Gay wedding cakes from Muslim bakers

Brilliantly said!!

AMEN!!!

 

I think they can refuse to write the words but must sell the cake.... same as Christians.... common sense

 

It's only a matter of time (and probably not much longer), that someone WILL come up with a solution to the "cake" scenario, that will very lucrative. And all the anti-gay-cake bakers (and anti-gay whatever others)... will probably be sorry they started this nonsense.

It's coming. Some company like Kohls, Costco, Walmart or Amazon will figure out a way to make it a business opportunity. Gay people WILL flock to the service and make it well worth their while.

 

Except that isn't the situation at hand.

You were obviously mistaken.

Yes, it's compelled speech. Is all compelled speech a First Amendment violation? I'm willing to keep an open mind and hear arguments pro and con, but discussion of the above is perhaps better suited to its own thread - it will lead us far away from the actual topic of this one.

But isn't the core argument being put forth that of a business being allowed to refuse service to anyone and at any time without having to show due cause? I don't see how a warning list suffices to protect the public, in that case. Doing business would be a constant gamble; the posting of a list wouldn't protect the public from a proprietor who decides without warning that he wants to discriminate against people who wear blue and orange together every third Wednesday when there's a full moon. He can just make it up as he goes along and act in a completely arbitrary manner regarding who gets served, and who doesn't. And yes, it's an absurd example, which in my view is a match to the absurdity of arguing that compelling a proprietor to post a list sufficiently protects the public.

I'll take this as your concession that you can't support your previous claim that the same-sex couple asked for something specific to be written on the cake.

I do not.

One of your own links addresses this: (see how easy this was?)

(emphasis added above)

I don't think SCOTUS is going to agree that making a wedding cake qualifies in every instance as "speech", especially if those requesting the cake made no specific demands that would compel the baker's speech. The lower court likewise found that selling cakes is not "speech", and that baking cakes is not religious conduct.

 

Yeah it is. Art is speech. Custom cakes count as art. One baker was compelled to speak, the other was not. One claimed a religious exemption and was compelled, the other a political and was not.

^ See above. I can break it down still further but it's going to sound like I'm talking to a particularly slow child. I wouldn't want to offend you by doing so.

No. You're saying one version of compelled speech is fine and the other is not. Hell people carrying arms at my place of business is far more important than someone getting a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing wedding cake from me in particular. Why is one ok and the other not?

Any time, anyone, just post it on the door. Same as firearms. Show me how its ok to have warnings for firearms, which if they are not perfect are ineffective, but not for this.
The posting of a list serves that exact purpose. You walk up to the door and get the blind black white supremecist schpeal from dave chappelle, and you're jewish, hispanic, black, or asian you know you'll be refused service and to move along. Likewise if it says "no white devils" I know not to walk in the door. Just as with firearms an ineffective warning is no warning at all. How are they different?

They asked for a work of speech/expression to be created for them. That IS speech under the law. See the flag burning cases.


Yes that's nice. What we're discussing are INCONSISTENCIES IN THOSE DECISIONS. Do I NEED to get condescending? I can but I wouldn't want to offend you by explaining something that a 6th grader should've been able to grasp from my posts, that we are discussing why 1 ruling went 1 way and another did an about face.

They hung themselves with their own argument if it hadn't been a politically motivated decision. ARTISTRY. << ART = Speech. I can be an artist for example and refuse to create ANY work of art for ANY reason. Why? Freedom of speech/expression. They called it art, therefore it is speech, therefore they can (*)(*)(*)(*) off.
You do understand that we're discussing inconsistencies yeah?

Put it to you this way: If he had a stock cake in the window and they said "give me that cake in the window. how much" and he said "are you gay?" and they said "yes" and he said "(*)(*)(*)(*) off" THAT aint free speech. If they come in and say "make me a cake. I want it to look like this *shows drawing or otherwise instructs or indicates that it will be custom rather than stock work*" and he says "are you gay" and they say "yes" and he says "(*)(*)(*)(*) off"? << Free speech/Expression/Exercise. But they didn't order a stock cake, they wanted a CUSTOM order and his first question was as to their status. They said "MAKE us a cake for our wedding" he said "US? Youre gay then? " They said "yes is that a problem" and he said "yeah its against my beliefs. go somewhere else". That's custom work.

