Colorado baker loses appeal over refusal to make gender transition cake

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That I agree with.  Custom decorations changes the paradigm IMO.  In this case I think it was a blue cake with pink frosting so he should have just sold the cake (if it is of a type he has on hand)

The art thing is legit a good point. Something for me to think about.

Yeah if he sold a blue cake with pink frosting before than it would be hard to argue against in court vs if it was a custom cake he never made before. 

Its like saying I can paint a smiley face for you. But not for the trans person. Vs I don't want to do a custom painting that I've never painted before.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by spartan max2

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That I agree with.  Custom decorations changes the paradigm IMO.  In this case I think it was a blue cake with pink frosting so he should have just sold the cake (if it is of a type he has on hand)

edit for quote

Maybe because of what I said here

 

Perhaps if he had taken that tactic in court to begin with, that he is an artist and an artist should be allowed to choose his projects it would have been a different outcome.  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

14 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

No. But if you make cakes than you can't discriminate who you sell cakes to. 

True. 

[Agent0range]

56 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 If an artist (and cake decorators are artists) they should be able to pick and choose what type of work they do. This is not the same as buying a generic cake from your local Kroger.  The person that filed this suit effectively entrapped someone who they disagree with philosophically, imo, and is not actually an injured party.  The very definition of frivolous law suit.

You're right, they should be able to choose the work they do if they have a valid reason to discriminate.  Using the Christian religion is the absolutely worst argument, because according to the Christian beliefs, we're all sinners.  Will he sell a cake to the gluttonous fat man?  Will he sell a baby shower cake to an unmarried woman?  My guess is, yes.  Judging which sin is OK and which is like...one of the worst sins.  Project Veritas should check that out, eh?  

[Piney]

On 1/28/2023 at 1:13 PM, and-then said:

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.

With lots of whining and tears. 

[+Desertrat56]

13 minutes ago, Piney said:

With lots of whining and tears. 

And lots of lawyers.

[+OverSword]

23 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

You're right, they should be able to choose the work they do if they have a valid reason to discriminate.  Using the Christian religion is the absolutely worst argument, because according to the Christian beliefs, we're all sinners.  Will he sell a cake to the gluttonous fat man?  Will he sell a baby shower cake to an unmarried woman?  My guess is, yes.  Judging which sin is OK and which is like...one of the worst sins.  Project Veritas should check that out, eh?  

Gluttony is not about being fat it's about being greedy. 

You don't have to agree with or limit what this guy believes based on your own understanding. I consider religion to be personal and if you feel like it, as I do, customizable to one's own logic, feelings or thoughts. I think this guy has pretty fairly demonstrated that his own feelings about sexual deviancy is that any form of it is against his religion.  The guy would rather spend money in court  paying fines than to do what he considers is assisting with sexually based sins.  As I've stated earlier I believe there is no actual victim here and this lawsuit was frivolous.  I think he will probably win an appeal.

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Gluttony is not about being fat it's about being greedy. 

You don't have to agree with or limit what this guy believes based on your own understanding. I consider religion to be personal and if you feel like it, as I do, customizable to one's own logic, feelings or thoughts. I think this guy has pretty fairly demonstrated that his own feelings about sexual deviancy is that any form of it is against his religion.  The guy would rather spend money in court  paying fines than to do what he considers is assisting with sexually based sins.  As I've stated earlier I believe there is no actual victim here and this lawsuit was frivolous.  I think he will probably win an appeal.

I think they knew his religious beliefs and he was targeted.

[eight bits]

The only things I know about the current case are in the Reuters report. The earlier case, the one decided by SCOTUS, was widely analyzed by many learned commentators.

The older case turned in part on a distinction between merchandise that the baker may have offered for sale ("off the shelf" cakes) and cakes made to order. If somebody had wished to buy something off the shelf, put down the posted price, and the baker refused ... well, as the lawyers say "a commercial offer was made and accepted" and  the baker is obliged to hand over the cake. PLUS if the reason the baker didn't keep their side of the bargain was contrary to applicable state law (e.g. discrimination against gay people), then punishment could be meted out.

But the cake in the older case was not "off the shelf." The baker does not need to be an "artist" (which has no particular definition or special status in law). Almost any overt act counts as "expression" (pole dancing is a personal favorite, but I digress), and the doing and the refraining from doing of expression are potentially protected on a similar basis as speech. SCOTUS's ruling was narrower than that, however, relying in part on a finding that the relevant state agency had displayed hostility toward the baker's beliefs.

