Colorado baker fined for refusing to bake cake for transgender woman

[Desk trauma]

Irrelevant. Some GOP are perverts, but all homosexualists are perverts. Discriminating against perverts is morally justified.

...but not legal in public accommodation business operating in the state of Colorado.

 

[Yttrium]

Being a poor black woman of colour I suppose she doesn't have much of a choice. Yet you're avoiding the issue. Prostitution is legal here in New Zealand and I wouldn't be surprised if there was discrimination against certain potential clients.

If the principle being offered by liberals is that it is immoral to refuse to participate in a service because of a particular objection to a person's race, creed or sexuality, surely this woman, if she wants to continue being a prostitute, ought service everyone? Right? Her particular concern for safety is not reason enough to discriminate against all black men, even if she has found herself hurt mostly by black men. One could also suggest that women sex workers should service trans and lesbians, even if they are personally cis.

I'm not a liberal, and I'm not familiar with the laws in New Zealand.

There's another example I thought of though. I remember there being a inappropriate content star some years back who refused to do scenes with black men. She was excoriated for this and I think she committed suicide. This was an example of intolerable discrimination as well right?

Is inappropriate content legal in New Zealand too? As far as the US is concerned, I'll just point to my prostitution example. Same difference.

Seems broadly the same concern for me when it comes to Jack Phillips. He should not be at liberty to imbue his business and work with a Christian ethos. He must produce things he disagrees with or close up shop.

False dichotomy.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm not a liberal, and I'm not familiar with the laws in New Zealand.



Is inappropriate content legal in New Zealand too? As far as the US is concerned, I'll just point to my prostitution example. Same difference.



False dichotomy.

How's it a false dichotomy? Also, take in mind we're not speaking about the purely legal here but the ethical and moral dimension of the liberal standard against discrimination. Why is it right for one to discriminate and wrong for the other to not? Because I think you would agree that sex workers should be able to discriminate against who they want to work with.

 

[Yttrium]

How's it a false dichotomy? Also, take in mind we're not speaking about the purely legal here but the ethical and moral dimension of the liberal standard against discrimination. Why is it right for one to discriminate and wrong for the other to not? Because I think you would agree that sex workers should be able to discriminate against who they want to work with.

It's a false dichotomy because the baker has other choices. He could just stop making specialized cakes for events that give him problems. It's a bakery. The bakery makes a variety of cakes and other pastries.

I'm not going to argue on behalf of liberals, since I'm not a liberal.

 

[Paulos23]

I'm on the fence about this.

Sometimes I think you should be able to refuse anyone so long as you post a prominent list of what sort of people you reject on the door.

I use to think about that, then I remembered that use to happen and it was horable.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's a false dichotomy because the baker has other choices. He could just stop making specialized cakes for events that give him problems. It's a bakery. The bakery makes a variety of cakes and other pastries.

I'm not going to argue on behalf of liberals, since I'm not a liberal.

The sex worker needs to work with a variety of people some of whom do not meet their standards of attractivity. She could decide to just stop doing sex scenes and skip out on that job altogether but she is deliberately alienating certain demographics by refusing to sleep with them on camera.

The baker being in a similar situation must if he is requested not only provide a cake in favour of trans ideology, he must provide halloween cakes and satanic themed cakes as well.

Btw, you are arguing on behalf of liberals.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Btw, you are arguing on behalf of liberals.

Argumentum ad labellum. It's a thing.

 

[hedrick]

Not gonna work out for the baker this time around. Equal protection means if he makes birthday cakes for non-trans, he has to make birthday cakes for trans. Supreme Court stamped and approved already. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission isn't going to make the same dumb mistake it did last time. I sympathize with the baker wanting to stick to his religious principles, but he's going to have to adapt to the law.

I think he has a stronger case this time. The design of the cake is pretty clearly symbolic. I think the current Supreme Court, and maybe every Supreme Court would see that as symbolic speech. The last time they never got to discussing the design of the cake.

 

[Tanj]

He must be an awesome cake maker.

 

[Rajni]

Suppose you were refused service because you're single. The business required you to be married before you could buy there, Would you still say that it's up to him/her whom they do business with?

Speaking for myself, I'd say yes.
Besides, how hard would it be for me to find another business that makes cakes?
Better yet, I could just make my own dang cake.
Problem solved.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think he has a stronger case this time. The design of the cake is pretty clearly symbolic. I think the current Supreme Court, and maybe every Supreme Court would see that as symbolic speech. The last time they never got to discussing the design of the cake.

