News

Colorado, baker end legal spat over transgender woman’s cake

Baker Jack Phillips manages his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor June 4, 2018, in a case over whether he could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds — a stance partially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — and state officials said Tuesday (March 5) that they would end a separate legal fight over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and attorneys representing Jack Phillips said they mutually agreed to end two legal actions, including a federal lawsuit Phillips filed accusing the state of waging a “crusade to crush” him by pursuing a civil rights complaint over the gender transition cake.

Phillips’ attorneys dubbed the agreement a victory for the baker. Weiser, a Democrat, said both sides “agreed it was not in anyone’s best interest to move forward with these cases.”

The agreement resolves every ongoing legal dispute between the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver and the state. Weiser’s statement said it has no effect on the ability of the Denver attorney who filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to pursue her own legal action.

The attorney, Autumn Scardina, told the commission that Phillips refused last year to make a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside for a celebration of her transition from male to female.

She asked for the cake on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider Phillips’ appeal of a previous commission ruling against him. In that 2012 case, he refused to make a wedding cake for same-sex couple Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the commission showed anti-religious bias when it sanctioned Phillips. The justices did not rule on the larger issue of whether businesses can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gays or lesbians.

Weeks later, the commission found probable cause that Phillips had discriminated against Scardina because she is transgender and ordered them to find a solution through mediation. Phillips then filed a federal lawsuit against the commission, citing his belief that gender “is given by God … and cannot be chosen or changed.”

Both sides notified a federal judge on Tuesday that Phillips’ lawsuit was being dropped and each party would pay for their own costs and attorney fees.

“We hope that the state is done going along with obvious efforts to harass Jack,” said Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom. “He shouldn’t be driven out of business just because some people disagree with his religious beliefs and his desire to live consistently with them.”

The conservative Christian nonprofit law firm represented Phillips in the U.S. Supreme Court case and the latest dispute.

Weiser said the commission unanimously voted to dismiss its administrative action against Phillips.

“The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them,” Weiser said in a statement. “Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws.”

It wasn’t immediately known if Scardina, the Denver attorney, planned further action involving Phillips. Telephone messages for Autumn Scardina and for Todd Scardina, an attorney representing Autumn in the civil rights commission proceedings, weren’t immediately returned Tuesday.

(Associated Press writers James Anderson and Colleen Slevin contributed to this report.)

About the author

Kathleen Foody

180 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • These homophobic bakers (why is it always bakers?) should save everyone the trouble and just hang a great big sign in their store windows which say, “STRAIGHT CUSTOMERS ONLY.” Of course that might affect their bottom line since many straight people might decide to do business elsewhere, something these bakers undoubtedly know, which is why they’re too cowardly to stand on principle and be completely forthright about their homophobic views.

  • It is what it is. This kind of mess has gone on long enough. Even the state of Colorado, whose anti-religious bias was criticized by the USSC itself has had enough and gone home.

    So it’s seriously time for this trans lawyer — whose DNA scientifically shouts “Guy” instead of “Girl” — to simply cut out his weird “Lifetime Movie Channel” obsession against the Christian baker, Jack Phillips. No more excuses, no more PC pampering.

    I know all this sounds rough, but it’s time to speak the truth already This Autumn (ahem), needs to get rational and stop bullying Jack Phillips. Cut out the mess already. Upgrade to sanity.

    Phillips ain’t bothering YOU, is he? Nope he ain’t. He only wants his constitutional religious freedom, the same way you want yours.

  • Why is he homophobic? He never refused to bake a cake for the gay couple. He refused to bake a *custom wedding cake* for them. Big difference. He had previously sold them other cakes and offered to sell them an off the shelf cake the could decorate themselves. There was nothing fearful (true meaning of phobia) or hateful (false meaning of phobia) in his actions.

  • I see. So he was perfectly willing to take their money if it was an ordinary cake just not one to help them celebrate the most important day of their lives. That’s very charitable.

  • He (and many cake bakers) consider *CUSTOM CAKE* making an art. I’m certain you’ve seen the amazing creations of some cake artists on TV? Do you really believe that every cake baker should ALWAYS design and bake a cake for anyone and any reason with no rights of refusal in any situation? Let us say you are a cake baker who is gay and someone asked you to design a cake incorporating those scriptures which condemn homosexuality? If you refused to do that, should the full weight of the state come against you for refusing to sell something to everyone who comes into your shop? No, you would be within your rights to say “I’m sorry but I disagree with the intention of the message on this cake and cannot design a cake like this.” He disagrees with the concept of same-sex marriage because of his adherence to the Christian faith. You say he isn’t being “charitable”. Perhaps, but he is standing up for his conscience rights with no animus towards anyone.

  • So he wanted the customers to go to a separate vendor of equal quality because they were gay.

    “Separate but equal”…where have such terms been used before?

  • So he wanted to treat the customers as social inferiors because they were gay.

    To deny them the goods and services normally provided to anyone who walks in the door because he felt personal animus against that class of people.

    Jack Philips disagrees with the basic notion that all customers of a business open to the public need to be treated with the barest level of civility required by law and society. So he deserves whatever social and legal penalties such incivility entails.

    Funny how you have to create this elaborate fictional spin on his actions to try to pretend it was anything other than a guy telling a customer, “I don’t serve your kind, f— you”. No more different from any other bigot acting in a discriminatory manner. Something more befitting of the Jim Crow era than the 21st Century.

  • There are no constitutional freedoms associated with discrimination in open commerce based on the customer’s class of people. Jack Philips is a bigoted scumbucket who happened to be used for political fundraising efforts.

    A cowardly sort who just didn’t feel like being a martyr to his alleged beliefs and sought special privilege to harm others.

  • Mr. Phillips does not seel #6 Standard cakes.

    Autumn Scardina is the scumbucket in this case, and its side smelled defeat or it would not have dropped the case.

  • Neither Elagablus nor Spuddie have the slightest interest in the facts of the case, or that he had sold the very same couple cakes before, or that he employed LGBT people.

  • His defense was free speech, and that baking the cake as desired violated his.

    Forced speech is clearly unconstitutional.

  • Try to stay on track … the case then and this one were and are NOT about race discrimination.

  • I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but you are being misleading. The bakers have no issue serving LGBT customers, as Mr. Phillips has pointed out on numerous occasions. They are welcome to buy birthday cakes, cupcakes, Christmas cookies, etc. The bakery is not trying to say homosexual people don’t have a right to buy things from their business. The issue is when folks from the LGBT community try to force the bakers to affirm their distinctive practices, which is what they are doing when they demand two men be put on a wedding cake or demand a cake endorsing transgenderism.

  • Indeed, they knew what would happen if it made it to the SCOTUS: the same thing that happened last time.

  • Wish this would have gone to court. It would have demonstrated the bigotry of the state and the lgbt crowd.

  • “The justices did not rule on the larger issue of whether businesses can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gays or lesbians.”

    Apparently, bigots like you don’t read well.

  • Phillips later announced a new policy for his shop: he would no longer serve interracial couples either. “I mean, all bets are off; I may be turning away anybody I think is Muslim next, or any women that I heard had an abortion,” he enthused. “These are my store’s sincerely held beliefs!”

  • Also, when a customer walks into a bakery, they ***order*** a cake — they don’t “demand”.

  • You don’t have “opinions”; you have bigotry. And I don’t tolerate bigotry.

    I asked you a question: What other medical conditions run afoul of your “beliefs”?

  • Instigating a legal fight against someone is a formal demand that they act in the way you’d like them to.

  • I see. So it’s only bigotry if someone disagrees with you. Got it.

    I did not respond to your question because I have no interest in pursuing tangential rabbit trails with you.

  • Well, think real hard… is that how it started? The customers didn’t enter the bakery with a lawyer in tow. They ordered a cake. Do you demand chocolate chip cookies when you enter a bakery?

  • You can’t answer my question because there is no rational response possible.

    Bigotry and intolerance is generally understood to be directed toward minority populations, particularly racial and sexual minorities. This story is a prime example.

  • No, it just means that shouting “bigotry!” when you meet someone who has different views than you is itself bigotry.

  • The baker took it a step further by refusing to serve them. No one “demanded” that he share their views. They ordered a cake.

  • Obviously they started out “ordering.” The only person who thinks anyone disputes that is you. The issue is not that they ordered it. The issue is that moved on to make a demand for it. They tried to make someone else endorse their way of life which was against a religious conviction. That violates both free speech and religious freedom.

  • He didn’t answer because you would find a way to explain his rational beliefs. Face is Canis: you are a bigot, and you hate people who disagree with you! No go get a life and stop throwing around your hate.

  • Sure, buddy. I “can’t answer because there’s no rational response.” Because clearly, anyone who holds different views than you is just irrational.

  • They moved to protest a violation of the law — the law of public accommodations. Your right-wing idiocy doesn’t usurp the law. It is a LIE to claim they “tried to make someone else endorse their way of life”. That is your bigotry talking — and the bigotry of the right-wing HATE GROUP who funded his defense.

  • I think if you want to see a bigot, you can go look in the nearest mirror and he will be staring back at you. I like the dog picture though. Obviously he is the intelligent one in your household.

  • “The justices did not rule on the larger issue of whether businesses can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gays or lesbians.”

    Apparently, you’re unaware of how the court ruled.

  • Perfectly aware, thanks. The justices ruled the Commission acted inappropriately in their treatment of Masterpiece Bakery. And the same thing would most likely have happened again if it had gone to the Supreme Court, because the members of the Commission were still using the same prejudiced lines of reasoning as before.

    See, the problem here is that because you believe anyone who disagrees with you must be irrational, you are assuming that people around you are just stupid. I meant exactly what I said in my comment about what would happen if it made it to the SCOTUS again, and your suggestion that I am simply “unaware” of the facts only shows ignorance on your part, not mine.

  • I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree until the Supreme Court settles this for us.

  • Whether or not you “disagree” with someone has nothing to do with treating people equally under the law.

