Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop Refuses to Bake a Birthday Cake for Transgendered Person

[Ana the Ist]

In some states, it's protected at the state level. At the federal level, it's not a law, but there may be some administrative regulations that have a similar effect.

Right...and if push comes to shove, my guess is this administration backs down at the federal level or else the SCOTUS might strike it down.

As for states creating protected classes whole cloth....what exactly is the ruling on that? Wouldn't it defy equal treatment under the law?

 

[SilverBear]

Thought experiment. Let’s say you have a rifle for sale. Someone calls you and asks if it’s good for target shooting. Of course, you say. It’s what you use it for.

Then he comes to buy it and says the targets he likes to shoot is pictures of little black girls. Do you still sell him the rifle?

a private sale is not a public business

 

[SilverBear]

I sure wouldn’t because it’s sick to knowingly support such evil.

and if the target of the gun buyer was not litle black girls but transexuals?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Right...and if push comes to shove, my guess is this administration backs down at the federal level or else the SCOTUS might strike it down.

As for states creating protected classes whole cloth....what exactly is the ruling on that? Wouldn't it defy equal treatment under the law?

It doesn't strike me as much of a leap to go from protecting gender as a class to protecting gender identity as a class. While I don't particularly care for predicting what various politicians or courts will or won't do, I wouldn't be surprised if the Biden administration pushed the issue in court (assuming it even comes up - I'm not familiar with what's cooking on this front). As far as the court goes, I wouldn't expect Thomas or Alito to vote in favor of trans rights, nor would I expect the libs to vote against them, but I wouldn't be surprised by much of anything from the rest.

 

[SilverBear]

That's the crux of this particular case. The person was attempting to purchase essentially an off-the-shelf article. This is distinct from the earlier case in that there was no implication of "forced speech" -- i.e., forced artistic expression--involved.

This would be like the difference between a wedding photographer and a passport photographer in being required to service a homosexual couple. I personally could consider it "forced speech" -- I.e. forced artistic expression--in the case of the wedding photographer, but not in the case of the passport photographer.

would it be forced speech or forced artistic expression if the couple were African American?

 

[SilverBear]

Well by telling the baker the meaning, the ambiguous decoration is no longer ambiguous. Meaning was established.

I agree with the assessment prior to telling the baker the meaning....he wouldn't have objected. One doesn't reasonably infer meaning from the decoration alone.


Once the meaning was explicitly stated
....it's not something that one needs to infer.

still doesn't make discrimination OK

 

[Hammster]

Correct, they can't employ children or warm frozen burger patties in their armpits or discriminate against certain classes of people. There's all sorts of things We The People have decided they can't do.

Some are good. Health and well-being of children is important. The other two things are up for debate.

 

[Hammster]

If the moon were made of green cheese would the space rats be fat?

That’s one way to avoid the question.

 

[SilverBear]

Is transgender a legally protected class?

As far as I know, Joe just changed the wording on the enforcement. No law was passed was it?

I'm sure you will be disappointed to find out that yes they are a protected class under title VII

 

[Hammster]

I would not own a rifle or sell one to a stranger. Your hypotheticals are bad.

Jack Phillips, on the other hand, actually does make birthday cakes, pink cakes and blue icing.

Apparently you don’t understand what a thought experiment is.

 

[Hammster]

Well that is not entirely true, you refused to support the bar owner that sees fit to sell alcohol to minors.


Again why do you support discriminatoin?

I don’t support discrimination. If there was a restaurant in town that didn’t serve blacks, I wouldn’t frequent that establishment. And hopefully enough other people would do the same, and the business would close.

 

[Ana the Ist]

if you own a business that is open to the public then it has to be open to all of the public even people you don't happen to like

Not true.

We just watched 4 years if Trump supporters getting denied service and kicked out of restaurants.

 

[Hammster]

and if the target of the gun buyer was not litle black girls but transexuals?

Still no. But it looks like some are okay with it.

 

[SilverBear]

Not true.

We just watched 4 years if Trump supporters getting denied service and kicked out of restaurants.

any legitimate refernces to back this up?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It doesn't strike me as much of a leap to go from protecting gender as a class to protecting gender identity as a class.

As far as I can tell....discrimination against sex was prohibited, from there it added "gender identity" and "sexual orientation". The latter term is pretty clear even if certain claims about it aren't.

But nobody here can actually explain what gender identity means in a way that creates a distinct category one can discriminate against.

While I don't particularly care for predicting what various politicians or courts will or won't do, I wouldn't be surprised if the Biden administration pushed the issue in court (assuming it even comes up - I'm not familiar with what's cooking on this front).

I would be surprised....remember those white farmers they denied the loans to? They dropped that rather quietly and conceded the case to the farmers. They knew it was racial discrimination....and they didn't want a ruling on the books to prevent future attempts to institute racial discrimination.

It's going to be a very similar thing here....if they get to the point where a lawyer has to analyze the meaning of "gender identity" in front of a judge....it's over. They won't enforce it.

As far as the court goes, I wouldn't expect Thomas or Alito to vote in favor of trans rights, nor would I expect the libs to vote against them, but I wouldn't be surprised by much of anything from the rest.

I don't think it would make it to the SCOTUS. Just imagine trying to define gender identity to the court in a way that creates a distinct category that has the same immutable characteristics of other protected classes.

The current advocates insist that it means literally anything anyone wants it to. That's not even a category, let alone a distinct one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

any legitimate refernces to back this up?

Is this a joke?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm sure you will be disappointed to find out that yes they are a protected class under title VII

Oh that's interesting....so according to the SCOTUS, gender and sex are directly tied together.

Do you think that lawyers would now be able to successfully argue otherwise?

 

[Pommer]

Well by telling the baker the meaning, the ambiguous decoration is no longer ambiguous. Meaning was established.

I agree with the assessment prior to telling the baker the meaning....he wouldn't have objected. One doesn't reasonably infer meaning from the decoration alone.


Once the meaning was explicitly stated
....it's not something that one needs to infer.

The “meaning” of a cake is that it is delicious and good to eat. Sometimes it’s even “pretty”.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The “meaning” of a cake is that it is delicious and good to eat. Sometimes it’s even “pretty”.

Normally....but when the client divulged the meaning of the decorations, I think they blew the case.

 

[Pommer]

Normally....but when the client divulged the meaning of the decorations, I think they blew the case.

The “meaning of the decorations” doesn’t enter into it.
That’ll be the basis of the ruling.