Now the new case. The plaintiff is an attorney and their order was placed the day the old case was placed on the SCOTUS docket. If the Reuters report is accurate, the attorney-plaintiff decided to try for a complaint about something that was both not off the shelf but also only de minimis ("not very much" in lawyerspeak) expressive: two-tone frosting, ordinary colors, and no specific meaning to their appearance on the same cake (although as individual colors, pink is widely associated with femaleness and blue with maleness in the United States).

And now to close the trap. The baker would presumably not refuse an order for a pink and blue frosted cake intended for the shared birthday of a pair of fraternal twins, brother and sister. That the baker refused the plaintiff's specific order, then, was clearly because he wished not to do business with transfolk and not because making pink-and-blue frosted cakes as such conflicted with his beliefs. (Had the lawyer-plaintiff not been in such a rush, they might have strengthened their case on this point by placing two "identical" orders with different "cover stories" on separate days.)

The Colorado court, then, was not necessarily giving SCOTUS the bird by siding with the plaintiff in the new case. Making a cake is still "protected expression," but the baker does offer custom baking services to the general public, and probably would have made this cake in the ordinary course of his business. I did not read the Colorado opinion but the portion cited by Reuters is consistent with this analysis IMO.

Bottom line: To win on federal appeal, the baker probably needs the feds (and maybe ultimately SCOTUS) to carve out a general "religious exception" to anti-discrimination laws in commerce. That would be more difficult than it sounds, IMO.

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by eight bits

[+Desertrat56]

24 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The only things I know about the current case are in the Reuters report. The earlier case, the one decided by SCOTUS, was widely and analyzed by many learned commentators.

The older case turned on a distinction between merchandise that the baker may have offered for sale ("off the shelf" cakes) and cakes made to order. If somebody had wished to buy something off the shelf, put down the posted price, and the baker refused ... well, as the lawyers say "a commercial offer was made and accepted" and  the baker is obliged to hand over the cake. PLUS if the reason the baker didn't keep their side of the bargain was contrary to applicable state law (e.g. discrimination against gay people), then punishment could be meted out.

But the cake in the older case was not "off the shelf." Note that the baker does not need to be an "artist" (which has no particular definition or special status in law). Almost any overt act counts as "expression" (pole dancing is a personal favorite, but I digress), and the doing and the refraining from doing of expression are potentially protected on a similar basis as speech. SCOTUS's ruling was narrower than that, however, relying in part on a finding that the relevant state agency had displayed hostility toward the baker's beliefs.

Now the new case. The plaintiff is an attorney and their order was placed the day the old case was placed on the SCOTUS docket. If the Reuters report is accurate, the attorney-paintiff decided to try for a complaint about something that was both not off the shelf but also only de minimis ("not very much" in lawyerspeak) expressive: two-tone frosting, ordinary colors, and no specific meaning to their appearance on the same cake (although as individual colors, pink is widely associated with femaleness and blue with maleness in the United States).

And now to close the trap. The baker would presumably not refuse an order for a pink and blue frosted cake intended for the shared birthday of a pair of fraternal twins, brother and sister. That the baker refused the plaintiff's specific order, then, was clearly because he wished not to do business with transfolk and not because making pink-and-blue frosted cakes as such conflicted with his beliefs. (Had the lawyer-plaintiff not been in such a rush, they might have strengthened their case on this point by placing two "identical" orders with different "cover stories" on separate days.)

The Colorado court, then, was not necessarily giving SCOTUS the bird by siding with the plaintiff in the new case. Making a cake is still "protected expression," but the baker does offer custom baking services to the general public, and probably would have made this cake in the ordinary course of his business. I did not read the Colorado opinion but the portion cited by Reuters is consistent with this analysis IMO.

Bottom line: To win on federal appeal, the baker probably needs the feds (and maybe ultimately SCOTUS) to carve out a general "religious exception" to anti-discrimination laws in commerce. That would be more difficult than it sounds, IMO.

 

So if someone went in to order a penis cake and was turned down, the baker could be sued?    This is Not about religion but someone is trying to make that.   If it were about religion, the religious person would be the one winning in this case, or have the tides turned and we will be seeing people suing chik filet and Hobby Lobby and winning because they aren't open on Sunday, or because they don't give their employees health insurance that covers birth control or what ever that other hulabaloo was about?  Or maybe someone will sue chik filet because they don't sell hamburgers and ham sandwiches.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Desertrat56

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

So if someone went in to order a penis cake and was turned down, they could be sued?    This is Not about religion but someone is trying to make that.   If it were about religion, the religious person would be the one winning in this case, or have the tides turned and we will be seeing people suing chik filet and Hobby Lobby and winning because they aren't open on Sunday, or because they don't give their employees health insurance that covers birth control or what ever that other hulabaloo was about?  Or maybe someone will sue chik filet because they don't sell hamburgers and ham sandwiches.