    Jesus welcomed people who were different into his circle. He didn’t say to the Samaritan, “I won’t serve you because I disagree with you”. You and your “religious” ilk are hypocrites to the core.

  • Yes, He did welcome people who were different from him. So did Jack Phillips, the baker. If you’ll recall, the first couple that took him to court were already patrons of his bakery before they asked him for a same-sex wedding cake. He just wouldn’t affirm their sin by making a cake celebrating a homosexual union. It’s a little bit like Jesus showing love towards the woman caught in adultery, but then telling her to stop sinning.

  • I’ve had it with fake Christians like yourself who have endless excuses for their sins of bigotry and hypocrisy. You and your fellow bigot hypocrites can go straight to hell.

  • Perhaps I would be such if I insisted everyone should lie about Mr. Scardina.

    Like you do.

  • I’m sorry it’s frustrating to you, I really am. But I will not ignore the truth of Scripture just to make people happy. That is not love. Christ has called us to repentance, not tolerance and acceptance of sin. I hope one day you embrace God’s truth and accept His will for your life, so that you can experience eternal life in Jesus.

  • You don’t know s**t about love.Or me. Or Christ. Or scripture. Or truth. You’re just another self-serving, clueless fundie who thinks he has all the answers. Well, you don’t.

  • Wow. Stores have “sincerely held beliefs”? 

    (Yes, I know … in Militantchristiania, non-human entities can — in fact — be said to have “beliefs”!) 

  • Re: “The issue is when folks from the LGBT community try to force the bakers to affirm their distinctive practices …” 

    Baking a cake for someone does not, in any way, constitute anything even remotely resembling “affirmation” of anything about them. 

  • Re: “They tried to make someone else endorse their way of life which was against a religious conviction.” 

    That’s the second time you’ve claimed a business transaction is an “endorsement” of something. It’s not. Selling a cake is … well! … selling a cake. It doesn’t mean anything. There’s no metaphysical “endorsement force” at work during the sale of a cake, or anything else, really. 

  • I agree in the general sense. Which is why Mr. Phillips had no problem offering them generic cakes to decorate as they desired. He just wouldn’t decorate cakes with messages of affirmation about same-sex marriage or transgenderism.

  • Re: “He just wouldn’t decorate cakes with messages of affirmation about same-sex marriage or transgenderism.” 

    That’s a distinction without a difference. Decorating a cake is still just a business transaction. It doesn’t carry an “affirmation” or anything else of the sort. There is no metaphysical force at work which creates it … just an exchange of money for a service. That’s all. 

  • If you worked at a bakery and decorated cakes, would you sell a cake to a KKK group that requested a cake decorated with hooded figures and a noose? Would you fulfill a request by a local NAMBLA chapter that involved you decorating a cake with frosting designs of small boys all over it? Since there’s no “metaphysical endorsement force,” you would actually decorate cakes like that?

  • Re: “f you worked at a bakery and decorated cakes, would you sell a cake to a KKK group that requested a cake decorated with hooded figures and a noose?” 

    Probably not, because that could be viewed as threatening, and in turn might involve me in conveying a threat. (Just as asking me to write a threatening letter to someone would likewise involve me in something criminal.) 

    On the other hand, baking a cake for a gay wedding isn’t a threat. To anyone. So I get what you’re trying to do here … but you failed, because there’s no equivalency. 

    Re: “Would you fulfill a request by a local NAMBLA chapter that involved you decorating a cake with frosting designs of small boys all over it?” 

    No, I wouldn’t, because that arguably would be a kind of “kiddie porn” and as such could be illegal to make or convey. 

    On the other hand, baking a cake for a gay wedding isn’t “kiddie porn.” So I get what you’re trying to do here … but you failed, because there’s no equivalency. 

    Re: “Since there’s no “metaphysical endorsement force,” you would actually decorate cakes like that?” 

    No, but not because there’s any metaphysics at work. As I explained, in each case, making such decorations might be interpreted as criminal, in and of themselves. And as I also explained, twice, that’s substantially different from decorating a cake for a gay wedding. Gay weddings aren’t illegal, not even arguably so. (Even if you want them to be … they aren’t, your wishes notwithstanding.) 

    You’re engaging in “apples & oranges” comparisons. That’s all there is to it. 

  • “He only wants his constitutional freedoms…”

    Time will undoubtedly tell if the baker’s “freedoms” are, indeed, “constitutional.”

    “It ain’t over till it’s over. And it ain’t over.”

  • “There was nothing fearful (true meaning of phobia) or hateful (false meaning of phobia) in [the baker’s] actions.”

    FEAR is the root cause of most sins, e.g., hatred, bigotry, etc.

  • Discrimination (the bad kind) can involve race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. “Separate but equal” can apply to all such bad behavior.

  • “I agree in the general sense…..He just wouldn’t…”

    As Dr. Phil likes to say, When someone says, “I agree, but…”, that person is saying, “I disagree.”

  • “Do you demand chocolate chip cookies when you enter a bakery?”

    (…he might…)

  • Baking a gay wedding cake VS a KKK or NAMBLA cake: Applies and oranges. No comparison.

  • “You’re engaging in ‘apples & oranges’ comparisons.”

    Darnit, you beat me to it :o)

  • ….or he would demand that the baker endorse his religious beliefs or else no sale.

  • Ever since the Hobby Lobby decision, corporations are ascribed religious viewpoints somehow. Just like money became speech for ‘free speech/campaign contribution’ purposes.

  • There are two problems with your analogy.

    1. the KKK is not a protected class. There is no legal requirement to provide them the “full and equal enjoyment” of your public accommodation.

    2. Your analogy is based upon the way that the cake is decorated (hense why you put “hooded figures and a noose”). The cake in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case never got to ever being defined. So, it’s an invalid analogy.

    Now, my question to you is this:

    A black couple goes into a bakery and says, “I want a wedding cake for our wedding.” the cake owner goes “I’m sorry, but I don’t serve black weddings.”

    Do you support his right to do this? That is almost word for word what happened here. A gay couple walks into a shop and goes, “I want a wedding cake for our wedding.” The owner, before getting any knowledge of how the cake was to be decorated, stated: “I’m sorry, but I don’t do gay weddings.”

  • That’s actually false. The first couple were not patrons of his. They went into his shop based upon the recommendation of their wedding planner, as it was a wedding cake shop near where they were getting married. You’re confusing it with the Arlene’s flowers case in Washington State.

    He is required to provide the full and equal enjoyment of all his services, not just his non-offensive ones. So, if he makes wedding cakes for straight couples, then he cannot deny those wedding cakes to gay couples, plain and simple. He cannot refuse to serve gay weddings, if he serves straight weddings.

    Just as the person who denied the tax services in Indiana because she said that preparing a tax form that marks a gay couple as “Married” (as she’s legally required to do) violates her religious rights. In this case, she had the legal right to do this, because gays are not protected from discrimination there.

  • No. He did not refuse to serve them “because they were gay.” He refused to make a bespoke item for the exclusive purpose of an event he didn’t want to participate in. Fascists tried to force him to participate in it. The day they failed, another fascist tried to set him up for another round of lawfare.

    That’s what happened, and you know it.

  • So you agree that a gay baker could be compelled to decorate a cake with messages affirming conjugal marriage. Because that’s just a business transaction too, right?

  • Selling a cake is indeed selling a cake. Custom making and custom decorating a cake is a form of expression.

  • Faulty analogy. Baking a cake for an authentic wedding versus a cake for a “same sex wedding”: apples and oranges. No comparison.

  • Not really. There is no difference in any aspect of the cake, other than the people ordering the cake, and the only thing that differentiates them from eachother is a protected class status.

    I believe that all interracial weddings are non-authentic weddings. Therefore, I should be able to refuse the ability to sell my wedding cakes to interracial couples. After all, a non-authentic wedding is a non-authentic wedding, plain and simple, right.

    Mr. Phillips is required to provide all services that he provides straight couples to gay couples. He cannot refuse to serve someone any service just because they’re a gay, same-sex couple.

  • Wrong again. It’s not the “people ordering the cake,” it’s the event the baker doesn’t want to participate in. That event being a wedding he doesn’t regard as valid. If they simply wanted an off-the-shelf item – which, as you know but prefer to ignore, he was willing to provide – that would be one thing, but demanding that he engage his creative talents in that endeavor is quite another.

    I thought you Americans were opposed to slavery.

    The correct term for a class of people that has the power to compel service is not “protected,” it is “privileged.”

    Alternatively, you could call them an “aristocracy.”

  • I have no reason to suppose that he is any worse a human being than you are. In fact, I don’t even have any reason to suppose that he would be any worse a human being than you are even if your bigoted opinion of him was accurate.

  • Affiliate marketing world jobs have become a trend all over the over world these days. The latest study tells more than 70% of the people are working for on line job opportunities from home with no difficulties. Every person wants to spend some time daily with his/her good friends by getting out for any attractive place in the country or any other country. So web-based income allows you to do the work at any time you want and enjoy your life. Although choosing the best way furthermore building the proper target is our ambition in the direction of achieving success. Already plenty of people are gaining such a great profit of $24000 each and every week making use of suggested as well as successful techniques for generating income on line. You can start to earn from the 1st day at the time you look at our site. >>>>> http://www.helios-store.com/Bmk

  • Re: “So you agree that a gay baker could be compelled to decorate a cake with messages affirming conjugal marriage.” 

    Yes. 

    Re: “Because that’s just a business transaction too, right?” 

    Yes. 

  • Yes, they is precisely what he did. He refused to treat them like any other customer and sell them something he would do for any other customer, because they were gay.

    The only difference between this couple and any other buying a wedding cake from him was orientation.

    Everything is else is just dishonest cheap rationalization for what is clearly just like any other act of discrimination in open commerce.

    The “celebrating” argument is nonsense. If he didn’t sell a wedding cake because he didn’t want to “participate” in an interracial wedding, an interfaith wedding, or because they were of a different sect, because of his religious beliefs, it would still be discrimination based on what the customers were.