 

Sure it does. You can't discriminate based on nationality, creed etc. Apparently religious or political exemptions are a no no, but only if you're not part of a minority group.

 

[video=youtube;RgWIhYAtan4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4[/video]

 

The dumb-assed thing about this whole cake crap is that who in the world - let alone any self respecting gay person - has the poor taste to WRITE ANYTHING on a wedding cake?

And for any religious person to whine about a gay person telling them to bake a cake, after religions have specifically targeted gay people for thousands of years with prison, death, chemically castration, job place discrimination, disrespecting their military service and now trying to make gay kids the test subjects of untested psychological experiments is just too pathetic for words.

 

Wow - awesome. Kudos to him - he is not a hypocrite.

 

I had already seen the video, but you beat me posting it.

 

Pretending that my failure to agree with you makes me akin to a "slow child" isn't persuasive.

No, I'm saying that one thing is compelled speech, and the other is not. You don't get to pretend that I said something different from what I actually did. That would be dishonest.

I'm not going to indulge this attempt at distraction. Stick to the topic.

"Any time, anyone" contradicts the purpose of posting it on the door, since at any time the proprietor could decide to discriminate against anyone regardless of what is posted on the door.

No. As stated above, I'm not going to indulge your attempt to lead us off-topic.

So you admit the warning would be ineffective, if the proprietor intends to assert a right to discriminate against anyone, at any time, regardless of what is posted on his list. Hence, we can see why government compelling this form of speech would be insufficient to protect the public.

They didn't.

Irrelevant. Burning a flag as a form of expression is not analogous to making cakes and offering them for sale to the general public.

Your claim of inconsistency doesn't obligate me to agree with your opinion, which I obviously don't.

What I understand is that you wish to assert an inconsistency, but you haven't supported that claim to my satisfaction. Instead, you're basically saying "is too!". That isn't persuasive.

So a stock cake isn't "art" constituting protected free speech, by your own admission above.

In your view, can the proprietor refuse to sell them the stock cake based on their orientation? An additional question: Do they have to declare their orientation, or can he refuse them based on assumptions or inferences that they're a gay?

The ability to discriminate against any one at any time, with or without a "list" of undesirables that will be excluded service, would mean he can.

I think it's pretty clear here which opinion is the inconsistent one. Hint: It's not the court's.

The court's opinion indicates otherwise. He refused them based on the knowledge that it was for a same-sex wedding alone.

Nope. The facts aren't actually even in dispute. He flat out refused to give them a cake of any kind for their wedding, not just one custom-designed. His stated reason was a religious objection to same-sex weddings. At court, the speech argument was also tried. However, the court cited an earlier precedent, quoting from United States v. O'Brien that &#8220;We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled &#8216;speech&#8217; whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.&#8221;

This is key: The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants&#8217; same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage.

Read the above carefully. He wasn't asked for any custom work - a fact that Phillips himself does not dispute. That you are trying to dispute it when he didn't, is ridiculous.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own custom set of 'facts' that differ from the actual facts of the case under discussion.

 

I didn't say that. I said I didn't want to be condescending and to treat you like a slow child. See how that works champ?

So compelling me to hang a shingle of a very particular sort if I don't want people carrying at my business (ie to abrogate their right, on my property which is my right) is not compelled speech, but compelling me to hang a shingle of a very particular sort if I don't want X type of person patronizing my business IS compelled speech? Care to walk us slow kids through the math on that one?

Your dodge is noted. This IS on topic.

He'd have to post anyone and anytime, so long as it is posted. IE he'd have to spell it out. See this is what I mean about things being perfectly obvious and me not wanting to be condescending by going further in depth on something that is plain as day. Any one, any time JUST POST IT ON THE DOOR is what I said. Don't try to cherry pick.

Again don't cherry pick. He's got to POST IT ON THE DOOR if he wants to exclude it, JUST LIKE WITH FIREARMS. Shall I get condescending or do you grasp what I'm saying now?

