SCOTUS to take the cake

[PyramidHead]

There have to be precedents for speech acts undertaken with the assistance of a third party, where it is understood that the third party is not the one making the speech, but merely the one physically inscribing it on a medium (a cake, a shirt, a sign). If it is legitimate for a custom tee shirt company to refuse to make a tee shirt with e.g. profanity on it, the argument could be made that companies have the right to decide what they can render using their resources even when it's somebody else's speech. However, this would only take the bakers' complaint so far, because the baker presumably wants to refuse to bake a cake for a certain type of customer, not just refuse to bake a cake with a certain kind of speech. For example, he would bake a cake that said "Chris and William" only if Chris was short for Christine and the clients were a heterosexual couple. I don't know if there is legal precedent allowing that kind of discrimination, based on the identity of the client rather than the specific message.

Unfortunately, there are few decisions, well to my knowledge none, where the Court has addressed the free speech rights, if any, in the context of "speech acts undertaken with the assistance of a third party, where it is understood that the third party is not the one making the speech, but merely the one physically inscribing it on a medium (a cake, a shirt, a sign)."

This case is so very important as it presents the Court with an opportunity to provide much needed clarification in this area of the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect it probably is incumbent upon the person asking for the service to show that they have a right to obtain the service from the provider of their choice; they could simply find a sign-maker who is comfortable making signs that say "fuck Red Sox fans" or whatever. It wouldn't be incumbent upon the sign-maker to show that they have the right to refuse to write a particular message, because they probably already exercise similar rights in deciding how many words it can be, how big it is, etc. Yet, even if the court decides that consumers do not have a basic right to readily obtain the creation of a physical message from any service they choose, it still wouldn't preclude them from having a basic right to get a wedding cake from any baker they choose. This might come down to the distinction between activity and identity; if speech is an act that consumers are free to undertake or not, but being homosexual and wanting to marry your partner is an aspect of one's identity, perhaps discrimination on the basis of the one can be defended but not the other. In another context, you could imagine a tee shirt maker refusing to make a shirt that reads "black lives matter", but not refusing to make tee shirts for black people in general. I think this would be legal, but I don't know enough about law to predict one way or another.

 

[untermensche]

Can we not sell to black couples because somebody somewhere might want "Kill Whitey!"?

Your hypo doesn't mirror the facts as the cake shop owner was willing to generally sell baked goods and items to gay couples.

Now, a related issue is whether one may refuse to sell a cake to a black couple because they requested the message of "kill whitey" on the cake.

But I may be commenting to hastily as I've yet to read the cert. granted by the court and need to re-familiarize myself with the facts of the case.

Just wedding cakes I know.

Because part of his sacred religious practice is denying wedding cakes to gay people.

And we are supposed to codify that nonsense in law.

Yes, let people practice their religion.

But don't accept absurd claims about what is religious practice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your hypo doesn't mirror the facts as the cake shop owner was willing to generally sell baked goods and items to gay couples.

Which is odd because it appears that baking a cake for gays is against his religion for marriage, but not general lifestyle? That is just typical conservative a la carte biblical interpretation. They can't endorse a gay wedding, but can endorse a gay married couple.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I suspect it probably is incumbent upon the person asking for the service to show that they have a right to obtain the service from the provider of their choice; they could simply find a sign-maker who is comfortable making signs that say "fuck Red Sox fans" or whatever. It wouldn't be incumbent upon the sign-maker to show that they have the right to refuse to write a particular message, because they probably already exercise similar rights in deciding how many words it can be, how big it is, etc.

But this isn't about the message, it is flatly about the cake itself. No writing, just the flour and leavening. The bakery is arguing that their expression of art is being perverted because it is going to be eaten by people who attended a gay wedding.

 

[James Madison]

Looking at the petition, this doesn't seem to be about writing at all, but asking SCOTUS to say flour, sugar, egg, and leavening is expression and that forcing him to leaven flour over something he is against based on religious grounds is wrong.

Whether applying Colorado’s publicaccommodations law to compel Phillips tocreate expression that violates his sincerelyheld religious beliefs about marriage violatesthe Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses ofthe First Amendment.

It would be a nice step for America to take, to go backwards with rights. SCOTUS could put forth a two column list, "Whom you can and can't discriminate on based on Religious belief".

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Can[/TD]
[TD]Can't[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay inter-racial couple[/TD]
[TD]Inter-racial couple[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay blacks[/TD]
[TD]Blacks[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay Jewish[/TD]
[TD]Jewish[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

He did make a free speech claim. Your post ignores the fact he made a free speech claim in your obsession over his religious freedom claim.

