The UK Supreme Court Backs Christian Baker over Gay Cake

Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#11
The Colorado issue regarded not making a cake for a gay wedding, as they were offered any cake without a message regarding gay marriage because it violated their Christian beliefs.
I welcome you to provide evidence for your claim...
"Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement.​


The gay couple wanted a cake made with a message. The baker refused. That was one of the questions before the Supreme Court. Same scenario as the U.K.
“I serve everybody. It’s just that I don’t create cakes for every occasion,” Jack Phillips told NBC’s Today show Tuesday – one day after he prevailed at the Supreme Court.​
....​
In this case, he said he offered to make Mullins and Craig other desserts for their wedding, but refused design a wedding cake due to his religious beliefs.​
“A wedding is an inherently religious event, and the cake is definitely a specific message,” Phillips said.​
Another quote demonstrating the important factor was the gay marriage cake.
I acknowledge the baker would be happy to sell gays a birthday cake, but the law puts forth that there can be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Selling a wedding cake to a straight couple but refusing to do so for a gay couple is a violation of the law, as written.
Do you deny this?


Neither me or the baker mentioned text. The gay coupled mentioned an artistic message, which is equal to text under the Constitution.
The UK case specified text.
And I welcome you to document the founding father's explicit statements which put forth that "artistic message" is "equal to text".


The argument was not that the baker would not sell a gay wedding cake and that is no where in the ruling.
Of course it's not in the ruling. Why would they need to put that in the ruling when they explicitly acknowledge the validity of the law which forbids such actions.
They ruled for the baker on the prejudice angle. Which was not present in the UK case.

It's funny how the UK case specified text, which was absent in the U.S. case.
The US case specified prejudice, which was absent in the UK case.
But you want to talk about how these arguments are supposedly the same???
 
Likes: RNG
Jun 2012
40,723
14,822
Barsoom
#14
Masterpeiece:

In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.

To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.

He first asserted that applying CADA in a way that would require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his First Amendment right to free speech by com- pelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed.

Accordingly, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes
is expressive. The use of his artistic talents to create a well-recognized symbol that celebrates the beginning of a marriage clearly communicates a message—certainly more so than nude dancing, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 565–566 (1991), or flying a plain red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931).​
 
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#16
Masterpeiece:

In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.​
To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.​
He first asserted that applying CADA in a way that would require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his First Amendment right to free speech by com- pelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed.​
Accordingly, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes​
is expressive. The use of his artistic talents to create a well-recognized symbol that celebrates the beginning of a marriage clearly communicates a message—certainly more so than nude dancing, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 565–566 (1991), or flying a plain red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931).​
Sometimes I see responses which:
  1. Don't actually reply to the previous post which motivated the reply. It's just a post with no context provided.
  2. Don't actually provide any comment from the poster regarding why he felt the post was important in the first place. There is no contextual message provided by the person hitting "Post" to establish what he thinks he is showing with the post.
Here, you have done both of these.

I read the statements above and I am familiar with the context. The Baker tried a boring semantical runaround the law by pretending their actions should be protected first amendment art creation.
But the real problem is at the end of the day, that argument is primarily a trick of the light. A sleazy argument which could be applied to virtually any food service situation, which if allowed to set precedent would essentially devolve "blacks are not served here" as a constitutionally defendable restaurant sign.
It is an attempt to get around acknowledging that the baker in question truly wants to discriminate against gays by refusing to sell them a cake / service that he is willing to sell to straights.

What your lack of personal thought fails to address is this:
a) The UK case involved a cake the bakers would never sell to anybody. Period.
b) The US Colorado case involved a cake the baker acknowledged he was explicitly forbidding to gay couples.

This is the legal aspect that is important here.
And if the gay couple in the US Colorado case had requested a cake the baker would not have sold to anybody, then the US baker could likely have won on that point.
But in reality, the court rejected the arguments you quote above.
 
Jun 2018
540
176
Toronto
#17
Why the hell would you want a cake from someone who obviously hates your guts.
The only sane reason is to make noise in order for people to feel sympathy.
I don't. If someone tells you to fuck off, you do just that. I can only imagine what shite he will stuff into that cake

:)
 
Likes: Sabcat
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#18
Why the hell would you want a cake from someone who obviously hates your guts.
The only sane reason is to make noise in order for people to feel sympathy.
I don't. If someone tells you to fuck off, you do just that. I can only imagine what shite he will stuff into that cake.
Ahh. If only somebody had spoken those words to MLK Jr then maybe all that Civil Rights fuss could have been avoided...
#sarcasm

And before somebody starts whining about comparing gays to blacks (to avoid the point), also consider that Christians wrote in protections for themselves against business discrimination in the Civil Rights Act.

Furthermore, the falseness of your assessment can easily be recognized by looking at any of the areas that white, Christian, Republican men feel they are discriminated against these days.
For example, if Google is perceived to not treat them fairly, suddenly there are Congressional / White House calls for investigation.
Facebook is accused of suppressing conservative views with no real evidence? Repubs make a lot of "noise in order for people to feel sympathy".
And these are made up allegations. The baker involved here openly admits he won't sell gays a wedding cake.
 
Jun 2018
540
176
Toronto
#19
Ahh. If only somebody had spoken those words to MLK Jr then maybe all that Civil Rights fuss could have been avoided...
#sarcasm
Look, if you don't like someone, you take your business elsewhere. You punish them with your wallet, maybe you burn down their bakery if you are a modern american leftist. But you don't go to the supreme court in order to force him to take your money.

That's insane.
 
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#20
Look, if you don't like someone, you take your business elsewhere. You punish them with your wallet, maybe you burn down their bakery if you are a modern american leftist. But you don't go to the supreme court in order to force him to take your money.
That's insane.
You only quoted part of my statements...

Do you understand that all this revolves around Civil Rights legislation which was created in response to Jim Crow type tactics?

While I understand your personal opinion, it's not one that is shared by an overwhelming majority. The majority support Civil Rights legislation which tells businesses they cannot discriminate based on race, religion, gender, national origin, etc. The majority support adding sexual orientation to that list.