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.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.
Hmm, maybe it isn't that all orientations aren't treated equally. Maybe straight people are just treated more equally than gay people.Oh, most definitely -- it's got nothing to do with their being gay, except for the part where they're gay...
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.
At least we agree it's about identity.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.His continued attempts to avoid punishment for breaking the law say otherwise.
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.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.
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.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...
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.
The only difference is, a same-sex wedding cake celebrates a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex
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?
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.
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.Neither is selling a cake. But making paint and carpet choices before renting an apartment is, as is designing and baking a cake.
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.Agree, this is entirely about the identity of the customers.
If the law is invalid, then the ruling of the two courts will become invalid.No. The law may not be valid but two courts have already ruled that he broke it.
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.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.
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.
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.
If the law is invalid, then the ruling of the two courts will become invalid.
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.
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."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."
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"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"
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."
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.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.
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.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission obviously has not made any law to respect the establishment of religion, therefore is irrelevant to the case.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?