Colorado baker loses appeal over refusal to make gender transition cake

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on Thursday lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake to celebrate a gender transition.

The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with a trial judge that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, violated Autumn Scardina's rights by denying her service because of her identity as a transgender woman.

Lawyers for the baker, who was fined $500, had argued that he refused service based on his sincere Christian beliefs and that forcing him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition would violate his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

 

Link

[tcgram]

Refusing to make a cake just because someone's beliefs are different from yours is ludicrous.   

[itsnotoutthere]

Hang on, so now you can demand a shop to serve you even if they don't want to, correct? Doe's this count for Muslim shop owners too because apparently they have a problem with gay people too.

Edited January 27 by itsnotoutthere

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, tcgram said:

Refusing to make a cake just because someone's beliefs are different from yours is ludicrous.   

Another thing that is ludicrous is to intentionally target a baker who you know is against homosexuality due to religious beliefs with the express intention of filing a lawsuit.  No actual harm was done to the plaintiff (imo) because they got just what they wanted which was to make the bakers life miserable.  The lawsuit IMO is frivolous.  It's similar to throwing yourself in front of a car you know doesn't have time to stop so you can sue the driver.

Now do I agree with the baker?  Not if all he was asked to make was a pink and blue birthday cake, which seems to be the case.  But at the same time I can't see being enough of a Karen/Ken to go out of my way to do this to someone.

1 minute ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Hang on, so now you can demand a shop to serve you even if they don't want to, correct?

Depends on how the law is written in that state I imagine.  This same guy won a lawsuit concerning being asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage.  

[spartan max2]

15 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Hang on, so now you can demand a shop to serve you even if they don't want to, correct? Doe's this count for Muslim shop owners too because apparently they have a problem with gay people too.

You can still refuse to serve someone for other things such as rudeness, violence, bad customer.

But the court is saying you can't refuse to serve someone because of their gender identity.

This ruling also applies to Muslim shop owners 

I agree with this ruling.

But I also agree with Oversword that purposely going to a shop that you know dosen't want to serve you just to cause a contraversay is also a dick thing to do 

Edited January 27 by spartan max2

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Another thing that is ludicrous is to intentionally target a baker who you know is against homosexuality due to religious beliefs with the express intention of filing a lawsuit.  No actual harm was done to the plaintiff (imo) because they got just what they wanted which was to make the bakers life miserable.  The lawsuit IMO is frivolous.  It's similar to throwing yourself in front of a car you know doesn't have time to stop so you can sue the driver.

Now do I agree with the baker?  Not if all he was asked to make was a pink and blue birthday cake, which seems to be the case.  But at the same time I can't see being enough of a Karen/Ken to go out of my way to do this to someone.

Depends on how the law is written in that state I imagine.  This same guy won a lawsuit concerning being asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage.  

I thought something similar. If your a gay couple, why would you go to a known homophobe except to make trouble? 

Let him kill his own business......

 

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

I thought something similar. If your a gay couple, why would you go to a known homophobe except to make trouble? 

Let him kill his own business......

 

Some people call that activism I suppose.

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Some people call that activism I suppose.

They would probably argue that it's similar to the civil rights movement actions of sitting in at white only restaurants or places that refuse to serve black people.

Which I can sort of see. But the main difference for me is that someone refusing to make you a cake or serve you for being trans is so rare that I don't think it's really needed to go out of the way to bring about this lawsuit. If it became more commonplace of an occurrence than the lawsuits would inevitably come anyways 

Edited January 27 by spartan max2

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Some people call that activism I suppose.

Activism should involve educating people and proving a point logically. Not making trouble. That's why I hate protests and always gave my sisters **** for participating in them.

"People who yell the loudest are the easiest to ignore."- Frank Herbert

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

They would probably argue that it's similar to the civil rights movement actions of sitting in at white only restaurants or places that refuse to serve black people.

Which I can sort of see. But the main difference for me is that someone refusing to make you a cake or serve you for being trans is so rare that I don't think it's really needed to go out of the way to bring about this lawsuit. If it became more commonplace of an occurrence than the lawsuits would inevitably come anyways 

The big difference is that at the time of those lunch counter protests the discrimination was backed by state laws.

[DieChecker]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Quote

Lawyers for the baker, who was fined $500, had argued that he refused service based on his sincere Christian beliefs and that forcing him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition would violate his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Link

And now it will be off to the SCotUS. How do we think they will find? 

My guess is they will find for the Defendant. And thus these idiot trans troublemakers will now allow for such refusal of service to be nationwide. Just because they thought they wanted to cause this guy a bit of trouble. 

Go to someone else's cake shop. Wasn't it shown in the previous threads on this guy that there are a half dozen other bakeries near by?

[DieChecker]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

The big difference is that at the time of those lunch counter protests the discrimination was backed by state laws.

And basically was all businesses, not just one specific shop.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Another thing that is ludicrous is to intentionally target a baker who you know is against homosexuality due to religious beliefs with the express intention of filing a lawsuit.  No actual harm was done to the plaintiff (imo) because they got just what they wanted which was to make the bakers life miserable.  The lawsuit IMO is frivolous.  It's similar to throwing yourself in front of a car you know doesn't have time to stop so you can sue the driver.

