings. This implies that he does in fact do custom cakes for heterosexual weddings. So he is denying them a service he does for others due to the couple's sexual orientation - which is against Colorado State law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    So I really don't see how the Supreme Court can realistically rule in favor of Philips here. If they were to do so it would literally render our civil rights laws as unconstitutional by saying they violate our free speech rights.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 6th December 2017 at 11:25 PM.
    Thanks from Czernobog

  2. #222
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,575
    Thanks
    3693

    Quote Originally Posted by boontito View Post
    Using this redefinition of artistry, what isn't art anymore?

    Can an auto body shop refuse to do paint jobs for Muslims?

    Can an upholsterer refuse to recover a couch because it belongs to blacks?

    Can a landscaper refuse to put in shrubbery for Mormons?

    Can a school photographer refuse to shoot pictures of homosexual students?

    Can a glass blower refuse to sell vases to handicapped customers?
    Using a new definition of commodity, how far can the complainants go to destroy a man's business?

    A wedding cake with a custom design is not a commodity, neither are T shirts or original books or sky-writing or speeches written to inspire.

    Once you get to a certain level of complexity and expense, the artist / owner who produces a custom expression has the right to refuse service.

    You can't chain them up and force them to violate their own consciences.

  3. #223
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,575
    Thanks
    3693

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    You make an intelligent argument. But I don't believe asking for a specific custom product with a specific custom message really matters here because the baker specifically told the gay couple that he did not do these types of cakes for gay weddings. This implies that he does in fact do custom cakes for heterosexual weddings.
    He also doesn't make custom cakes celebrating Halloween. Can Wiccans force him to make cakes for Halloween?

    You guys really should have learned from the Hobby Lobby case. Owners have discretion when it comes to what symbolic acts (such as an insurance offering) say and whether what is being said violates their beliefs. And we have now migrated from making sure "protected" groups can get soup to forcing business owners to do custom work on non-nutritious baked goods that violates their consciences.

    Another day, another noble frontier, I guess.

  4. #224
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    87,227
    Thanks
    62750

    From
    out of nowhere!
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Using a new definition of commodity, how far can the complainants go to destroy a man's business?

    A wedding cake with a custom design is not a commodity, neither are T shirts or original books or sky-writing or speeches written to inspire.

    Once you get to a certain level of complexity and expense, the artist / owner who produces a custom expression has the right to refuse service.

    You can't chain them up and force them to violate their own consciences.
    Nice post. Pure artistry. You should appeal to the higher ups here for it to be against forum rules for homosexuals or the handicapped to read what you write.

    Why not answer those questions if you're going to quote my post?
    Last edited by boontito; 7th December 2017 at 03:52 AM.
    Thanks from Czernobog

  5. #225
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    87,227
    Thanks
    62750

    From
    out of nowhere!
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    He also doesn't make custom cakes celebrating Halloween. Can Wiccans force him to make cakes for Halloween?
    You should learn the definition of discrimination. If he doesn't make Halloween cakes for ANYONE, why would it be discrimination to not make them for an individual group? It's not like he's making Halloween cakes for everyone but refuses to do so for Wiccans.

  6. #226
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,575
    Thanks
    3693

    Quote Originally Posted by boontito View Post
    Nice post. Pure artistry. You should appeal to the higher ups here for it to be against forum rules for homosexuals or the handicapped to read what you write.

    Why not answer those questions if you're going to quote my post?
    The courts have had to parse these kinds of abstractions many times. Intellectual property and copyright laws make it clear that any original expression which is unique can qualify for such protections. Words on a piece of paper are routinely candidates for a copyright, the first time they are "published." And although I doubt you can copyright a cake, the idea of the government protecting things that are unique is part of the law. But the idea of the artist having the right to control who buys his art is only one part of the equation. The rights of owners who produce artistic, custom or highly complex products to pick their clients is only limited if they are producing a commodity. If I make one-of-a-kind supercomputers, a customer can't demand I make one for that unique person and then sue me if I do not. You scale down from there with many tests. Is it unique? Is it complex? Does it require customized handling? Is that handling costly and labor intensive? How large a part of the owner's business is that product? Is expression endemic to the product? Can the product carry a message?

    So I take your list and start applying these criteria to see if it's OK for me to pick my clients.

    Every one of the criteria I have bolded in the previous paragraph apply to Masterpiece Wedding cakes. The owner / artist has the right to pick his clients for whatever criteria he chooses. He is not selling a commodity and the commodity laws should not apply.

  7. #227
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,740
    Thanks
    27373

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    I do not believe that is true. Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins have a little different recollection. As you can see, from this article, Mr. Mullins remembers being stunned by Mr. Phillips statement that he'd make them birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies...
    I should have been clearer ... the court records state that there was no discussion about wedding cake designs. Nothing related to personalization of the wedding cake. Yes, they were offered "other products," but not the product they wanted - which would have been offered had one of the customers been female.

  8. #228
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,965
    Thanks
    33629

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    I should have been clearer ... the court records state that there was no discussion about wedding cake designs. Nothing related to personalization of the wedding cake. Yes, they were offered "other products," but not the product they wanted - which would have been offered had one of the customers been female.
    This specifics here are important. We see here different posters characterizing the specifics of the case quite differently. It seems clear that merely baking a cake isn't speech. But decorating one (particularly when it involves putting words on the cake) would be. I'm not familiar with the particulars, but it seems me that's where the difference in dispute lies.
    Thanks from bajisima, kmiller1610 and Djinn

  9. #229
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    42,060
    Thanks
    24789

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    This specifics here are important. We see here different posters characterizing the specifics of the case quite differently. It seems clear that merely baking a cake isn't speech. But decorating one (particularly when it involves putting words on the cake) would be. I'm not familiar with the particulars, but it seems me that's where the difference in dispute lies.
    From what I have read about the justices and this case, thats exactly the point of this case. Its why Justice Kennedy brought up someone wanting a "KKK birthday cake." A cake is a cake, but whats written on it or put on it makes the difference. It will be interesting to see how this is decided.

  10. #230
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,916
    Thanks
    17392

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    You make an intelligent argument.

    But I don't believe asking for a specific custom product with a specific custom message really matters here because the baker specifically told the gay couple that he did not do these types of cakes for gay weddings. This implies that he does in fact do custom cakes for heterosexual weddings. So he is denying them a service he does for others due to the couple's sexual orientation - which is against Colorado State law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    So I really don't see how the Supreme Court can realistically rule in favor of Philips here. If they were to do so it would literally render our civil rights laws as unconstitutional by saying they violate our free speech rights.
    Thank you. This is what I have been trying to say. The people making trumptman's argument keep trying to suggest that a wedding cake sends some specific message, merely by virtue of who ordered the cake. They don't need to ask for anything special be done, all they need to do is ask for a "wedding" cake, and, magically, since it is a gay couple asking for the cake, it turns an otherwise generic wedding cake into a "dick cake". That means the focus of the request isn't the cake, at all, but the obsession that the supporters of the baker have over who is ordering the cake.

Page 23 of 52 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Case of gay couple’s wedding cake heads to Supreme Court
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1495
    Last Post: 24th August 2017, 01:55 PM
  2. Now THAT is a wedding cake...
    By The Man in forum World Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 23rd August 2017, 06:20 AM
  3. Gay Wedding Cake Case Heads To Supreme Court
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 320
    Last Post: 6th August 2016, 08:14 AM
  4. KKK Wedding Cake
    By aboutenough in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 327
    Last Post: 8th April 2015, 08:09 PM
  5. Replies: 494
    Last Post: 17th February 2015, 04:48 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed