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

[Hank77]

Nevertheless, it does show a stunning level of ignorance to think that nothing would ever change.

No one said that 'nothing' would ever change.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No one said that 'nothing' would ever change.

I should hope not -- because any business model that doesn't account for change is doomed to failure.

 

[loveofourlord]

His remark during oral argument that
the religious belief of baker could be accommodated here since the gay couple could have, and did, receive a cake elsewhere, I think illuminated a possible resolution of the case for Kennedy.

except often thats not possible, and not a fan of treating religious as having special rights to ignore laws.

 

[TLK Valentine]

His remark during oral argument that
the religious belief of baker could be accommodated here since the gay couple could have, and did, receive a cake elsewhere, I think illuminated a possible resolution of the case for Kennedy.

I know I get accused of "playing the race card" whenever Civil Rights are discussed, but I'm really not seeing the difference between this argument and telling the coloreds 60 years ago that they can always eat elsewhere, see a movie elsewhere, get a hotel room elsewhere, etc.... elsewhere.

 

[TLK Valentine]

except often thats not possible, and not a fan of treating religious as having special rights to ignore laws.

But we're not ignoring laws -- by offering special exemptions for religious people, we're enacting Saint James Crow Laws.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

It isn't about the race of the customer renting the apartment (a minority), but what the apartment will be used for (minorities living together).

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.

If I gave you pictures of 10 cakes, could you identify which were for same sex weddings and which were not without knowing the orientation of the customer buying them?

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.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Or maybe they aren't. Seems hard to get a consistent story here. That's one hint that the defenses for this baker's discrimination against minorities are more likely just rationalizations for something else.

All I can say is there are different kinds of Christians, as are different kinds of homosexuals.

Then it is kind of irrelevant for him to claim he'd sell any of the cakes he doesn't make to the minorities he's discriminating against. Seems a bit dishonest, actually.

But that just shows that he is not discriminating against the customer because of their identity, but rather, what the cake is for.

 

[Aldebaran]

I know I get accused of "playing the race card" whenever Civil Rights are discussed, but I'm really not seeing the difference between this argument and telling the coloreds 60 years ago that they can always eat elsewhere, see a movie elsewhere, get a hotel room elsewhere, etc.... elsewhere.

First of all, not all bakeries are owned by Christians, and not all Christian-owned bakeries sell wedding cakes, and not all the ones that do are going to object to selling one for a homosexual "wedding". We're talking about a small number here, so if a person wanted something that a particular baker didn't want to provide, it would not be a big deal for them to go down the street to the next bakery. Most likely, that one would provide them with their cake.

The difference between this and what you made reference to from 60 years ago is that back then, the majority of businesses were owned by white people, and a large number of them in the south didn't want to serve black people, so it became a widespread problem. That's not the case here. Plus, a wedding cake is something people only usually buy once in their lifetime. Maybe 2 or 3. Going to a movie, out to lunch, etc. are things people do every day or at least every week. Therefore, that would have much larger impact on a person's life.

 

[pat34lee]

No, they were wanting a cake to celebrate something that state of Colorado did not recognize. They weren't going to be thrown in jail or fined for going to California to get married, just that Colorado didn't recognize them as a married couple.

If Colorado didn't recognize them as married,
why should the baker? He wasn't in business
to sell fake marriage cakes.

 

[pat34lee]

Well, considering that the business serves the customer, I'd say that question is asked and answered.

Not quite. A business has something the customer wants
and is willing to pay for. A sale must be mutually agreeable.
Nobody is forced to buy and nobody is forced to sell. The
only exception is government coercion, like insurance.

 

[pat34lee]

Agree. Laws change and they can change quite often.

Principles don't change, and marriage was not created by law.

 

[Hank77]

I know I get accused of "playing the race card" whenever Civil Rights are discussed, but I'm really not seeing the difference between this argument and telling the coloreds 60 years ago that they can always eat elsewhere, see a movie elsewhere, get a hotel room elsewhere, etc.... elsewhere.

What businesses did those laws effect and why?

 

[TLK Valentine]

First of all, not all bakeries are owned by Christians, and not all Christian-owned bakeries sell wedding cakes, and not all the ones that do are going to object to selling one for a homosexual "wedding".

Not all of them objected to serving coloreds 60 years ago.

We're talking about a small number here, so if a person wanted something that a particular baker didn't want to provide, it would not be a big deal for them to go down the street to the next bakery. Most likely, that one would provide them with their cake.

Just like it was for the coloreds 60 years ago.

The difference between this and what you made reference to from 60 years ago is that back then, the majority of businesses were owned by white people, and a large number of them in the south didn't want to serve black people, so it became a widespread problem. That's not the case here.

Ah, so it's not the same thing because it's the same thing, just not as widespread, and that makes it different.

Plus, a wedding cake is something people only usually buy once in their lifetime. Maybe 2 or 3. Going to a movie, out to lunch, etc. are things people do every day or at least every week. Therefore, that would have much larger impact on a person's life.

Ah, so it's not the same thing because it's the same thing, just not as often, and that makes it different.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Principles don't change, and marriage was not created by law.

Was it created by principle?

 

[Aldebaran]

Not all of them objected to serving coloreds 60 years ago.

Never said they did.

Just like it was for the coloreds 60 years ago.

Except for what I said afterwards, but in far, far fewer numbers.

Ah, so it's not the same thing because it's the same thing, just not as widespread, and that makes it different.

Correct.

Ah, so it's not the same thing because it's the same thing, just not as often, and that makes it different.

I think you're finally catching on. If it's not the same, it's different.
BTW, why have you been referring to black people as "coloreds" lately? I thought that was supposed to be offensive to them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What businesses did those laws effect and why?

Which laws are you referring to?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Never said they did.

An interesting similarity.

Except for what I said afterwards, but in far, far fewer numbers.

Like I said, it's the same thing, but fewer, therefore completely different.

Correct.
I think you're finally catching on. If it's not the same, it's different.

And it's not the same because there's less of it, correct?

BTW, why have you been referring to black people as "coloreds" lately?

Nostalgia.

I thought that was supposed to be offensive to them

Would you care if it was?

 

[Aldebaran]

Like I said, it's the same thing, but fewer, therefore completely different.

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

And it's not the same because there's less of it, correct?

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.

Nostalgia.

Do you miss the "good ole days"?

Would you care if it was?

I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. Besides, you wouldn't want to be politically incorrect, would you?

 

[pat34lee]

Was it created by principle?

Close. Both were created by God.

 

[pat34lee]

Not all of them objected to serving coloreds 60 years ago.

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