Not really. Apparently should order the cake straight (*cough*) off the menu. Christian Baker Who Wouldn’t Make Birthday Cake for Trans Woman Loses Court Case

The order was refused solely because of who she was.

 

[Yttrium]

The baker being in a similar situation must if he is requested not only provide a cake in favour of trans ideology, he must provide halloween cakes and satanic themed cakes as well.

If he doesn't want to make a Halloween or Satanic-themed cake, then the customer is going to have to demonstrate that those things are part of his religion. In court. Good luck with that. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a stretch.

Btw, you are arguing on behalf of liberals.

No, I'm arguing on behalf of the law. If the law didn't give equal protection to homosexuals and transgenders, I would be saying that the baker has the right to refuse to make specialized cakes for them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If he doesn't want to make a Halloween or Satanic-themed cake, then the customer is going to have to demonstrate that those things are part of his religion. In court. Good luck with that. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a stretch.

Seems odd to me that he should be forced to bake certain cakes and be allowed to not bake certain cakes.

No, I'm arguing on behalf of the law. If the law didn't give equal protection to homosexuals and transgenders, I would be saying that the baker has the right to refuse to make specialized cakes for them.

I said that I'm considered this from a moral perspective more than a legal one. Though I suspect you're wrong. Perhaps that's why you're speaking past me. Well, here's hoping you're wrong legally speaking when this one gets to the supreme court.

 

[Crwth]

So I'm thinking if it were social media instead of real life, couldn't that person be guilty of goading - going to a baker whom they KNOW will refuse to bake them a cake for being homosexual?

You gotta wonder about that individual's true motivation.

 

[hedrick]

Not really. Apparently should order the cake straight (*cough*) off the menu. Christian Baker Who Wouldn’t Make Birthday Cake for Trans Woman Loses Court Case

The order was refused solely because of who she was.

Yes, if it's a standard design, then I think he's sunk.

 

[Yttrium]

I said that I'm considered this from a moral perspective more than a legal one. Though I suspect you're wrong. Perhaps that's why you're speaking past me. Well, here's hoping you're wrong legally speaking when this one gets to the supreme court.

Well, it all comes down to the Civil Rights act of 1964. Among other things, it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by service industries. In 2020, the Supreme Court decided that "sex" includes homosexual or transgender, in three separate cases:
Bostock v. Clayton County - Wikipedia
Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda - Wikipedia
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia

In the previous case with the baker, he refused to make a specialized wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Homosexual weddings weren't legal in Colorado at the time, so the baker had a possible case, and this was before the 2020 rulings. The Supreme Court didn't decide on the merits of the case; they threw out the case because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had been openly hostile to the baker's religious views.

Now, the Supreme Court could conceivably throw out the precedent of the 2020 cases, but that's extremely unlikely. This court is rather fond of precedent, overall.

 

[Lost4words]

Suppose you were refused service because you're single. The business required you to be married before you could buy there, Would you still say that it's up to him/her whom they do business with?

Yes

 

[Lost4words]

Not quite.

For example, we have pretty strong anti racial discrimination laws for retail oriented businesses.

But no dogs allowed is ok. Sorry!

Like i said, world gone bonkers.

In more ways than one my friend.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well, it all comes down to the Civil Rights act of 1964. Among other things, it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by service industries. In 2020, the Supreme Court decided that "sex" includes homosexual or transgender, in three separate cases:
Bostock v. Clayton County - Wikipedia
Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda - Wikipedia
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia

In the previous case with the baker, he refused to make a specialized wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Homosexual weddings weren't legal in Colorado at the time, so the baker had a possible case, and this was before the 2020 rulings. The Supreme Court didn't decide on the merits of the case; they threw out the case because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had been openly hostile to the baker's religious views.

Now, the Supreme Court could conceivably throw out the precedent of the 2020 cases, but that's extremely unlikely. This court is rather fond of precedent, overall.

I'll trust that you're wrong.

 

[super animator]

About 4 years ago, a baker refused to bake for a gay wedding because it violated his religious beliefs. SCOTUS eventually ruled in his favor. It was a big deal around here when it happened.

So, yeah... same guy.

They ruled that the lower courts screw up and requested that they redo the case with the consideration of the defendant belief. They did not make any ruling regarding the case itself. I don't know what the outcome of the redo case itself.