Judge rules against Christian baker Jack Phillips in transgender 'birthday' cake case

[Mark_Smith]

You’re a butcher. And a deacon at a Baptist church that teaches against drinking alcohol. A guy comes in and asks for a side of beef because he is going to have a blowout party with tons of beer and liquor. Can you not sell the beef to him because you don’t like how he’ll use it? This is pure lunacy.

Beef doesn’t communicate a message, does it? Where’s the message asked to be conveyed here? This is a speech issue.

Try to comprehend my pure lunacy, and I’ll try to get my mind around your utter blindness.

Ahh… see ,you asked that baker to be an artist. In the case at hand we have a plain pink cake with blue frosting. No art.

How did you decide it wasn’t art? And more importantly, how did you decide it wasn’t speech (which is the real issue; the first amendment isn’t about art but speech and association)? And what gives you the authority to determine what Jack Philips must believe or say or do?

The customer clearly intended it to be speech; he said so. That was the basis of the whole charade. He wanted to bait Philips into a situation of saying something. The point of it being speech has already been conceded. The cake had a meaning that the customer wanted the baker to communicate. And the baker did not want to say that based on his religious convictions and that is exactly what the 1A is for.

This is pure lunacy.

This about sums it up, I think.

[Andrew K]

Mark_Smith wrote:

You’re a butcher. And a deacon at a Baptist church that teaches against drinking alcohol. A guy comes in and asks for a side of beef because he is going to have a blowout party with tons of beer and liquor. Can you not sell the beef to him because you don’t like how he’ll use it? This is pure lunacy.

Beef doesn’t communicate a message, does it? Where’s the message asked to be conveyed here? This is a speech issue.

Try to comprehend my pure lunacy, and I’ll try to get my mind around your utter blindness.

Andrew,

if the baker can tell the man no about the cake with no artistic worth, the butcher can tell the drunkard no. Is that America?

[Larry]

How did you decide it wasn’t art?

Uhh… its a basic cake with some frosting on the outside. That’s not art in anyone’s imagination.

Uhh… its a basic cake with some frosting on the outside. That’s not art in anyone’s imagination.

Why are you hung up on it being art? And why are you determined to force speech from someone? Why not give them freedom to do what they want?

If you are a businessman you are open to all. The limit reasonably comes to you being part of the message. So, if your artistic talent (a la a specially made fancy cake) becomes part of the message, you can refuse. Otherwise you smile and do the job.

Let’s say you are an electrician and the local Democratic Party HQ has a problem that needs to be fixed. Can you refuse? Can a mechanic refuse an oil change for a JW church van?

[Larry]

Uhh… its a basic cake with some frosting on the outside. That’s not art in anyone’s imagination.

Why are you hung up on it being art? And why are you determined to force speech from someone? Why not give them freedom to do what they want?

Why are you determined to read every action as speech so you can refuse it?

the original argument by the baker and photographer was that it was their artisitc talent. The law is settled about basic commerce. If you are open you are open to all.

Why are you determined to read every action as speech so you can refuse it?

That’s actually the basis of the request. The customer admitted it. Did you even read the article? Are you familiar with the facts of the case and the preceding ones?

Let’s say you are an electrician and the local Democratic Party HQ has a problem that needs to be fixed. Can you refuse? Can a mechanic refuse an oil change for a JW church van?

Of course. But neither of those are speech.

I am not quite following your line of thinking here. You seem to believe that people should be compelled to say things or do things that violate their religious conscience. Why is that acceptable to you? What’s wrong with referring someone to another provider who can help them?

[Mark_Smith]

Uhh… its a basic cake with some frosting on the outside. That’s not art in anyone’s imagination.

In that case, neither are blank walls, crosses laying in urine, plain stripes, or splotches of paint thrown on a canvas, all of which are considered art by some, and worthy of protection for free expression as such. A simple, but well-made cake is just as much art as those if the baker considers it so, and should be given the same protection.

(Note: the items on my list are not art in my imagination, but that doesn’t apply to everyone.)

[Larry]

Why are you determined to read every action as speech so you can refuse it?

That’s actually the basis of the request. The customer admitted it. Did you even read the article? Are you familiar with the facts of the case and the preceding ones?

Let’s say you are an electrician and the local Democratic Party HQ has a problem that needs to be fixed. Can you refuse? Can a mechanic refuse an oil change for a JW church van?

Of course. But neither of those are speech.

I am not quite following your line of thinking here. You seem to believe that people should be compelled to say things or do things that violate their religious conscience. Why is that acceptable to you? What’s wrong with referring someone to another provider who can help them?

Larry,

We must be miscommunicating. Yes, I read the articles. Have you?

And by the way, you CANNOT refuse to serve someone “because they are a Democrat” or “because they are a JW.”

A guy comes in and says he wants a pink cake with blue frosting. So what???? He then tells you its to celebrate his coming out party or transgender or whatever. So what? You make cakes. When the customer leaves who cares what they do with it.

The previous lawsuit was about artistic involvement in a cause. If my skills as an artist are used to endorse an idea I don’t agree with. So, a fancy birthday cake or wedding cake. Or some other elaborate artistic work. That is not what is going on here. It was a basic cake with frosting lathered on.

Remember, artistic creative talent had to be involved per the SCOTUS decision. You merely using your talent was not enough. The photographers lost their lawsuit because all they were doing was recording what happened. They were not deemed to be endorsing anything by providing their service.

Some of the worst acts of intolerance are being done in the name of tolerance

the dynamic he describes so well applies to all the fronts in the culture war. It also points to a fundamental difference between the religious and secular fundamentalists these days. Take the most fire-breathing preacher in backwoods Mississippi. He may rail at what he takes to be the sinful ways of sexually liberated San Francisco. But he’ll largely settle for keeping pornography and Drag Queen Story Hour out of the local library.

By contrast, the progressive in San Francisco is not content with the sexual license his hometown affords. He doesn’t seem to be able to sleep at night unless he knows the local library in some rural Mississippi town has its own Drag Queen Story Hour.

In the same way, it is apparently not enough for a Colorado woman to get a blue-and-pink cake celebrating her gender transition from any of dozens of bakers in her area who are more than happy to bake her one. She wants to force Jack Phillips to make it—precisely because she knows it goes against his beliefs. Yet another testament to why the most egregious exercises of intolerance today are those done in the name of tolerance.