    There is no religious exemption to anti discrimination laws for open commerce.

    If he didn’t want to be “forced” to treat all customers with the most basic level of civility and respect expected, don’t open a business to the general public. Do business by word of mouth, membership club, through exclusive venues. You open a store to the public, you have a duty to treat all customers the same regardless of what they are.

    You are a segregationist scumbag for defending this. You are trying to say that gays needs to be kept separate from avenues of commerce from bible thumping bigots. No different from the defenders of Jim Crow. They had the same excuses, including religious belief that they could not serve who they considered social inferiors.

  • If he didn’t want to treat gay customers with the same level of civility he would other customers. To deny them goods he would normally sell to anyone else, because they were gay.

    No different from the Jim Crow era restaurants who would serve black people, just not inside where they can sit down.

    There is no such thing as well intentioned discrimination. It was meant as a malicious act and he meant to demean the couple by denying the cake to them that he would sell to anyone else.

    The issue here are Christian bigots who want a special privilege to segregate businesses from gays. To break laws protecting the public to serve their personal prejudice.

  • Wrong, you are using the same arguments they were used in supporting racial segregation.

    That the victim here is a social inferiors and religious belief supports it. Therefore you feel entitled to deny them goods and services to them that wound normally be sold to any other customers.

  • This is already settled law. It’s just that Christian bigots wanted a special privilege to ignore it.

  • You are lying, as you habitually do. Jim Crow was a set of laws that compelled businesses to discriminate. As such, it has more in common with your side of the argument that with that of Jack Phillips and friends.

  • “Wrong, you are using the same arguments they were used in supporting racial segregation.”

    Damnation by association is a favourite tactic of demagogues. No wonder you are so fond of it.

  • On the contrary, it is entirely relevant.

    Once upon a time, liberals – real liberals, that is – opposed censorship because it restrained unpopular speech. Compelling speech takes tyranny to a new level.

  • I don’t know; is the “gay” jihad a “hate group?”

    You certainly display an awful lot of hatred towards anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

  • You aren’t even trying to make a cogent argument. You are literally recycling what was said in favor of segregation. Calling for separate marketplaces for open commerce for gays. Then responding by making it some kind of personal attack.

    If it talks like a segregationist, uses the same arguments as one, supports the same kind of actions as one, guess what, it is a segregationist.

  • Spuddie: “A cowardly sort who just didn’t feel like being a martyr to his alleged beliefs and sought special privilege to harm others.”

    So someone who is willing to stand, virtually alone, against the hitherto unstoppable “gay” jihad – and win! – is “a cowardly sort.”

    While, presumably, the whiners who thought they were being “harmed” by being asked to walk 50 meters down the street to find a baker who wanted their business are heroes.

    Got it.

    I realise that it’s hard for you, Spuddie, to recognise when someone you despise has a principled position. In order to recognise principles, it helps if you have some of your own.

  • They couple were were denied goods the baker would sell to any other couple, because they were gay.
    You are ignorant as well as dishonest. Jim Crow didn’t compel any business to discriminate. It gave them permission to do so. Permission to deny classes of people access to various venues of open commerce or limit their options. Hence travelers carried guides as to which business discriminated and which ones did not. (Subject of an Oscar winning film recently)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

    You are seeking legal permission to discriminate in open commerce. Nothing else. There is no 1st Amendment issue here. Jack Philips is a cowardly bigot who thought he could use religious belief as an excuse to discriminate against customers. Something unacceptable in our society for over 50 years. Cowardly in that he was not willing to face the consequences of his act. Not willing to be a martyr to his Christian belief.

  • He didn’t “stand alone” nor was willing to face the consequences of his act. He acted cowardly. Typical discriminatory bigot. He had the support of Christian bigots providing legal counsel (for the purposes of fundraising) and now can rely on wingnut welfare for publicity.

    “who thought they were being “harmed” by being asked to walk 50 meters down the street”

    So the gay couple should have sought separate but equal quality services from someone other than a malicious Christian bigot. “Separate but equal” where have we heard such arguments before? And yet you deny any connection to segregationists? How funny. Discrimination in open commerce is harm. A legally recognized one.

    Sorry buddy, but nobody ever needs to navigate the bigotry and malice of vendors in open commerce to buy goods and services. You open a store to the general public, you have to serve the general public with the bare minimum of civility. That means treating them all the same regardless of what class of people they are.

    All you have done is prove my point. It was only about the couple being gay. It was about treating the gay couple in a deliberately demeaning fashion. It was about refusing to sell to the gay couple, something he would have sold to anyone else.

  • Spuddie: “They couple were were denied goods the baker would sell to any other couple, because they were gay. ”

    That’s false, as you perfectly well know and fully intended. The baker explicitly offered to sell the pair anything they wanted off the shelf. He refused only to make a custom item for a specific event.

    Nothing else.

    Spuddie: “You are ignorant as well as dishonest. Jim Crow didn’t compel any business to discriminate.”

    You are lying again.

    “Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. The laws were enforced until 1965. In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America….”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

    Spuddie: “Jack Philips is a cowardly bigot”

    He’s demonstrably braver than you are, and a whole lot less bigoted.

  • “That’s false, as you perfectly well know and fully intended. The baker explicitly offered to sell the pair anything they wanted off the shelf. He refused only to make a custom item for a specific event.”

    No, that is not a denial of what I said. He did not want to treat the gay couple as anyone else who came to buy wedding cakes. He specifically did not want to treat them like any other customer.

    What he offered is exactly the same as restaurants under Jim Crow which served black people, but didn’t allow them to sit down inside. They could have the wares, but not like other customers, because of the class of people they were.

    As for Jim Crow laws, they mandated segregation with public places, but did not mandate it for open commerce. Only enabled it. Again, not a denial of what I said. You didn’t read your own link closely.

    Jack Philips wasn’t being brave by acting like a malicious bigot and demanding special privilege to do so from our legal system.

    I am not the bigot here. I am not seeking to segregate classes of society from open commerce. I am not the one who thinks its perfectly OK to maliciously attack others. I am not running to religion for lame excuses my actions. He acted cowardly. Your support of his actions speaks badly for your moral fiber and character as well.

  • “No, that is not a denial of what I said. He did not want to treat the gay couple as anyone else who came to buy wedding cakes. He specifically did not want to treat them like any other customer.”

    Another lie. You just can’t help yourself, can you?

    The baker explicitly offered to sell the pair anything they wanted off the shelf. He refused only to make a custom item for a specific event. This means that he was happy to treat them like any other customer. He was not happy to make a bespoke item for a “same sex wedding,” because he regarded his participation in that event as a form of expression, and that it expressed an idea he did not agree with.

    “What he offered is exactly the same as restaurants under Jim Crow which served black people, but didn’t allow them to sit down inside. They could have the wares, but not like other customers, because of the class of people they were.”

    You’re lying, as is your habit. The baker refused to be involved in a same sex wedding. It wouldn’t have mattered who tried to order a cake for a same sex wedding, including the straight sister of one of the parties. It was the event to which he objected.

    The event. Nothing else.

    “As for Jim Crow laws, they mandated segregation with public places, but did not mandate it for open commerce. Only enabled it. Again, not a denial of what I said. You didn’t read your own link closely.”

    The link is there for all to see. Please quote the relevant text, or others might start to notice what a brazen liar you are.

    “Jack Philips wasn’t being brave by acting like a malicious bigot and demanding special privilege to do so from our legal system.”

    Again, he was a whole lot braver than you are.

    “I am not the bigot here. I am not seeking to segregate classes of society from open commerce. I am not the one who thinks its perfectly OK to maliciously attack others.”

    You are the bigot here. You are seeking to compel people to participate in events to which they have a principled objection. You think it’s perfectly OK to maliciously attack Jack Phillips with your accusations of “bigotry.” As also anyone else who disagrees with you.

  • To discriminate is not to “disagree”.

    If you had any social intelligence, I wouldn’t need to explain that.

  • The decision had nothing to do with the right to discriminate against LGBT people. That is not what the court ruled on.

  • Nor did the court rule on whether he was “a lousy human being.”

    But yes. Sooner or later, the power of the New Privileged Class to compel specific performance from those with whom they have no contractual arrangements will be fully tested in court. In the meantime, the ability to weaponise their brand new “right” to “same sex marriage” has been checked. Twice.

    This is a good thing.

    However, as every activist knows, rights aren’t just there to be enjoyed. There’s no point having them if they can’t be weaponised. That’s why the latest bit of lawfare happened in the first place.

  • Yeah, my marriage is ***weaponized***. How ridiculous. Besides your obvious bigotry, sounds like sour grapes to me.

  • “The baker explicitly offered to sell the pair anything they wanted off the shelf. “

    Meaning he would not sell a cake he would have done for any other customer, but for they were gay.

    ” He refused only to make a custom item for a specific event.”

    Which he would have done for any other customer, unless they were gay.

    “He was not happy to make a bespoke item for a “same sex wedding,” because he regarded his participation in that event as a form of expression, and that it expressed an idea he did not agree with.”

    Because he was too much of a bigot to treat these customers like any others. He did not agree with the entire notion that gay people can have full access to the goods and services he provided to the general public. He did not consider them with the bare minimum of civility required for a vendor doing business in open commerce.

    Simply a bigot with a creative excuse.

    “The baker refused to be involved in a same sex wedding. ”

    That is not actually a refutation of anything I have said. He refused to treat the gay customers seeking a wedding cake like any other customers seeking the same. He objected to the event, because it involved two gay people acting as social equals to himself. He wanted to denigrate them.

    “The link is there for all to see. ”

    One which you quoted parts which did not serve your argument.

    “You are the bigot here. You are seeking to compel people to participate in events to which they have a principled objection.”

    Yes, I am forcing people to go through the bare minimum required by law and society when holding a business out to the open public. Just like civil liberties are meant to do for people who insist on discriminating against others. I am opposing segregation or the notion of making bigoted attacks on people without consequences. I oppose using religion as a way to get out of compliance with laws meant to protect the general public.

