Transcript of Oral Argument Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Division

[Hank77]

Which laws are you referring to?

Title II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Comparing homosexuals to blacks is not only a bad
comparison, but it's insulting to blacks. They do not
choose their race.

But the people who discriminate against them do choose to be Christian.

On another note, do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual? I don't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, now it's completely different. Back-peddling?

Perhaps you should look up that term before you erroneously use it again.

Very much less. Just as having a widespread outbreak of the flu, and then having it reduce to only a few cases in isolated areas makes it much less of a problem and easier to deal with.

So what makes the flu that's only a few cases in isolated areas different from the flu that's in the wide spread outbreak?

Interesting fact: The flu is still the flu, no matter how many or how few people have it.

Do you miss the "good ole days"?

Just getting ready for the inevitable move there. If you're going to end up living in the past, you had best speak the language.

I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.

Unless it was a distraction -- which at this point, you really could use, seeing as how your argument's tanking.

Besides, you wouldn't want to be politically incorrect, would you?

What do I care about political correctness? And more importantly, how long have you pretended to care about political correctness?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Close. Both were created by God.

Who?

 

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps you should look up that term before you erroneously use it again.

Quit backpeddling and stick to the topic.

So what makes the flu that's only a few cases in isolated areas different from the flu that's in the wide spread outbreak?

Interesting fact: The flu is still the flu, no matter how many or how few people have it.

And yet the fewer people who have it, the less it affects society. That's what we're talking about here.

Just getting ready for the inevitable move there. If you're going to end up living in the past, you had best speak the language.

Does that mean you're going to start using the actual N word in addition to calling them coloreds? If you want to be so politically incorrect, it would be a way of "coming out of the closet".

What do I care about political correctness? And more importantly, how long have you pretended to care about political correctness?

I haven't started yet.

 

[Aldebaran]

But the people who discriminate against them do choose to be Christian.

On another note, do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual? I don't.

Yet the homosexual's choice to get "married" to one another is a choice. So is buying a "wedding" cake. So is suing the bakery's owner when they didn't get exactly what they wanted. Lots of choices that are being overlooked. But you want to focus on the idea of people choosing to be a Christian. Interesting.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Quit backpeddling and stick to the topic.

Get it right and I'll stick to it.

And yet the fewer people who have it, the less it affects society. That's what we're talking about here.

It would stand to reason that the prudent thing to do would be to deal with those few isolated incidents before they become an epidemic... or is that too sensible for your liking?

Does that mean you're going to start using the actual N word in addition to calling them coloreds? If you want to be so politically incorrect, it would be a way of "coming out of the closet".

Neither the Christians nor the Political Right have brought that one back into vogue yet... I'll wait.

I haven't started yet.

Looks like a decent enough imitation of caring from here.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yet the homosexual's choice to get "married" to one another is a choice. So is buying a "wedding" cake. So is suing the bakery's owner when they didn't get exactly what they wanted

So were the "colored's" decision to sit down at that particular diner... or to marry that white person, knowing full well the law wasn't on their side in either case.

"That sounds interesting, but I'm absolutely certain that it would be considered an abomination by the kind of people who use words like abomination with a straight face... we should definitely try it." -- J. Warren Welch

 

[Aldebaran]

Get it right and I'll stick to it.

Now you're just strawmanning. Don't be a strawman!

It would stand to reason that the prudent thing to do would be to deal with those few isolated incidents before they become an epidemic... or is that too sensible for your liking?

Hopefully while not pretending it's an epidemic even though it's just a few isolated cases.

Neither the Christians nor the Political Right have brought that one back into vogue yet... I'll wait.

Yet you're the one who's getting the ball rolling by calling black people "coloreds". If you weren't willing to wait to do that, why wait to call them anything else you used to pretend not to like hearing them called? Why not just come out? The truth will set you free!

Looks like a decent enough imitation of caring from here.

I can't change your perceptions. Not that it's my job.

 

[Aldebaran]

So were the "colored's" decision to sit down at that particular diner... or to marry that white person, knowing full well the law wasn't on their side in either case.