I've been focusing on the free speech aspect in post after post, that you've attempted to address in your posts.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looking at the petition, this doesn't seem to be about writing at all, but asking SCOTUS to say flour, sugar, egg, and leavening is expression and that forcing him to leaven flour over something he is against based on religious grounds is wrong.
It would be a nice step for America to take, to go backwards with rights. SCOTUS could put forth a two column list, "Whom you can and can't discriminate on based on Religious belief".

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Can[/TD]
[TD]Can't[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay inter-racial couple[/TD]
[TD]Inter-racial couple[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay blacks[/TD]
[TD]Blacks[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay Jewish[/TD]
[TD]Jewish[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

He did make a free speech claim. Your post ignores the fact he made a free speech claim in your obsession over his religious freedom claim.

I've been focusing on the free speech aspect in post after post, that you've attempted to address in your posts.

That's fine James. No one is perfect.

 

[James Madison]

He did make a free speech claim. Your post ignores the fact he made a free speech claim in your obsession over his religious freedom claim.

I've been focusing on the free speech aspect in post after post, that you've attempted to address in your posts.

That's fine James. No one is perfect.

You certainly aren't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's fine James. No one is perfect.

You certainly aren't.

That is for dam certain!

 

[James Madison]

You certainly aren't.

That is for dam certain!

Well, if you'd read the brief in support of the Court to grant cert., you'd realize petitioner does raise, at least, an "expressive" conduct claim under the 1st Amendment free speech clause. The petitioner expounds upon how creating a cake for any special event or occasion, not just weddings, is expressive conduct and an "art."

I'm not citing this information as evidence of the persuasiveness of his free speech argument, but instead to repudiate your dismissal of any free speech claim as so untenable as to not qualify as an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whichphilosophy]

SCOTUS has said they will hear arguments in the Masterpiece v Colorado case. A case that has caused rage boners to those in the right-wing, conservative wing, and Libertarian wing of the country.

People are familiar with the case:

• a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding
• couple sued
• cake shop lost
• rage boners

The state has a law that says a consumer can't be discriminated against. Right-winger/conservatives/libertarians argue that such a law discriminates against assholes and is unconstitutional, then they got rage boners. This case will be very important because it will decide whether an individual's right to not be discriminated against is superceded by an individual's right to discriminate. Now most people may remember this shit all happened before, most notably during the Civil Right's era when assholes thought they had the right to put blacks in their place. But you know, history repeats and shit...

Good. This area of the law needs some potential clarification.

A cake with a Republican theme would probably be okay for a Democrat Cake maker but what about one with a KKK symbol and Marzipan white hooded decorations on the coke. Bad as they are if the KKK took this to court it would be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[James Madison]

Good. This area of the law needs some potential clarification.

A cake with a Republican theme would probably be okay for a Democrat Cake maker but what about one with a KKK symbol and Marzipan white hooded decorations on the coke. Bad as they are if the KKK took this to court it would be interesting to see the outcome.

According to the brief in support of granting cert., the CRA (civil rights commission) issued conflicting rulings.

"In contrast, while this case was still ongoing, the Commission found that three secular bakeries did not discriminate based on creed when they refused a Christian customer’s request for custom cakes that criticized same-sex marriage on religious grounds. App. 293-327a. And it did so despite “creed” under CADA encompassing “all aspects of religious beliefs, observances, and practices ... [including] the beliefs or teachings of a particular religion,” 3 C.C.R. 708- 1:10.2(H) (emphasis added), App. 96a. The Commission reasoned that—like Phillips—(1) the bakeries declined the request because they objected to the particular message of the cake and (2) the bakeries were willing to create other items for Christians. App. 297-331a. Unlike Phillips, the Commission exempted these secular bakeries from CADA’s scope."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your hypo doesn't mirror the facts as the cake shop owner was willing to generally sell baked goods and items to gay couples.

Now, a related issue is whether one may refuse to sell a cake to a black couple because they requested the message of "kill whitey" on the cake.

But I may be commenting to hastily as I've yet to read the cert. granted by the court and need to re-familiarize myself with the facts of the case.

Just wedding cakes I know.

Because part of his sacred religious practice is denying wedding cakes to gay people.

And we are supposed to codify that nonsense in law.

Yes, let people practice their religion.

But don't accept absurd claims about what is religious practice.

For someone that supposedly anarchist, you are one of the most authoritarian people on here.

Do the briefs for the case only talk free speech or do they also talk about religiion?

 

[blastula]

I recall when this was discussed here last time around. It seems pretty straightforward with the cake case, but I am still undecided about if we should be able to force wedding photographers to photograph gay weddings or make bands play at them etc.

In the cake of the case, you also do have the free expression question. If I can force you to write whatever I want on a cake I buy from you, does that violate your free expression? How is this handled with sky writers and bus signs? I'm pretty sure we had a recent bus sign case, yes? I can't recall much about it.