    If one has to be compelled to not maliciously harm others, so be it. They are clearly so deranged by their bigotry that they cannot act in a civil manner in public. So be it. Their interests are not worth a pile of crap. There is no reason why anyone has to suffer attack when engaging in open commerce.

    Jack Philips deserved attack because he attacked others in service of his personal prejudice. You deserve denigration for supporting such malicious cowardly behavior.

  • I don’t know, is it? Have you used it to bully your ideological opponents into submission?

    And indeed, why wouldn’t you? You clearly approve of Autumn Scardina’s attempt to weaponise his “gender transition,” don’t you?

  • Spuddie: “He didn’t ‘stand alone’ nor was willing to face the consequences of his act. He acted cowardly. Typical discriminatory bigot. He had the support of Christian bigots providing legal counsel (for the purposes of fundraising) and now can rely on wingnut welfare for publicity.”

    Of course, in your mind, putting his livelihood at risk for a principle, and being dragged through every court in the land, and having his name dragged through the mud by malicious reprobates, doesn’t entail any “consequences” at all.

    Evidently you are unable to see your opponents as human beings.

    But I can see why you are so mad you could simply spit. The fact that he has support means that the great “gay” juggernaut can’t just grind him under its wheels by using lawfare. You’ll have to come up with an actual case that has actual merits.

    Good luck with that.

  • I do.

    You offered no argument — you just whined and hyperbolized and demonized an entire class of citizens.

  • Spuddie: “Meaning he would not sell a cake he would have done for any other customer, but for they were gay.”

    Lying is habitual with you, isn’t it?

    He was willing to sell them anything off the shelf. (I’ll keep repeating that until you admit it.) Furthermore, he was willing to make birthday cakes and other special-occasion cakes for those very same customers. Cakes for any event, in fact, except a same sex wedding.

    Thus, the claim that he was refusing to serve them is a lie.

    The claim that he took that action “but for they were gay” is a lie.

    The claim that “He wanted to denigrate them” is a lie, and clearly demonstrates that you are projecting your own boundless malice upon the target of your bigotry.

    (Referring to my Wikipedia link:) “One which you quoted parts which did not serve your argument.”

    And you are unable to quote any parts which support your claim. Why? Because there are none, and you know it.

    The Jim Crow laws compelled businesses to discriminate, and you know it.

    Your repeated denial of this fact is a lie, and you know it.

    Evidently you also like it.

  • “He was willing to sell them anything off the shelf. (I’ll keep repeating that until you admit it.) ”

    But not a wedding cake, because the customers were gay. A wedding cake he would have sold to any other customers for any other wedding. So he specifically discriminated between giving the full access to his goods and services to most customers and limiting it to those who are gay.

    ” he was willing to make birthday cakes and other special-occasion cakes for those very same customers”

    But not a wedding cake, because they were gay. A wedding cake he would have sold to any other customers for any other wedding. So he was not willing to treat the gay customers with the same level of respect and access to his goods and services that he would do for anyone else.

    So he treated them like restaurants which were not willing to serve black customers inside but allowed them to do take out. Or bus companies which allowed black riders, but they had to sit in the back. It is still discrimination because you are not treating all classes of customers the same way.

    He wanted to denigrate a couple which dared to purchase his goods and services in open commerce and act like every any other customer he served.

    “The Jim Crow laws compelled businesses to discriminate, and you know it.”

    No it didn’,t you are lying. Hence “the Green Book” (which was the subject of an Oscar winning film), which was a guide to which specific businesses chose to discriminate and which ones didn’t.

    You are a bigot who is just looking for lame excuses for discrimination. It is an inherently malicious act which denotes low character and a lack of moral fiber. Your arguments do not refute a word I have said. I am just being far more honest about elaborating on what was going on than you were.

    1. There is no “participation” exception in anti-discrimination laws. If you are denying goods and services in open commerce, normally available to any customer, to certain classes of people, you are discriminating. That’s all. How you choose to rationalize the act, doesn’t change what it was.

    2. Limiting what goods and services can be bought at a vendor (or how one can buy them) based on the class of people buying, is still discrimination. Back of the bus, only at the counter, only off the shelf goods..

    3, There was nothing about the cake itself which was somehow objectionable, only the intended consumers. So “the nazi cake” uses bullcrap for its flour.

  • , putting his livelihood at risk for a principle

    The “principle” being that gay people are social inferiors who must be attacked in any available way in a public and demeaning manner.

    A bigoted scumbag who could not bother to act with the most basic level of civility required for open commerce and society in general. He acted badly and chose to attack others, he deserved whatever consequences befell such actions. Bad things happen to people who act badly, go figure. Get your crying towel.

    You are spineless. You demand a privilege to attack others with impunity without any consequences. That is not principle, that is being whiny.

    “the great “gay” juggernaut can’t just grind him under its wheels by using lawfare.”

    Aww poor baby is annoyed that rule of law means something. That civil liberties are enforced. You sound like you need a diaper change.

  • Re: “On the contrary, it is entirely relevant.” 

    No it isn’t. It’s not relevant at all. 

    Re: “Once upon a time, liberals – real liberals, that is – opposed censorship because it restrained unpopular speech.” 

    I’m not sure where this is going. I’m not a liberal, but beyond that, there’s really no such thing as a “‘real’ liberal” (as opposed to a “fake” one). To assume there is, is to fall for the “No True Scotsman” fallacy

    Re: Compelling speech takes tyranny to a new level.” 

    First of all, throwing the word “tyranny” into this situation is laughably asinine. It’s an appeal to hyperbole, and as such, reveals how desperate you are to make it seem as though you actually have a point (when we both know you don’t). Second, there’s no “compelled” speech here. A baker decorating a cake isn’t “speaking,” no more than the publisher of a book is “speaking” the words its author put in it. 

    I seem to need to repeat the obvious here: This is a business transaction. Nothing more and nothing less. That’s all. You and your idol the baker need to grow up, calm down, and just let go of it. No one is hurting you. 

  • “But not a wedding cake, because the customers were gay.”

    Did he have wedding cakes on his shelves for purchase? Did they ask to buy one? Did he refuse?

    You are making stuff up, as you habitually do.

    “But not a wedding cake, because they were gay.”

    Wrong! As usual (and on purpose.) Not a wedding cake, because it was a same sex wedding.

    When you say “because they were gay,” you are lying, as you compulsively do.

    “It is still discrimination because you are not treating all classes of customers the same way.”

    He apparently doesn’t regard them as a distinct “class of customers.” He treats them like any other “class of customers.” It’s the event he refuses to participate in.

    “He wanted to denigrate a couple which dared to purchase his goods and services in open commerce and act like every any other customer he served.”

    No. He did not.

    He wanted to not be involved in a same sex wedding.

    Actually it is you and others like you who want to “denigrate” anyone who disagrees with you on this matter.

    “No it didn’,t you are lying. Hence ‘the Green Book’ (which was the subject of an Oscar winning film), which was a guide to which specific businesses chose to discriminate and which ones didn’t.”

    No; you are lying, still, as you do without letup. The Negro Motorist Green Book, by Victor Hugo Green, didn’t just cover the Jim Crow South; in fact it originally focused on New York. And it was a guide to which businesses Black motorists could go to.

    I realise that it’s a standard part of the “gay rights” mantra that anyone not bending over for you is treating you just like Blacks under Jim Crow. You need to learn to only run that canard among people who are ignorant of the facts. Otherwise you keep on making a fool of yourself.

    To your numbered bullet points: As you know, the malicious canard that Phillips refused anything “based on the class of people buying,” is a brazen lie. It was based upon the nature of the event. Artistic expression is a form of speech. The New Privileged Class wishes to compel speech. I guess that’s what privilege is for.

  • Spuddie: “The ‘principle’ being that gay people are social inferiors who must be attacked in any available way in a public and demeaning manner.”

    You love to lie, don’t you? The real principle in view is that marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament, and “same sex marriage” isn’t it.

    “He acted badly and chose! to attac k others, he deserved whatever consequences befell such actions. Bad things happen to people who act badly, go figure. Get your crying towel.”

    He courteously declined the order. A mob of entitled reprobates tried to punish him. Twice.

    They failed. Both times.

    Hi, two-time loser.

    He didn’t attack anyone. You did.

    “You are spineless. You demand a privilege to attack others with impunity without any consequences. That is not principle, that is being whiny.”

    I don’t work in the marriage industry. I have no dog in this fight.

    And you are the one doing the attacking. As you do.

    “Aww poor baby is annoyed that rule of law means something. That civil liberties are enforced. You sound like you need a diaper change.”

    You forget: you are the ones having a hissy fit because you didn’t get your way. Phillips stood up to the gay bullies – twice – and won both times.

    It makes you so mad you could simply spit.

  • PC: “A baker decorating a cake isn’t ‘speaking,’ no more than the publisher of a book is ‘speaking’ the words its author put in it.”

    Good analogy! Publishing houses have a point of view, and a publisher can legitimately turn down a perfectly publishable work because it doesn’t fit their particular ethos or culture. No publisher is ever obligated to just publish every manuscript that crosses their desk.

    Furthermore, unlike a publisher, a baker is engaging his own artistic creativity when he makes a custom item. Visual representations are certainly a form of speech.

    “I seem to need to repeat the o! bvious he re: This is a business transaction. Nothing more and nothing less. That’s all. You and your idol the baker need to grow up, calm down, and just let go of it. No one is hurting you.”

    The Gay Jihad tried – and failed – to run him out of business and sue him into financial oblivion. A rational person might suppose that that’s marginally more harmful than having to walk 50 metres further down the road to find another baker.

  • The onyl difference between a gay wedding and a straight wedding is sexual orientation and gender of the participants. Those are both protected classes, plain and simple.