It sounds like what got the baker was that the purple and pink frosted cake is a cake that the baker made before. 

If it was a more complicated order that the cake maker did not previously make for no trans people than he would of been okay.

Is what I'm getting out of it. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by spartan max2

[eight bits]

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

So if someone went in to order a penis cake and was turned down, they could be sued?    This is Not about religion but someone is trying to make that.   If it were about religion, the religious person would be the one winning in this case, or have the tides turned and we will be seeing people suing chik filet and Hobby Lobby and winning because they aren't open on Sunday, or because they don't give their employees health insurance that covers birth control or what ever that other hulabaloo was about?  Or maybe someone will sue chik filet because they don't sell hamburgers and ham sandwiches.

I didn't quite follow the penis cake example. Who would be claiming discrimination in the refusal? I doubt this baker would accept the order from anybody, and discrimination requires serving some people and not serving others (and those others belonging to a protected category of people).

There is a presumption that anything a lawyer (an officer of the court) tells the court is true. If the lawyer's filings say the baker's motivation is religious, then it is so until and unless somebody proves otherwise.

But sure. Anybody who can fork over the filing fee and is willing to risk getting stuck with costs can sue anybody over anything. It's the American Way.

[+Desertrat56]

15 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It sounds like what got the baker was that the purple and pink frosted cake is a cake that the baker made before. 

If it was a more complicated order that the cake maker did not previously make for no trans people than he would of been okay.

Is what I'm getting out of it. 

What I wonder is why anyone would tell the baker why they wanted the cake if all they wanted was blue frosting under pink.  It smells like a trap to me.  The person was an attorney and knew about the baker's beliefs so he purposely set up the baker in order to create legal precedent for something, we shall see what he pulls out of his hat next.

[+Desertrat56]

9 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I didn't quite follow the penis cake example. Who would be claiming discrimination in the refusal? I doubt this baker would accept the order from anybody, and discrimination requires serving some people and not serving others (and those others belonging to a protected category of people).

There is a presumption that anything a lawyer (an officer of the court) tells the court is true. If the lawyer's filings say the baker's motivation is religious, then it is so until and unless somebody proves otherwise.

But sure. Anybody who can fork over the filing fee and is willing to risk getting stuck with costs can sue anybody over anything. It's the American Way.

You never know, and for me it is the same thing.  A request that some people would find distasteful, but we have a double standard if you are the norm, that the baker should be allowed to refuse to make a penis cake if he or she wants to, but refusing to make a cake for someone who wants the cake to celebrate something else the baker might feel is distasteful, even though the request is not a distasteful design?  The attorney set a trap and the baker should have recognized it as such.   The original case was bad enough, but this one is obviously a trap to set some kind of legal precedent to punish people who have a negative attitude about certain things.   I don't agree with the baker's perspective, but I allow that this is supposed to be a free country and he has a right to serve who he wants.   If it is well known this particular baker had an issue with something why even bother except that someone wants attention, or to change something in our society in a selfish manner.   It is one thing to go after people who commit violent acts against groups of people, and completely something else to go after people who are just trying to run a business and have strong opinions. 

[+DieChecker]

I think what might be the difference is buying a already made cake is buying a good. But ordering a cake is a service. If the cake is already there the shop owner can't say he can't make it. If it needs to be ordered, then he still needs to make it. And we shouldn't be forced to do things we disagree with.

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

You never know, and for me it is the same thing.  A request that some people would find distasteful, but we have a double standard if you are the norm, that the baker should be allowed to refuse to make a penis cake if he or she wants to, but refusing to make a cake for someone who wants the cake to celebrate something else the baker might feel is distasteful, even though the request is not a distasteful design?  The attorney set a trap and the baker should have recognized it as such.   The original case was bad enough, but this one is obviously a trap to set some kind of legal precedent to punish people who have a negative attitude about certain things.   I don't agree with the baker's perspective, but I allow that this is supposed to be a free country and he has a right to serve who he wants.   If it is well known this particular baker had an issue with something why even bother except that someone wants attention, or to change something in our society in a selfish manner.   It is one thing to go after people who commit violent acts against groups of people, and completely something else to go after people who are just trying to run a business and have strong opinions. 