Now do I agree with the baker?  Not if all he was asked to make was a pink and blue birthday cake, which seems to be the case.  But at the same time I can't see being enough of a Karen/Ken to go out of my way to do this to someone.

Spot on in every detail.  His market is the Denver area.  Population around 3/4 of a million.  I'm reasonably sure that he isn't the only source for such cakes.  He's being targeted.  Some folks these days seem to just have a need to be intentionally confrontational over things that really don't matter.  That said... I'm not sure that a cake whose only symbolism is blue and pink, should be such a trigger.  One need not be supportive of a lifestyle to be polite to those who practice it.

[Myles]

He could just make the cake poorly, I suppose.   

[DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

He could just make the cake poorly, I suppose.   

But, then they would sue for damages.

"The bad cake left me traumatized, and now all future emotional issues will be because of this..."

Edited January 27 by DieChecker

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Once again, everyone seems to forget that “no” is a complete sentence. 
As long as he just said “no” and not added any caveat, he’d have been fine, business has a right to refuse service - he doesn’t have a right to be discriminatory.

[spartan max2]

On a slightly related note. Does the bible even have anything against trans people ? Its been over a decade since I've read it but I really don't recall it being mentioned any 

[DieChecker]

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

On a slightly related note. Does the bible even have anything against trans people ? Its been over a decade since I've read it but I really don't recall it being mentioned any 

Not specifically, AFAIK. Most of the controversial Old Testament laws are about cleanliness, and sexual controls. People who are trans would probably simply be accused of being possessed, and treated like victims, rather than deviants.

EDIT: 

I did find one thing in Deuteronomy.

Quote

Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV 
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Whether such a rule still applies to Christians though depends on how you interpret Paul saying, all things are allowed.

Quote

1 Corinthians 6

12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.
13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant#:~:text=Most Christians%2C such as the,) are still applicable (cf.

Quote

Theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature.[5] Ceremonial precepts (the "ceremonial law", dealing with forms of worshipping God and with ritual cleanness) and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21[6]) came into existence only with the Law of Moses[7] and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ".[8] Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind,[9] and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin.[10]

However, while the judicial laws ceased to bind with the advent of Christ, it was not a mortal sin to enforce them. Aquinas says, "if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin."[11] Although Aquinas believed the specifics of the Old Testament judicial laws were no longer binding, he taught that the judicial precepts contained universal principles of justice that reflected natural law. Thus some scholars refer to his views on government as "General Equity Theonomy."[12]

So, basically various of the "Judicial", "Civic", "Social", type laws, like a man not wearing a dress, can easily be seen as not being in force, and thus, not sinful.

[Piney]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Once again, everyone seems to forget that “no” is a complete sentence. 
As long as he just said “no” and not added any caveat, he’d have been fine, business has a right to refuse service - he doesn’t have a right to be discriminatory.

If you just say "no" it's discrimination in the U.S. 

[Dejarma]

if someone refused to make a cake for me I'd say: 'oh ok then I'll spend my money somewhere else'

I can't see what the fuss is- bloody ridiculous IMO when you think about all the real problems people have in the world!

[Paranoid Android]

44 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

On a slightly related note. Does the bible even have anything against trans people ? Its been over a decade since I've read it but I really don't recall it being mentioned any 

 

18 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Not specifically, AFAIK. Most of the controversial Old Testament laws are about cleanliness, and sexual controls. People who are trans would probably simply be accused of being possessed, and treated like victims, rather than deviants.

EDIT: 

I did find one thing in Deuteronomy.

Whether such a rule still applies to Christians though depends on how you interpret Paul saying, all things are allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant#:~:text=Most Christians%2C such as the,) are still applicable (cf.

So, basically various of the "Judicial", "Civic", "Social", type laws, like a man not wearing a dress, can easily be seen as not being in force, and thus, not sinful.

I'd also perhaps add Genesis: And so God created man (humankind) in his own image,  in the image of God he created him (humans). Male (man) and female (woman) he created them!

~ Genesis 1:27-28 (from memory).

The brackets are,  I believe,  the meaning of the Hebrew words that are translated as "man", "him", "male", and "female".

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

45 minutes ago, Piney said:

If you just say "no" it's discrimination in the U.S. 

really? That’s daft. 

[Piney]

8 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

really? That’s daft. 

My wife had a couple sue her and try to shut down the firewood and chainsaw woodwork end of the garden center for the noise even though it had a existing firewood business since the 1940s. 

They come in to buy flats and she can't deny them service. 

[preacherman76]

They were not refused service. I’m sure he’d of been happy to make another type of cake for them. 
 

I don’t understand why people feel the need to try and make people compromise their beliefs. Walking into a business to provoke a lawsuit should be considered harassment. 

[+and-then]

20 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Once again, everyone seems to forget that “no” is a complete sentence. 
As long as he just said “no” and not added any caveat, he’d have been fine, business has a right to refuse service - he doesn’t have a right to be discriminatory.

Come now, Hats... you know that NOTHING is that simple in the US of A these days.  Everything has to be contested, as loudly and publicly as possible.