    As far as Slavery, requiring someone to actually give full service to people without regard to their status in a protected class is not slavery, and it’s offensive that you even compare the two. The Supreme Court rejected your argument that serving people equally is slavery. Read Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

  • I am not the one making very bad, overly scripted excuses for what amounts to a typical case of discrimination in open commerce. I leave that to the scumbags who try to defend it. Mostly through pretending that rephrasing what was done changed its nature in any way.

    The principle here is that bigots like yourself consider gays to be social inferiors, so their marriage is worthy of denigration through acts of discrimination.

    “The real principle in view is that marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament, and “same sex marriage” isn’t it.”

    But it isn’t, Liar. It is a civil act where people choose to religiously santify it. Nobody needs religious officiates for a marriage. Hence the right to marry is a civil right.

    “He courteously declined the order. A mob of entitled reprobates tried to punish him. Twice.”

    There is nothing courteous about declining here. It is a violation of the law, and an act of deliberate discrimination. He did so because the customers were gay and he wanted to treat them in a demeaning and uncivil manner unbefitting of a vendor in open commerce. There is no well intentioned discrimination. It is inherently an act of prejudice and malice.

    “I don’t work in the marriage industry. I have no dog in this fight.”

    You are a bigot who wants legal excuses for discriminating against gays in public.

    “you are the ones having a hissy fit because you didn’t get your way”

    I am not the plaintiff in the cases against Philips. I am just calling out him and his bigoted supporters for their cowardice and dishonesty.

  • “Did he have wedding cakes on his shelves for purchase? Did they ask to buy one? Did he refuse?”

    No. Therefore No. Yes

    “Not a wedding cake, because it was a same sex wedding.”

    Hence he was bigoted against gays doing what all his other customers were doing. Treating them as social inferiors. Discrimination at its plainest.

    “He apparently doesn’t regard them as a distinct “class of customers.””

    He clearly does, because he deliberately limited who could and could not buy all of the wares and services he sold to the open public. Only gays faced such a limitation.

    “He wanted to not be involved in a same sex wedding.”

    Meaning he did not want to treat gays like any other customers buying a wedding cake. He did not want to do for gay customers, what he would have done for any other ones.

    “Actually it is you and others like you who want to “denigrate” anyone who disagrees with you on this matter.”

    Because you deserve it for supporting a morally repugnant, dishonest position which is a genuine harm to society. Disagreement here means disagreement whether all members of our society are treated with the minimum basic level of civility expected of them. Only an immoral bigot would disagree with my position here.

    “And it was a guide to which businesses Black motorists could go to.”

    Because some vendors chose to discriminate and others did not. The choice to do so being voluntary for the vendor. The entire point of your argument is that gays should be segregated from the rest of society. Not able to simply act as consumers in open commerce. That they have to navigate the personal bigotry of various sellers. Just like the purpose of the Green Book. Jim Crow for the 21st Century. You even recycled the same arguments.

    “I realise that it’s a standard part of the “gay rights” mantra that anyone not bending over for you is treating you just like Blacks under Jim Crow”

    Treating gay people as human beings is so hard on bigots like yourself that you demand them segregated from contact with those like yourself in all public forms. Just like Jim Crow.

    Philips did not treat the customers like any other because they were gay. Any other customer seeking a wedding cake did not face the restrictions Philips wanted to create. Any other customers who were not gay. Nobody ever has to give a crap what a vendor’s religious beliefs are when it comes to buying goods and services in the normal course of business in open commerce. There was nothing about a wedding cake here which wasn’t the normal course of business. Nothing except the customers being gay.

    You have been using the same scripted canned talking points over and over again, without a hint of thinking beyond slogans. The only people seeking special privilege here are Christian bigots. People who want to claim Jesus exempts them from following laws protecting the public at large.

  • Spuddie: “But it isn’t, Liar. It is a civil act where people choose to religiously santify it. Nobody needs religious officiates for a marriage. Hence the right to marry is a civil right.”

    Marriage was a religious sacrament for millennia before the secular state decided to get in on the act, and it will still be a religious sacrament when every polity now existing has gone down the dustbin of history.

    The secular state can call anything it pleases a “marriage,” and in any plausibly free society, religious believers can refer to their authentic religious beliefs to determine what they wish to regard as such.

    “There is nothing courteous about declining here. It is a violation of the law,”

    And yet there he is, still walking around. Why is that?

    “He did so because the customers were gay and he wanted to treat them in a demeaning and uncivil manner”

    You are lying, of course. In fact, you are clearly projecting your own boundless malice upon someone who is a better man than you are by any measure.

    There is no evidence anywhere that Mr Phillips had any interest in treating anyone “in a demeaning and uncivil manner.” You show more incivility in an average sentence than Mr Phillips has in any given year.

    As you perfectly well know, he didn’t refuse to bake the cake “because the customers were gay.” He did so because he didn’t want to be bullied into supporting “same sex marriage.”

    I might try to explain to you that “same sex marriage” is contrary to his principles. But that would be a waste of time, since you don’t even know what principles are.

    “I am not the plaintiff in the cases against Philips. I am just calling out him and his bigoted supporters for their cowardice and dishonesty.”

    Phillips showed exemplary courage, and all of the dishonesty is on your side of the argument.

  • “No. Therefore No. Yes”

    How could he refuse a request that was not made?

    You are lying so hard you’re even contradicting yourself.

    Yet again, and again, and again: Phillips did not refuse to sell any off-the-shelf item. He refused only to make a bespoke item.

    “Treating them as social inferiors. ”

    I know why you’re trying that lie. It won’t work.

    Sorry.

    Liar: “Meaning he did not want to treat gays like any other customers buying a wedding cake. He did not want to do for gay customers, what he would have done for any other ones.”

    False, of course. He did not want to work for a same sex wedding. You have no evidence – because there is none – that he would have refused to make a wedding cake for a traditional wedding if a gay customer ordered it.

    Liar: “Only an immoral bigot would disagree with my position here.”

    You appear to be the resident expert on immoral bigots, since you live with one 24/7.

    Liar: “Because some vendors chose to discriminate and others did not.”

    While still others – those in the Jim Crow South – had no choice. You keep trying to deny this fact. You simply love lies for their own sake, don’t you?

    “Treating gay people as human beings”

    Doesn’t obligate one to do everything they might demand.

    I don’t expect a Jewish electrician to work for me on Saturdays. I don’t expect a Jewish butcher to sell bacon. I’m not so “entitled” that I expect everyone else to throw out their principles to suit me.

    That’s because I’m not gay.

  • Except that – as you perfectly well know – “Straight customers only” doesn’t represent Mr Phillips’ views.

    He willingly sells any off-the-shelf items to all of his customers, regardless of their sexual orientation. He explicitly offered to do that for the gay couple who started this ruckus.

    He also willingly makes all manner of bespoke items for all of his customers, regardless of their sexual orientation. Such items include birthday cakes, “welcome home” and “bon voyage” cakes. Anything, in fact, except a cake for a “same sex wedding.” And when it comes to those, he doesn’t ask the sexual orientation of the customer ordering them either.

    So it turns out that he is operating exactly according to his principles. That he doesn’t behave according to your malicious caricature demonstrates that fact.

    Not that I expect you to understand what principles are, or how they work. That appears to be foreign to your experience.

  • “You offered no argument — you just whined and hyperbolized and demonized an entire class of citizens.”

    Which “entire class of citizens” was that?

    The fact is that gay jihadists like your good self have a massive case of sour grapes going on. That’s why Autumn Scardina tried to set Phillips up for another round of lawfare on the very same day the first one failed.

    I’m sure that there are some gay couples somewhere who are happy to quietly enjoy their newly-defined rights without using them to bludgeon others into submission. You just don’t happen to be among them.

  • Re: “Furthermore, unlike a publisher, a baker is engaging his own artistic creativity when he makes a custom item. Visual representations are certainly a form of speech.” 

    No, he’s not. The baker didn’t “create” the design. He’s doing what he’s told. Nothing more. As I’ve said many times: It’s a business transaction — the sale of a cake. Nothing more. 

    Re: “The Gay Jihad tried – and failed – to run him out of business and sue him into financial oblivion.” 

    Hmmmm. If there is a “gay jihad” — and you’ve provided no evidence whatever that there is — I wonder if it exists, because there have been so many militant Christianists out there campaigning to oppress gays, outlaw them, and maybe even run them out of the country. Just wondering out loud. 

    Re: “A rational person might suppose that that’s marginally more harmful than having to walk 50 metres further down the road to find another baker.” 

    Why should they have to? Philips should have just grown up already and sold them a f-ing cake. 

    Re: “Jack Phillips is not my ‘idol.'” 

    Of course he is! Just admit it. You’ve all but sainted the poor little hateful cretin. 

    Re: “He’s just a good man who stuck to his principles.” 

    No he’s not. He’s a sanctimonious, hateful cretin. 

    Re: “Perhaps you might like to look that concept up.” 

    Perhaps you and Phillips and your ilk should just grow up and start acting like adults, for once? You may as well give it a shot. All the tantrums and ruming and railing and pitching fits over putative “gay jihads” isn’t doing you any good. It certainly hasn’t helped you grow up. 

  • Poor you. Obviously, you’re a very angry homophobe jihadist with little power to change the world to your liking.

  • Looks like you’re right; I was getting it mixed up. My mistake. I still disagree with you on the matter of discrimination and believe that eventually SCOTUS will rule that constitutional rights like freedom of religion and freedom of speech protect business owners from being forced to be a part of ceremonies that they disagree with.

  • It is not acceptable to discriminate against someone for the color of their skin. A person has no control over their race, and this is a scientifically proven fact. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is a behavioral trait, not a physical trait. Though there may be some genetic factors in play, just like pedophilia and alcoholism and other behavioral tendencies, it is still a behavioral trait. As such, refusing to take part in a homosexual ceremony because you disagree with homosexual behavior on religious grounds is NOT the same thing as treating someone differently because of how they look.