They did. They wanted him to MAKE a cake not SELL THEM AN EXISTING ONE. Ergo custom work, ergo art, ergo speech.

Custom cakes are only for the individual who commissioned them, not for the general public. Failure.

You don't have to agree, its what I've been talking about this whole time.

Okie doke. I'm going to just go ahead and be condescending. Don't take offense now. See we have 2 cases. 1 where a baker refused to do custom work for a gay couple because of his espoused religious beliefs, the other where a baker refused to do custom work for an anti-gay activist because of her espoused political beliefs. The first baker was forced to either create the art (speech) requested or close shop. He also has to attend diversity training and so do all his employees. Also fines. Also legal fees. Also court costs. The second baker got off scott free. To be clear: They have both broken the same unconstitutional bull(*)(*)(*)(*) provision (that a non-common carrier may not discriminate etc) yet one was sanctioned and the other was not. Both would be making speech (1 custom work and 2 custom work). Both espouse an excuse (1 religious the other political, but it can be said that both are political. either way it would be compelled speech) but one was treated differently from the other. This is what is referred to as an "inconsistency". Inconsistencies occur when two cases that are essentially examining the same piece of doctrine are treated 180 differently. 180 refers to turning in the opposite direction rather than coming around full circle. Coming around full circle means to turn in a circle.

In my personal view? Anyone anytime any reason. Under the law as it stands? Not a stock item for sale to the general public but custom work can be refused under certain contexts. Under the compromise I've espoused above (same as firearms)? Is it on the sign? Yes? Then fine.
2nd set: Do they have to declare? No, no one ever has to declare anything like that. Compelled speech. My view: Any reason or no reason. Law as it stands: is it custom work? yes? Compelled speech in certain contexts Compromise: Is it on the list? Then owner discretion.

You're cutting things out: They said MAKE US A CAKE. MAKE. Not sell a stock, MAKE. Custom. Custom = art. Art= speech. speech = protected, cannot be compelled. "Make you a cake?" he says. You're gay, no." key concept MAKE. MAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKEEEEEEE. Make.

I think its pretty clear that you can't tell we're talking 3 different options: What's constitutional (mine) the law as it stands (which has been ruled on inconsistently) and a compromise (just like firearms).

Yes before there was any discussion on the specifics of the CUSTOM WORK he was to perform. They said MAKE US A CAKE FOR OUR WEDDING. MAKE key concept. He was not given specifics as to what the custom work was to take the form of because he refused to do a commissioned work (custom = art = speech) but they did open with we want you to make us a cake. They came to retain him and give him instructions on the form they wished it to take.
They said it themselves in their complaint: its ART when you do a custom job. Art is speech. Speech cannot be compelled. Done deal. That the court didn't decide that way is meaningless as to what is correct or incorrect.

 

Islam isn't a white people religion so its off the liberal shlt list.

 

You can pretend all you like that it wasn't the intended inference, but I doubt anyone is fooled by that.

If you re-read my answers, it's very clear that I said both were compelled speech. I raised the question of whether or not all instances of compelled speech are unconstitutional First Amendment infringements. I remember what I said. Not my fault if you can't.

It isn't, and your further attempt to derail is noted and dismissed.

Changing your story.

I grasp perfectly well that you didn't understand what was obvious the first time around, and are now changing your response.

Nope. That's not what was said, and not what the court found in its ruling. According to the undisputed facts, what the couple said was that they wanted a cake for their wedding. There was never any actual discussion of him making a custom cake or the details thereof, because he immediately refused them. As the court states:

(emphasis added) Your characterization of events is not the law. The court determines the law.

For 'speech' to be compelled as a violation of the First Amendment, there as to be an actual message conveyed by that 'speech'. It seems pretty clear that this is the key factor on which this case turns. A cake, in and of itself, does not convey any message. There would have to be some element of its design that conveys the message alleged to be compelled. The event at which the cake will be consumed is likewise not a compelling of speech, as it is wholly separate from the cake itself. There would have to be something about the cake itself that conveys a compelled message. One can hardly claim that an act of artistic expression has been compelled without knowing what the artistic elements will be that carry the compelled message, and what that message is.