As are the decisions of people from some other countries who decide to evade the border patrol to sneak across the border and get a fake ID to live here.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hopefully while not pretending it's an epidemic even though it's just a few isolated cases.

Nobody is pretending its an epidemic. Once its dealt with, it won't ever become an epidemic.

Yet you're the one who's getting the ball rolling by calling black people "coloreds".

Who said I got the ball rolling?

And why are you still pretending to care?

 

[TLK Valentine]

As are the decisions of people from some other countries who decide to evade the border patrol to sneak across the border and get a fake ID to live here.

Stay on topic, Alde....cry about illegals in a thread about illegals.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why should he think that he would be required to create a cake to celebrate something that was not legal in his state?

Good question but totally irrelevant to this thread until you can identify what law was being broken.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, read your post. That is what I was responding to and objecting to.

This is a very specific law and you are saying that when he opened his business in the early nineties he should have known that it might happen and not have gone into this business?

No.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't know if the person who rents an apartment can be different from the people who actually live there, but the person who goes into the baker's store to order a wedding cake does not have to be the one who is getting married.

That's nice. Be sure to bring it up when that's part of the facts of a case in front of the USSC.

Meanwhile, in this case, people are trying to draw a distinction between the identity of the customer and an activity solely determined by that identity. As such, I think my example is a good one - a black renter isn't being turned away because they're black but simply because the landlord's religion prohibits him from condoning the act of living in a black household.

The baker doesn't need to know the orientation of the customer buying them, he only needs to know what kind of wedding the wedding cake will be for.

The wedding cake is for the reception. And since he's not invited, there's no need for him to worry about the details of the wedding. Just make a cake like he'd do for any customer.

 

[KCfromNC]

So is suing the bakery's owner when they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

Did this actually happen?

But you want to focus on the idea of people choosing to be a Christian. Interesting.

Yeah, pretending civil rights laws don't apply to things people choose to do is going to have lots of nasty unintended consequences. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Meanwhile, in this case, people are trying to draw a distinction between the identity of the customer and an activity solely determined by that identity.

The activity of the customer is only solely determined by that identity because the customer identifies themselves as that activity. So if a person identifies themselves as stealing, he can always argue that whoever disagrees with stealing is discriminating against them because of their identity.

As such, I think my example is a good one - a black renter isn't being turned away because they're black but simply because the landlord's religion prohibits him from condoning the act of living in a black household.

Homosexual act is a behavior while skin color is not, so it is not a valid comparison. People cannot choose what skin color they have, but they can choose whether or not they participate in homosexual sex or get married.

The wedding cake is for the reception. And since he's not invited, there's no need for him to worry about the details of the wedding. Just make a cake like he'd do for any customer.

What he'd do for any customer is to design a custom-made wedding cake tailor-made for the couple. That's when free speech comes to the picture.

 

[Hank77]

What he'd do for any customer is to design a custom-made wedding cake tailor-made for the couple. That's when free speech comes to the picture.

That's it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't get how this is a free speech issue when it more a free exercise of religion. This has set the case up for failure since whether or not this an exercise of Constitionally protected speech isn't a real question. The genie is out of the bottle, gay rights activists should be carefully what they ask for. This trend in Constitional law is dangerous and ripe for abuse. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts finding this will ruin this bakers life, the Colorado law reads like a criminal indictment. Religion is supposed to be protected from government, I personally think this is an assault on moral and religious convictions.

 

[KCfromNC]

Homosexual act is a behavior while skin color is not, so it is not a valid comparison.

But living in a black household is, which is why I brought it up as an example of an act which is based entirely on the identity of the person performing the act. Kinda like the identity of the couple is the only think which determines which type of marriage is taking place. Weird you'd have to ignore that and talk about something else.

People cannot choose what skin color they have, but they can choose whether or not they participate in homosexual sex or get married.

How does a homosexual couple choose to have a straight wedding?

What he'd do for any customer is to design a custom-made wedding cake tailor-made for the couple.

If he'd do that for any customer he wouldn't be in the legal trouble he is now.