I think free expression could apply more to photographers than to bakers unless they were asked for a specific message. Most wedding cakes don't have writing. In this case, there was no discussion of a message, they were denied the moment the baker knew it was for a gay wedding. That has been the case in all the gay wedding cake lawsuits I have seen. They gay couples are asking for the same thing the baker would give to a straight couple, some concoction of flour, eggs, butter and sugar.The baker's position is like if a supermarket wanted to have a say in how you used the groceries you bought.

 

[untermensche]

Just wedding cakes I know.

Because part of his sacred religious practice is denying wedding cakes to gay people.

And we are supposed to codify that nonsense in law.

Yes, let people practice their religion.

But don't accept absurd claims about what is religious practice.

For someone that supposedly anarchist, you are one of the most authoritarian people on here.

Do the briefs for the case only talk free speech or do they also talk about religiion?

What exactly is the problem with not permitting people to discriminate based on fantasies?

The guy has some insane delusion he knows how some god feels about gay marriage.

Do we honor this delusion in the law or do we try to educate this ignoramus?

 

[coloradoatheist]

For someone that supposedly anarchist, you are one of the most authoritarian people on here.

Do the briefs for the case only talk free speech or do they also talk about religiion?

What exactly is the problem with not permitting people to discriminate based on fantasies?

The guy has some insane delusion he knows how some god feels about gay marriage.

Do we honor this delusion in the law or do we try to educate this ignoramus?

Coming from someone who peddles anarchism?

Every store does not need to cater to every individual going into that store. A big and talk clothing store does not need to have clothes for short people. And other stores don't need to have clothing for Big and Tall people. If it's important to find a cake for a gay wedding somebody will make it for them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I recall when this was discussed here last time around. It seems pretty straightforward with the cake case, but I am still undecided about if we should be able to force wedding photographers to photograph gay weddings or make bands play at them etc.

In the cake of the case, you also do have the free expression question. If I can force you to write whatever I want on a cake I buy from you, does that violate your free expression? How is this handled with sky writers and bus signs? I'm pretty sure we had a recent bus sign case, yes? I can't recall much about it.

I think free expression could apply more to photographers than to bakers unless they were asked for a specific message. Most wedding cakes don't have writing. In this case, there was no discussion of a message, they were denied the moment the baker knew it was for a gay wedding. That has been the case in all the gay wedding cake lawsuits I have seen. They gay couples are asking for the same thing the baker would give to a straight couple, some concoction of flour, eggs, butter and sugar.The baker's position is like if a supermarket wanted to have a say in how you used the groceries you bought.

Could a wedding cake itself not be a form of expression, despite no text written on it? I figure it is the concern of the baker that they will look like they are endorsing homosexuality (which they don't) by creating the cake, and that the cake is a work of art created with that message simply by the act of creation. It is an art piece signifying the marriage of one person to another.

If they are selling the exact same cake to a straight couple that they are denying to the gay couple, then I agree with you, but I don't think it unreasonable to expect that there may be some differences (like two groom figurines instead of a groom and a bride figurine). I also have to wonder how the cake maker even knows it is for a gay wedding it is the former and not the latter scenario.

 

[untermensche]

What exactly is the problem with not permitting people to discriminate based on fantasies?

The guy has some insane delusion he knows how some god feels about gay marriage.

Do we honor this delusion in the law or do we try to educate this ignoramus?

Coming from someone who peddles anarchism?

Every store does not need to cater to every individual going into that store. A big and talk clothing store does not need to have clothes for short people. And other stores don't need to have clothing for Big and Tall people. If it's important to find a cake for a gay wedding somebody will make it for them.

That is a complete dodge.

You are defending ignorant prejudice and saying we should codify it in law.

You are the oppressor here.

 

[blastula]

In this case, the couple walked in together and said it would be for their wedding. As I said, in all the cases like this I have heard of, the cake is denied when the baker has learned what kind of wedding it's for and before any discussion of specifics.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Coming from someone who peddles anarchism?

Every store does not need to cater to every individual going into that store. A big and talk clothing store does not need to have clothes for short people. And other stores don't need to have clothing for Big and Tall people. If it's important to find a cake for a gay wedding somebody will make it for them.

That is a complete dodge.

You are defending ignorant prejudice and saying we should codify it in law.

You are the oppressor here.

Nope, not here. If somebody wants to be dumb and sell something you don't like go ahead and allow it. You are the one saying the government must dictate how and what must be sold. You are allowed to be dumb in the market place.

 

[untermensche]

That is a complete dodge.

You are defending ignorant prejudice and saying we should codify it in law.

You are the oppressor here.

Nope, not here. If somebody wants to be dumb and sell something you don't like go ahead and allow it. You are the one saying the government must dictate how and what must be sold. You are allowed to be dumb in the market place.

No. I am saying the government should not codify ignorant prejudice in the law.

The baker is an ignoramus.

His ignorance should not be the thing most protected here.

The rights of people to live without ignorant prejudice is.