  • Sure, I’d agree that they’re not the same thing. But I wasn’t saying they’re the same. I was just responding to someone who claimed that you can’t attach any sort of metaphysical value to a cake, therefore there’s no valid reason to refuse making a cake for someone.

  • No offense, but quoting Dr. Phil as a source (for anything) doesn’t really help your credibility in a discussion like this.

  • “Phillips did not refuse to sell any off-the-shelf item. He refused only to make a bespoke item.”

    Which is by definition is discrimination.

    No different than only serving black people at a restaurant from the takeout counter. He was refusing to sell all the wares he would make available to any other customer. Because a gay couple would be using it. Your argument is stupid as hell and proves my point. Gay couples were treated differently than any other customer and were restricted by what they could get from his shop.

    Philips was not willing to sell any kind of wedding cake to a gay couple, something he would do for anyone else.

    The only difference between the couple ordering the cake and his usual customers being they were gay and the others were not. The only difference between this wedding and the others he catered for being that the couple who its for are gay.

    It makes no difference if his religious beliefs did not allow him to recognize gay marriages as legitimate. He had a business open to the public and a legal obligation to treat all customers the same regardless of class. If he was too much of a raging bigot to abide by that simple duty, too bad. He should not have had his business open to the public then. No need for the rest of us to give a crap. No need to create special carve outs and exceptions, because he was too uncivil and malicious to abide by the laws protecting the public.

    A real Christian martyr taking a stand would have paid the fine, not expect special favors. He was a scumbag who was appealing to like minded scumbags for support. People with no regard for civil liberties who wanted special privileges for being Christian.

    BTW no business was forced to discriminate under Jim Crow. In fact a select few did not, hence were the subject of travel guides for people having to navigate the systematic bigotry enacted. The existence of the Green Book is proof you are lying.

    Treating people like human beings means you do not get a special privilege to attack them in public with impunity. Especially in open commerce. Only bigoted scumbags feel such things are somehow necessary to their lives.

    Kiwi57 in 1961
    “He did not want to work for an interracial wedding.”
    “He did not want to celebrate an interracial wedding”
    “He took a stand to oppose the liberal agenda of accepting interracial marriage”
    “Why are you compelling speech here and forcing him to associate with other races”
    “He should not be forced to treat an interracial couple getting married like any white couple he has served before”

  • Tradition is not a basis for laws. Marriage was a civil act long before your church existed or sanctified marriage. Marriage rights are still civil rights, as seen by various cases before our Supreme Court in the past. Just because your religion defines marriage in a certain way doesn’t mean anything to anyone else. We don’t live in a theocracy. Nobody has to live by the whims of your faith.

    Most importantly, religious freedom means nobody ever has to give a flying crap what you think God says on a given subject, nor can be compelled to. Just because your religious belief states you must treat certain classes of people as less than human doesn’t mean you get a special privilege to act on it and attack others.

    “There is no evidence anywhere that Mr Phillips had any interest in treating anyone “in a demeaning and uncivil manner.”

    He engaged in an act of discrimination in open commerce. An act which in of itself is uncivil and meant to be demeaning. It speaks for itself.

    “I might try to explain to you that “same sex marriage” is contrary to his principles.”

    Nobody has to give a crap. If you open a business to the general public, you have to keep your deep seated bigotry down to a minimum and treat all customers with the same level civility. To make all wares available to the public, available to all of the public. If you can’t do that, tough luck. Expect to be sued and fined. That is not being bullied, that is simply compensating victims of your unlawful attack.

    Kiwi57 in 1961
    “I might try to explain to you that “interracial marriage” is contrary to his principles. But that would be a waste of time, since you don’t even know what principles are.”

  • So here’s your statement that I was disagreeing with: “Selling a cake is … wel! … selling a cake. It doesn’t mean anything. There’s no metaphysical “endorsement force’ at work.”
    In my response to those words, I pointed out hypothetical scenarios where you probably wouldn’t want to sell certain people cakes for which they’ve placed orders. Now, you may not realize this, but by talking about how making those cakes for the KKK or NAMBLA could be seen as threats or illegal (even though making/selling the cakes is NOT itself threatening or illegal) and focusing on the possible perceptions of making those cakes, you were actually agreeing with my point. However, you framed your agreement in a way that emphasized the differences between the customers in my analogies and the customers in this bakery case, something I never intended to be a point of disagreement.
    So I will acknowledge that you have very successfully dismantled the (never voiced) argument that making a cake for someone in the KKK or NAMBLA is similar to making a cake for a same-sex couple. As you said, it’s apples and oranges! Unfortunately, that was never my point. Rather, my point was that making and selling a cake can have meaning beyond the simple craft and monetary transaction. and it’s clear from your words that we agree on this.

  • He didn’t deny them goods simply because they were gay. The facts of the case showed that he offered them other items in the store other than a cake made specifically for their same-sex wedding.

  • Yes, that is precisely what he did.

    The only difference between them and any other customer seeking a cake from him for their wedding was that they were gay and other customers were not.

    ” The facts of the case showed that he offered them other items in the store other than a cake made specifically for their same-sex wedding.”

    Which makes the case worse for the baker. Because he restricted the goods and services normally available to any other couple, because they were gay. No different from sitting in the back of a private bus company or having food available only as takeout. It is still discriminatory. Much like arguing “He wasn’t a bigot. He didn’t lynch them, just called them names”. A lesser degree of discrimination is still discrimination.

    Your argument is not only garbage, it is scripted. You are not bothering to even think it through.
    All your arguments suffer from a lack of follow through on what it means,

    1) “Not celebrating a same sex wedding”. Meaning a wedding which was no different from other customers, but for the participants are gay. The class of people involved being the sole distinguishing fact.

    2) “Forced speech” being the bare minimum required by law and society for businesses open to the public. Everyone in businesses open to the public by their nature are forced to keep their bigotry in check and act in a civil manner to customers .

    3) “Nazi cakes”, complete dishonest garbage, since the only thing which distinguished the request here from any others the baker handled was the class of people intending to use it.
    If a Neo-Nazi leader walks into a Jewish baker and asks for a cake saying “Happy Birthday Steve”, they should expect to get one, regardless of the baker’s feelings.

  • Your last paragraph makes my point exactly. A Neo Nazi would be sold a cake that says “Happy Birthday Steve” with no problem. This gay couple would have been sold a wedding cake that said “Congratulations Steve and Jessica” with no problem.

    It’s the same-sex marriage that is the problem for the baker, not the customers.

  • “his gay couple would have been sold a wedding cake that said “Congratulations Steve and Jessica” with no problem.”

    That is the lamest dodge you guys have. You are trying to pretend that was what I was talking about. What dishonesty from supposed defenders of the Christian faith!

    But in reality, it means the only material difference between weddings he would make a cake for and this one, being the class of people who would be using the cake. The fact they were gay. Making him a bigot who did not want to treat gay customers seeking a cake for their wedding the same as any others.

    “It’s the same-sex marriage that is the problem for the baker, not the customers.”

    The sole difference between a same sex marriage and one he would provide a cake for being that the customers are gay. Making him a bigot to refuse to treat them like any other customers requesting a cake for their wedding.

    The problem you have is pretending slight omissions or refusals to elaborate have any meaning here. He refused to treat a gay couple seeking a cake for their wedding the same way he would treat any other couple seeking a cake for their wedding. His disapproval of the event comes from the class of people doing it. You are quite dishonest in thinking that simply rephrasing the motivation here changes the act, its intent, or repugnant nature.

    The end result is an action completely and entirely indistinguishable from any other form of discrimination in businesses we have seen in the past.

    TimTripod in 1961
    “It’s the interracial marriage that is the problem for the baker, not the customers.”

  • Re: “So here’s your statement that I was disagreeing with: ‘Selling a cake is … wel! … selling a cake. It doesn’t mean anything. There’s no metaphysical “endorsement force” at work.” 

    Yes, of course that’s true. Nothing metaphysical exists. 

    Re: “In my response to those words, I pointed out hypothetical scenarios in which you probably wouldn’t want to sell certain people the cakes for which they’ve placed orders.” 

    Yes, because no metaphysics was involved in either of them. Actual, real-world legal considerations came into play in both of them. 

    Re: “Now, you may not realize this, but by talking about how making those cakes for the KKK or NAMBLA could be seen as threats or illegal (even though making/selling the cakes is NOT itself threatening or illegal) and focusing on the possible perceptions of making those cakes, you were actually agreeing with my point.” 

    No it doesn’t. Threatening people, and child porn, are both illegal. Gay marriage is not. 

    Re: “However, you framed your agreement in a way that emphasized the differences between the customers in my analogies and the customers in this bakery case, something I never intended to be a point of dispute.” 

    I’m aware you had no idea you’d made “apples vs. oranges” comparisons. But you did, and I said so. Your insistence that you’d never intended to do that, cannot and will never magically alter the fact that you did. 

    Re: “So I will acknowledge that you have very successfully dismantled the (never voiced) argument that making a cake for someone in the KKK or NAMBLA is similar to making a cake for a same-sex couple.” 

    It was YOU who posited an equivalence. I never did. Grow up and own what you said. 

    Re: “As you said, it’s apples and oranges! Unfortunately, that was never my point.” 

    Well, yes it WAS your point. I get that you don’t want to own it, now that you’ve realized your analogues failed the test of logic, but they did. 

    Re: “Rather, my point was that making and selling a cake can have meaning and implications beyond the simple craft and monetary transaction, and it’s clear from your words that we agree on this.” 

    Monetary transactions that cross the line of the law quite obvious carry implications beyond the transaction. But baking a cake for a gay marriage doesn’t. Legal implications are a real-world matter and carry real-world consequences. The metaphysical “endorsement force” that you’ve posited, does not — in fact! — exist. At all. Anywhere. At any time. 