The activist said it openly. They wanted $100,000 in damages and their fees paid. It's money they want. If it was about justice, would they be demanding to be paid 100k?

The baker lost, but the activist didn't get their 100k, so I expect they'll try something else, maybe civil court.

Edited January 31, 2023 by DieChecker

[jmccr8]

13 hours ago, Knob Oddy said:

I went to a local butchers. They refused to serve me bacon. They said they don't have any and wouldn't order any in.

The fact that they were all Muslims doesn't mean they can refuse to serve me! Their beliefs mean nothing compared to mine

Hi Knob

If they do not carry a product it doesn’t matter what anyone believes as there is no law that says all butchers must carry bacon and they refuse everyone equally. Not much different than going to a Lamborghini dealership and asking for a new Volkswagen it’s not a product they sell.

[simplybill]

15 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Will he sell a cake to the gluttonous fat man?  Will he sell a baby shower cake to an unmarried woman?  My guess is, yes.  Judging which sin is OK and which is like...one of the worst sins.  Project Veritas should check that out, eh? 

The difference between gluttony and transgenderism is that gluttony isn’t being touted as a healthy lifestyle, or being promoted to 5-year-old children during Gluttony Story Hour.
Also, Scientists can freely and openly discuss the repercussions of a gluttonous lifestyle, whereas scientists who discuss the irreversible repercussions of puberty blockers and transition surgery risk being harassed by transgender activists and government officials.

[+Desertrat56]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The activist said it openly. They wanted $100,000 in damages and their fees paid. It's money they want. If it was about justice, would they be demanding to be paid 100k?

The baker lost, but the activist didn't get their 100k, so I expect they'll try something else, maybe civil court.

Are you sure he is really an "activist", sounds more like an opportunist.   Activists have a group behind them, what group does he belong to that supports him?

[Knob Oddy]

10 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Knob

If they do not carry a product it doesn’t matter what anyone believes as there is no law that says all butchers must carry bacon and they refuse everyone equally. Not much different than going to a Lamborghini dealership and asking for a new Volkswagen it’s not a product they sell.

I agree entirely.

Just as the baker doesn't sell gender affirmation cakes. You could get a blue cake with pink icing, but you can't get gender affirming cakes.

Why is this so hard for some to grasp?

[+OverSword]

16 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

It sounds like what got the baker was that the purple and pink frosted cake is a cake that the baker made before. 

If it was a more complicated order that the cake maker did not previously make for no trans people than he would of been okay.

Is what I'm getting out of it. 

Made before and currently on the shelf for sale are two different things.  If he has to make it to order then presumably he could turn it down.  From what I read was that he agreed to make it when it was represented as being a birthday cake and then changed his mind when he was told it was a transgender coming out cake.  

[spartan max2]

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Made before and currently on the shelf for sale are two different things.  If he has to make it to order then presumably he could turn it down.  From what I read was that he agreed to make it when it was represented as being a birthday cake and then changed his mind when he was told it was a transgender coming out cake.  

Damn, he really let himself walk into that lawsuit. 

[spartan max2]

16 minutes ago, Knob Oddy said:

I agree entirely.

Just as the baker doesn't sell gender affirmation cakes. You could get a blue cake with pink icing, but you can't get gender affirming cakes.

Why is this so hard for some to grasp?

It sounds like if you sell blue cake with purple icing as a birthday cake than it's discrimination if you don't sell a blue cake with purple icing only because it's a "gender affirming cake." 

Its the same product. 

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It sounds like if you sell blue cake with purple icing as a birthday cake than it's discrimination if you don't sell a blue cake with purple icing only because it's a "gender affirming cake." 

Its the same product. 

This ultimately will come down to in a higher court (if he has the brains to get a half decent attorney that is) to the question of does his right to practice/follow his religion allow him to discriminate between a birthday cake and a transgender coming out cake.  

[Knob Oddy]

22 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It sounds like if you sell blue cake with purple icing as a birthday cake than it's discrimination if you don't sell a blue cake with purple icing only because it's a "gender affirming cake." 

Its the same product. 

Let's say I sell kittens. I don't discriminate.

One day a man walks in and wants to buy a cat, I say yes, $100 dollars please.

As we are completing the transaction, he tells me he is a priest for the church of Satan and the cat is for a sacrifice. 

Can I now refuse to sell the kitten as it's against my beliefs?

This is basically how I view the cake fiasco, taken to the extreme I know, but the same principle