Repetition and typing in all caps isn't persuasive. If it's a choice of believing your versus the undisputed finding of fact by the court, I'm going to believe the court.

For it to be "custom", this implies some element that would make it difficult if not impossible to sell to the general public. We're back to the fact that those trying to engage this baker in commerce made no specific customization request. They never even got the chance before being refused.

This changes nothing. It's just repetition of your same failed claim that both instances are the same, when they are clearly not. One involves a baker asked to create a cake that conveys a clear, anti-gay message. Obvious speech. Yet that same baker offered to make the cake anyway, and provide the customer with the frosting and tools needed to write his own message on the cake.

The other case involves a baker who refused to provide any sort of cake to a same-sex couple for their wedding - neither a custom one, nor a generic one with no specific message. In this latter case, there was no request by the couple to create a cake with a specific message or elements of customization to convey a specific message. The transaction never reached that level because the baker refused them outright.

Your inability/refusal to see the difference is not my problem, nor the court's problem, nor the problem of the couple in question. It's purely your own problem, which I cannot resolve for you.

Owner discretion implies that the list doesn't matter. Nevermind - you're clearly never going to get this so there's no need to belabor the point.

Nope. That's your made-up version of events that have nothing to do with how the actual events unfolded - the undisputed facts of the case. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, put it in all caps, or otherwise emphasize it.

Like I said above, the courts determine what is constitutional, not you. You see inconsistency where there is none; it's pretty clear the court's ruling is consistent with past precedent.

Repetition.

We're done. No need to reply, as I won't be responding further. It would be a complete waste of my time to bother.

 

Sorry Daniel, but religious people have their rights too, here in America, you know.

It's called the constitution.

And rights are not based on how we feel.

 

Ah so you're a mind reader now? Interesting. What am I thinking right...... now?

So to keep people from carrying on my property (my right) I have to have my speech compelled in a certain fashion, but to exercise my right to serve whom I wish and no other I can't have my speech compelled? Do you consider the implications of what you write?

You cherrypicked. I actually said post it on the door. What was it you said earlier? I remember what I said. Not my fault if you can't. Though I would add "or won't" since you quoted me but cut out the rest of the sentence.

I grasp perfectly well that I've caught you out and now you're desperately trying to throw me off. You'll have to do better than that anemic attempt.

No the undisputed facts are that the specifics of the cake were not discussed. The specifics were not discussed because they asked for custom work and he was under no obligation (before this political decision that flouts the law) to provide it. The bolded portion you quote is in respect to any particular symbols or writing upon the cake IE the specifics of the custom work. << But as stated in the complantants own statements custom work is art. And as the courts have held art is protected.

The court does not make the law. The court makes a ruling and if their reasoning is sound it is upheld. This is true for every court, even SCOTUS. See how rulings get overturned? That's because the reasoning is not sounds. This court? Their reasoning is not sound.

Custom work is art, by the complaints own admission. Art is symbolic speech and symbolic speech is protected. The court made this decision because of politics, just as the other court (the gay baker's) did the same. Let me explain: Either the law supports the right to refuse service even from protected classes (see CRA for a list) or it does not. The first court held that it does not. The second held that it does. PICK ONE. << that's all I'm saying.

They asked for a cake to be made. They did not say "give me that cake there under the glass, it'll suit us just fine". They wanted to discuss specifics. CUSTOM WORK. The caps are for emphasis.

Symbolic speech (like art which a custom work is acknowledged as in the complaint) is just as protected as oral or written speech.
He actually didn't get a chance to say "and I won't sell you a cake under the glass either" because when he said "no because you're gay" THEY LEFT.
Your inability to see the inconsistencies after having it broken down into its simplest form is not my problem.

Can you even read? What part of 3 different ways are you not grasping?

They wanted to discuss the making of a cake for their wedding. They were turned down before specifics could be gotten into because the artist objected. These facts are not in dispute.

See you later Brave Sir Robin

 

A baker makes cakes of many shapes and sizes, one type of which is generically known as a "wedding cake" it has no special artistic or religious merit in and of itself, it's a cake. That baker refused because of who was asking for one.