    Baking a cake for a gay couple in no way presents any legal dangers to a baker. There are none. If there are any “dangers” to him/her, they’re solely metaphysical in nature. As such, they have no identifiable, objective reality. In short, they do not exist

    Put another way: If I create a cake for KKK members who then show it off to people who’re threatened by it, then I’ve helped them convey that threat, and am (potentially, and partly) liable for it. The danger to me is a real one. I could end up in jail as a result. On the other hand, even the most militant Christianist who bakes a cake for a gay marriage, cannot and will never actually be harmed by doing so, in any way. S/he will never go to jail for it … ever. Nothing will ever befall him/her because of it. Ever. 

    I’m not sure how much clearer this could be. I get that you’re trying to muddy the waters by equating legal jeopardy with metaphysical forces, but you cannot do so. Because while the law is real, and exists, metaphysics does not, and never will. 

  • Re: “Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is a behavioral trait, not a physical trait.” 

    Actually we don’t know that … at all. Even experts can’t make that assertion (emphasis mine): 

    “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” 

    That said … even if it were … consider (for a moment) the implications of what you’re saying, even if you’re correct that it truly is a “choice” to be gay. People make tons of kinds of choices in life. Is it really necessary to discriminate against them, because of those choices? Would it make sense to discriminate against (say) people who wear bow ties? Sure, it’s a “choice” to decide to wear a bow tie, but what would be the point of (to continue with the example) refusing to bake cakes for bow-tie wearers? Why turn them away solely because of that “choice”? 

  • Yes, it is a behavioral trait, not a physical one, and I can make that assertion without being an expert. Your quote, which just says that the cause for homosexual is undetermined, doesn’t negate that it’s a behavioral trait in the slightest. I didn’t say orientation is a choice. It doesn’t matter what the research ultimately finds, whether it’s a definitive “gay gene” or “social influences” or “choice,” homosexual activity is still behavior, not a physical characteristic like race, hair color, height, etc.

    Yes, actually, it is often necessary to discriminate against someone based on their choices. If someone loiters outside your business, you can tell them to leave. If they’ve stolen from you before, you have a right ban them from your place of business. If they swear excessively in your store or behave inappropriately in some other way, you can ask them to leave. If a person has been convicted of a felony, you have a right not to hire them as an employee, and you can fire an employee if they commit a felony. These are all valid forms of discrimination based on behavior choices, and there are others, as well. The question Is not, “is discrimination allowed?” It certainly is allowed in some circumstances. The questions are, “did illegal discrimination take place?” and “does this local ruling violate constitutional rights to practice religion?”

  • Re: “Your quote, which just says that the cause for homosexual is undetermined, doesn’t negate that it’s a behavioral trait in the slightest.” 

    Actually it does, and I emphasized that portion, precisely because I knew you’d assert it wasn’t there. But it is, and it reads, “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” 

    So far as can be determined, and in the majority of cases, then, it is not a “choice.” 

    Go ahead and deny this until you’re blue in the face … but it’s true. No amount of your insistence otherwise, or petulant refusal to accept it, can ever alter this reality. 

    Re: “Yes, actually, it is often necessary to discriminate against someone based on their choices.” 

    Your position is that, because (you say, falsely) that it’s a “choice,” then it’s fine to discriminate. I pointed out at least one example of a “choice” someone can make, in which it’s absurd to discriminate. 

    Oddly enough, all I needed was that one example to make my point. (That you missed it, isn’t my problem … it’s yours.) 

    Re: “These are all valid forms of discrimination based on behavior choices, and there are others, as well.” 

    Yes, some forms of “discrimination” are acceptable. Others, however, are not, and when they’re imposed, they appear absurd on their faces. My bow tie example is just one of those. 

    What you had said, however, was that, because being gay is (again, you claim!) a “choice,” that automatically means discriminating against gays is just fine. But, “choice” by itself can’t justify discrimination, and I used an absurd example to show this. 

  • Nope. You’re trying to eat your cake and have it, too. Either a cake is just a cake, or it is able to represent more. First you said the issue is nothing more than somebody selling a cake (and therefore it can’t possibly be an endorsement of same-sex marriage). Then when I presented you with my scenarios, you essentially backpedalled and said it CAN mean more than just the sale of a cake (because it could be viewed as an endorsement of threats or support of illegal activity).
    Again, I must stress that you completely missed the entire thrust of my analogies if you thought my point was to compare gay marriages to KKK & NAMBLA. As I’ve already said, I was just disputing your claim that the sale of a cake cannot represent something beyond that.

  • One of the first rules of productive dialogue is to not assume ill intent from your ideological opponent. You broke that rule when you accused me of being dishonest simply because I have a different viewpoint than you do. As such, I am leaving this conversation and bringing the victory title with me. Have a good day!

  • Re: “Nope. You’re trying to eat your cake and have it, too.” 

    Actually, it’s YOU who wants to do that. 

    Re: “Either a cake is just a cake, or it is able to represent more.” 

    It’s not about “representing more.” It’s about the lack of any metaphysical force surrounding them and their creation. You have yet to have pointed out any such force in existence. Grow up and do so, already. 

    Re: “Then when I presented you with my scenarios, you essentially backpedalled and said it CAN mean more than just the sale of a cake (because it could be viewed as an endorsement of threats or support of illegal activity).” 

    So you’ve doubled down your use of “apples vs oranges” by piling an “apples vs oranges” comparison on top of them! Congratulations. I hadn’t thought someone could possibly be that oblivious to the failings of his/her own logic, but you’ve gone and done it! 

    What an achievement! You must be sooooooo proud! 

    Your failing here is in the whole notion of an “endorsement.” There is no such thing! If I put a threatening design on a cake, then I will have participated in the threat, myself. That is … I’m not “endorsing” a threat, I’m one of the people conveying it! 

    I’m going to predict, right here and now, that you aren’t going to buy this. If so, that’s OK. You can continue being petulant, and keep raging and fuming and railing about “endorsements.” But “endorsements” do not matter at all, in any of the scenarios we’ve discussed. They play no role whatsoever. 

    Re: “Again, I must stress that you completely missed the entire thrust of my analogies if you thought my point was to compare gay marriages to KKK & NAMBLA.” 

    I very clearly called your examples “analogues.” By using this word, I was overtly NOT accusing you of saying they are the same thing. An “identity” is not the same as an “analogue.” 

    This is another example of you not grasping an important logical distinction, and instead of paying attention to what I actually said, and the words I used, erroneously interpreting me in a hyperbolic way. Don’t worry, I’m not offended. Far from it, I’ve come to expect that sort of thing from your ilk. 

    Re: “As I’ve already said, I was just disputing your claim that the sale of a cake cannot represent something beyond that.” 

    You really are working diligently, and militantly, to not pay attention to what I’ve actually said … aren’t you? Keep going. This is truly entertaining. The lengths you go to, to rationalize and justify your sanctimonious rage against gays, is almost hilarious! (I say “almost,” because it’s people like yourself who’ve been known to make the lives of gays a living hell … and that’s not funny at all.) 

    I challenge you to provide compelling, objective, verifiable evidence of the harm that would befall a baker who makes a cake for a gay wedding. Once you’ve done that, then maybe you’ll have shown us you actually have a point. As long as you keep throwing tantrums over “endorsements,” though, you never will. “Endorsements” do not matter and are of no account whatever. 

  • Tone trolling, typical of those defending what cannot be ethically or morally defended.

    You are defending what appears to be obvious discrimination, ill intent is inherent to the position. Ill intent is inherent to the act itself. Discrimination is an act of malice with an intent to harm and demean those discriminated against. Those

    defending discrimination are therefore by their nature seeking ill intent. There is a clear cut right and wrong here. Its not ideological differences, its moral and ethical ones. You are on the wrong side of those.

    You ARE being dishonest by trying to rephrase actions as if it changed what was done or its nature. “Not being forced to celebrate a gay wedding” being the exact same action as simply saying “I don’t sell wedding cakes for your kind”. Same action, same offense, same violation of the local laws.

    You wanted a genteel discussion to normalize and legitimize bigotry and discrimination. Tough luck. That sort of thing doesn’t deserve such tones.

    “As such, I am leaving this conversation and bringing the victory title with me. Have a good day!”

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. You clearly cannot support your position beyond canned slogans and are unable to think them through to their logical conclusion.

  • There is no freedom of religion issue involved in attacking people in the name of your faith. Discrimination in open commerce is an attack upon customers.

    SCOTUS didn’t defend the alleged freedom of association, speech or religion for business owners from being forced to associate with people they were prejudiced against before. No reason to expect them to do so 50 years later.

    Its interesting how much you parrot the exact arguments used by segregationists a generation or two ago.

    “being forced to be a part of ceremonies that they disagree with.”

    Like:
    An interracial wedding?
    A Jewish wedding?
    An interfaith wedding?
    A wedding by former members of one’s church?

  • “I challenge you to provide compelling, objective, verifiable evidence of the harm that would befall a baker who makes a cake for a gay wedding. ”

    You keep shifting the point of discussion. First, you insisted “it’s just the sale of a cake, it has no meaning other than that.” When I showed how that wasn’t necessarily true, you shifted to “making a cake for the KKK could be considered a threat, and gay people aren’t the same as the KKK.” Then, when I pointed out that you were agreeing with me in principle and that I’d never made the assertion that they were the same, you shifted to “prove that it would be harmful to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.” You’re being slippery, and I’m not really interested in continuing this game of “move the goalposts.” Excuse me while I go eat an orange. 😉

  • Re: “You keep shifting the point of discussion.” 

    I have not done so, at all. On the contrary, I’ve been clear from the beginning: You’ve appealed to metaphysics, and I said clearly, and up front, that nothing metaphysical exists. At each point I have tried to veer back to the utter lack of reality of anything metaphysical. 

    On the other hand … YOU have swerved all over the place in your desperate effort to get around that truth. 

    Re: “First, you insisted ‘it’s just the sale of a cake, it has no meaning other than that.'” 

    Yes, because there’s no metaphysical “endorsement force” at work (and I said that). It’s just the sale of a cake. 

