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

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sounds like only certain services are available to certain people...
Pretty sure the argument is that gay people who choose not to get married can not buy any cake they like to not celebrate the wedding they're choosing not to have so there's no discrimination going on. And if they do decide to get married and Christians kick them out of their store, it is their own fault for making that choice - just like straight people, except for the part about being refused service because of their orientation. But you know, other than that, gay people aren't being singled out because of their orientation.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Pretty sure the argument is that gay people who choose not to get married can not buy any cake they like to not celebrate the wedding they're choosing not to have so there's no discrimination going on. And if they do decide to get married and Christians kick them out of their store, it is their own fault for making that choice - just like straight people, except for the part about being refused service because of their orientation. But you know, other than that, gay people aren't being singled out because of their orientation.

Oh, most definitely -- it's got nothing to do with their being gay, except for the part where they're gay...
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh, most definitely -- it's got nothing to do with their being gay, except for the part where they're gay...
Hmm, maybe it isn't that all orientations aren't treated equally. Maybe straight people are just treated more equally than gay people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Oh, most definitely -- it's got nothing to do with their being gay, except for the part where they're gay...

And wanting a baker to help celebrate that fact.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
At least we agree it's about identity. :oldthumbsup:

And wanting a baker to help celebrate the fact that they're gay, whether their gayness is what identifies them or not.
 
Upvote 0

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure it is - at least as much as making a cake. Think of all the decorating choices a landlord must make - kinda like a baker does with a cake. And apartments are bigger, so it is even more of a free expression issue.
But we are comparing renting out an existing apartment to creating a custom-made wedding cake. The action of renting out is not an artistic expression. If we are talking about designing a new apartment then it is a different story.

The only difference between a same sex wedding cake and an opposite sex one is the orientation of the customer using it for their celebration afterwards.
The only difference is, a same-sex wedding cake celebrates a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex, while an opposite-sex wedding cake celebrates a sexual relationship between two people of the opposite sex. The former violates his conscience while the latter doesn't.

Again, I'm not seeing where the law says it is acceptable to discriminate if business owners only do it some times instead of all the time. Care to quote that part for me?
It is not about how often, but about consistency. He only discriminates based on the event and the message the cake conveys, not based on who the customer is that enters his store.

His continued attempts to avoid punishment for breaking the law say otherwise.
Don't you think it is too early to conclude that he has broken the law when the Supreme Court hasn't even made their ruling yet? He has already been punished by the state government to choose between violating his conscience repeatedly or losing his occupation permanently. If he prevails in the Supreme Court case, those punishments would have been unjust.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By that metric, any type of food preparation is an artistic expression -- This could've just as easily been a pizza place instead of a bakery, refusing to deliver to the bachelor party.
That has actually been covered in the Oral Arguments. General Francisco said it depends on whether the item is predominantly expressive or predominantly utilitarian, whether people are paying for the utilitarian side of it or the artistic side of it.

ETA: I should add that the First Amendment only prevents the government from restricting artistic expression -- in this case, the government is requiring it...

Unless the argument now is that NOT making a cake is a form of artistic expression... in which case, I can certainly understand the GOP's support of the baker; I've often said they've raised "doing nothing" to an art form...
According to the article below, there is a widely acknowledged principle that freedom of speech has to include the freedom not to speak. You aren’t free to express your convictions authentically if the state can make you affirm its own orthodoxies. The Supreme Court has said in other cases that government can’t force you to say, do, or make something that carries a message you reject.

The Christian Baker’s Unanswered Legal Argument: Why the Strongest Objections Fail
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But we are comparing renting out an existing apartment to creating a custom-made wedding cake. The action of renting out is not an artistic expression.

Neither is selling a cake. But making paint and carpet choices before renting an apartment is, as is designing and baking a cake.

The only difference is, a same-sex wedding cake celebrates a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex

Agree, this is entirely about the identity of the customers.

Don't you think it is too early to conclude that he has broken the law when the Supreme Court hasn't even made their ruling yet?

No. The law may not be valid but two courts have already ruled that he broke it.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That has actually been covered in the Oral Arguments. General Francisco said it depends on whether the item is predominantly expressive or predominantly utilitarian, whether people are paying for the utilitarian side of it or the artistic side of it.

Seems like this puts in the hands of the people buying it rather than being something the baker can decide. I'd be careful going down that road - it kinda undermines the whole premise of the objection.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Neither is selling a cake. But making paint and carpet choices before renting an apartment is, as is designing and baking a cake.
The act of selling a cake is not an artistic expression by itself, but what the couple asked for is the baker to design a cake tailor-made for their specifications. A landlord does not design and tailor-made his apartment to the specifications of the tenant.

Agree, this is entirely about the identity of the customers.
We have gone through this many times. It has nothing to do with the customers who enter the store, it is about what event the wedding cake will be used to celebrate. No one has control over what people choose to identify as their identity.

No. The law may not be valid but two courts have already ruled that he broke it.
If the law is invalid, then the ruling of the two courts will become invalid.

Seems like this puts in the hands of the people buying it rather than being something the baker can decide. I'd be careful going down that road - it kinda undermines the whole premise of the objection.
It is consistent with the baker's argument that it is about what the wedding cake will be used for, what message it will convey.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The act of selling a cake is not an artistic expression by itself, but what the couple asked for is the baker to design a cake tailor-made for their specifications. A landlord does not design and tailor-made his apartment to the specifications of the tenant.

Pretty sure the baker won't sell them an off the shelf cake for their wedding either. Kinda like a landlord shouldn't have to sell a pre-decorated apartment to black people because of forced artistic expression.

It has nothing to do with the customers who enter the store, it is about what event the wedding cake will be used to celebrate. No one has control over what people choose to identify as their identity.

Nor do businesses have control over what customers do with their products once they leave the store.

If the law is invalid, then the ruling of the two courts will become invalid.

If a frog had wings...

It is consistent with the baker's argument that it is about what the wedding cake will be used for, what message it will convey.

Which is inconsistent with your comment above about the case centering on baking the cake knowing what it would be used for is the problem. If it can also become an issue after the fact - like with a pre-baked cake - then that kinda shoots that defense in the foot.
 
Upvote 0

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If a frog had wings...
The First Amendment of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The First Amendment of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

Yep. The part you didn't underline prevents religious people from getting special powers to break the law simply because they believe in stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yep. The part you didn't underline prevents religious people from getting special powers to break the law simply because they believe in stuff.
I only underlined the parts that are relevant to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. The question presented to the Supreme Court was "Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I only underlined the parts that are relevant to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. The question presented to the Supreme Court was "Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment"

No rights exist in a vacuum. I can see why some people would want to ignore things like the establishment clause and the idea of equal protection, but that's going to be a tough sell.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
The First Amendment of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

And yet, I could not perform human sacrifice if it were part of my religion, use controlled substances if it were part of my religion, or yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And yet, I could not perform human sacrifice if it were part of my religion, use controlled substances if it were part of my religion, or yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
You could if you didn't mention the establishment clause when defending your right to do so - or at least that seems to be the argument here.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
And yet, I could not perform human sacrifice if it were part of my religion, use controlled substances if it were part of my religion, or yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

Your first and third examples involve killing or causing potential danger to others. There is debate about your second example.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No rights exist in a vacuum. I can see why some people would want to ignore things like the establishment clause and the idea of equal protection, but that's going to be a tough sell.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission obviously has not made any law to respect the establishment of religion, therefore is irrelevant to the case.
 
Upvote 0