    Re: “When I showed how that wasn’t necessarily true, you shifted to ‘making a cake for the KKK could be considered a threat, and gay people aren’t the same as the KKK.'” 

    Yes, I pointed out the complications with your KKK example don’t create metaphysical problems, they pose real-world consequences. I then repeated that nothing metaphysical exists. 

    Re: “You’re being slippery …” 

    … says the slippery one who refuses to substantiate anything metaphysical, or to make evident this magical “endorsement force” that supposedly exists. 

    Re: “… and I’m not really interested in continuing this game of ‘move the goalposts.'” 

    … says the one who keeps moving the goalposts in a desperate and childish effort not to have to back up any metaphysical forces at play which would cause damage to a baker who sells a cake to gays. 

    The bottom line is: You can’t back up your metaphysical claims. You just can’t! So what do you do, instead? You veer all over the place, spewing ridiculous analogues that don’t actually match the situation, then you get your panties in a wad when I tell you they don’t, and after I issue you a direct challenge to finally back up up your metaphysics, you stamp your feet and fume about me supposedly swerving all over the place … when in reality, it’s YOU who’s been doing that. 

    Hypocrite much? Assuming you’re a Christian, your own Jesus reportedly forbid you ever to be hypocritical

    What’s remarkable about this entire discussion is, you could end it in a second, if you’d just provide compelling, objective, verifiable evidence of any demonstrable harm that would befall a baker who sells a cake to gays. That’s really all you have to do. 

    So why won’t you? Are you afraid? 

  • Oh, stop flailing your handbag at me, Spuddie. If reprobates like you didn’t feel so entitled! to wear your own deep seated bigotry on your Pierre Cardin sleeves, maybe you might get a little less push-back.

    You’re flat-out lying about “The Green Book;” evidently you enjoy it that way. As you know, it’s not the case that the book told Black motorists which businesses “didn’t discriminate.” As you know, it told them which businesses catered to them.

    The two things are not the same. As you know.

    As you know, under the Jim Crow Laws, businesses were entitled to cater to Black customers if they so chose. They just weren’t allowed to cater to them in the same place as they catered to white customers.

    As you know, “The Negro Motorist’s Green Book” informed Black motorists where they could get service from service providers operating within the restrictions imposed by the Jim Crow Laws, which restrictions you keep lying about.

    It also informed them where they could get service outside of the Jim Crow South. Many businesses practiced some degree of racial discrimination simply because they thought their white customer base demanded it. But that had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws. As you know, but continue to lie about.

    Now that we have that history lesson out of the way, please try to find it in your entitled little heart to accept that Mr Phillips was willing to (1) sell any off-the-shelf items that gay customers might choose, and (2) make any bespoke item they might request, with the sole exception of a cake for a same sex wedding. Or, in the latest case, for a “gender reassignment” party.

    Your claim, therefore, that he was treating gays differently from other customers is just another one of your flat-out lies.

    As you perfectly well know, it’s not about the “identity” of the customers. As you perfectly well know, it’s about the nature of the event.

    And nothing else.

    Your attempt to draw a false equivalence between taking a principled stand on traditional marriage and racial discrimination is just another example of your rabid hostility and relentless dishonesty. Among the many things you don’t know is the fact that I’m in an interracial marriage (to a woman, of course, since that’s what it means.)

    It must be terribly frustrating to you to threaten anyone who won’t knuckle under to your demands, only to find that Phillips keeps winning.

    I hope you get over it soon.

  • PC: “No, he’s not. The baker didn’t “create” the design. He’s doing what he’s told. Nothing more. As I’ve said many times: It’s a business transaction — the sale of a cake. Nothing more. ”

    So not only are you so entitled! that you expect the whole world to change the definition of marriage just to suit you, you’re also so entitled! that you expect to be the one to decide when someone else’s work is creative or not.

    You’re not very arrogant, are you?

    “You’ve all but sainted the poor little hateful cretin. ”

    No, I’m the one arguing with vile little hateful cretins.

    And no, I haven’t “sainted” him. I agree that he’s a better man than most of his critics; but none of you are setting a particularly high bar. I also agree that it takes considerable courage to stand up to the hitherto unstoppable gay juggernaut, despite the repeated accusation of “cowardice” by the sour grapes crowd.

    “Hmmmm. If there is a “gay jihad” — and you’ve provided no evidence whatever that there is — I wonder if it exists, because there have been so many militant Christianists out there campaigning to oppress gays, outlaw them, and maybe even run them out of the country. Just wondering out loud. ”

    Your Victimhood[TM] claim is noted. The reality, of course, is that that the opinion leaders and power elites in western society are thoroughly in line with your agenda. And Christians have largely tried to keep themselves away from the seedier aspects of an increasingly immoral world. You can’t cite a single case of a single mainstream Christian voice trying to get you thrown out of the country; they’re merely trying to keep you from imposing your newfound privilege upon them, in their homes, churches and workplaces.

    Like little mum-and-dad bakeries, for instance.

    “All the tantrums and ruming and railing and pitching fits over putative ‘gay jihads’ isn’t doing you any good. It certainly hasn’t helped you grow up.”

    Hey – you’re the ones throwing spiteful little tantrums, and even plotting revenge, just because you can’t get your way. Maybe you need to grow up.

    Now I’ve always known that gays are the most promiscuous bipeds on the planet. Are you also going for the record as the most vindictive?

    I mean, there has to be a reason why you call each other “bitches,” right?

  • Now you are left sputtering cheap insults. You are losing it badly and devolving to incoherence.

    Bigots support discrimination. Decent people do not.

    You sir are a liar and a bigot. One who doesn’t get a simple fact. If you are restricting what, items normally sold in the course of business, can be sold to people based on the class of people they are, you are still a bigot and still committing discrimination.

    Simply put he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple getting married, something he would do for anyone else getting married. Telling customers they can have an inferior product is discriminatory. You are not helping your argument. Y

    The only difference between a gay wedding and any wedding he catered to is that one couple is gay and others are not.

    Only a scumbag supports and makes excuses for discrimination.

    What is funny is that I can swap out “same sex” with “interracial” and still get the gist of what actions you supoort.

    Nearly 60 years ago interracial marriages were not legal nationwide. Only the Supreme Court made it legally nationally. Same with gay marriage today. In both cases bible thumping bigots opposed such weddings. Vendors had to be forced by law to respect couples seeking things associated with it.

    You are no different from those scumbags of yore.

  • ROFL! You never fail to deliver the floor show, Tater.

    “BTW no business was forced to discriminate under Jim Crow.”

    Have you EVER heard (because we know you don’t read) of the facts behind the Plessy vs. Ferguson case?

    Homer Plessy, an octroon, was specifically recruited by a citizens council to board a whites-only car in violation of Louisiana’s Jim Crow laws. He did so with the full support and cooperation of the railroad itself, which opposed the Jim Crow law because having segregated cars was more expensive than having shared ones. The expectation was that the case would work its way up through the courts and ultimately be struck down. Unfortunately, the opposite happened.

    “In fact a select few did not, hence were the subject of travel guides for people having to navigate the systematic bigotry enacted. The existence of the Green Book is proof you are lying.” It seems Li’l Tater never heard of black-owned businesses — which constituted a not-at-all-insignificant portion of the economy of the south during the Jim Crow era.

    🤣

  • Well, that was funny.

    But don’t take Spuddie too seriously. She doesn’t read real books and is therefore can’t take an argument much farther than her personal preferences.

    She is particularly grumpy about this case because she predicted that the baker’s case was “going down in flames” because Kennedy. While I, on the other hand, foresaw that Kennedy would find an excuse to not decide this case on the merits (because he likes gay rights but will not trample upon the 1st Amendment for them) and leave it to his hand-picked successor to do that unpleasant job for him.

    Spuddie’s profanity meter has, understandably, been on red ever since.

  • Re: “So not only are you so entitled! that you expect the whole world to change the definition of marriage just to suit you …” 

    There isn’t, nor has there ever been, any one single “definition of marriage.” Marriage is a varied institution that changes to suit the desires and needs of cultures. Not even the Christian Bible contains a single, unchanging “definition of marriage.” As for me, personally, the advent of gay marriage hasn’t benefited me in any way. 

    I’m not gay, myself, but I don’t see any reason to prevent gays from marrying. It doesn’t harm me if they do — and for that matter, it doesn’t harm you, or any other Christian, either. 

    Re: “You’re not very arrogant, are you?” 

    Actually no, I’m not. I’m not arrogant enough to decide the law of the land needs to be altered so as to provide me emotional comfort and enforce the dour metaphysics of my own religion on everyone in the country. That, I’m afraid, is YOUR position. 

    Re: “And no, I haven’t ‘sainted’ him.” 

    Of course you have! Just grow up and admit it. It won’t hurt you to do so. 

    Re: “Your Victimhood[TM] claim is noted. 

    … except I’ve never claimed “victimhood.” Where this issue is concerned, I’m an observer, not a participant. One thing I note is that you rail and fume at other people for claiming “victimhood,” but at the same time you condemn changes to “the definition of marriage” as though it somehow harms you, personally and directly. That’s “claiming victimhood.” Hypocrite much? 

    Re: “The reality, of course, is that that the opinion leaders and power elites in western society are thoroughly in line with your agenda.” 

    I don’t have an “agenda,” so I have no idea what it is they’re “in line” with. 

    Re: “And Christians have largely tried to keep themselves away from the seedier aspects of an increasingly immoral world.” 

    What, are you kidding!? Christians are among the most depraved people one can find! From priestly pedophiles to SBC churches that won’t jettison even convicted abusers; from Decalogue champions who’ve engaged in pedophilic behaviors to anti-gay activists who hire “callboys” to go on trips; including Christofascists committing adultery in plain sight as well as asserting that adultery is actually Biblical in nature … on and on and on it goes. Christians’ depravity literally knows no end. 

    (Before you say it … yeah, I’ve heard the old saw that “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.” That’s not only a total crock, it’s a slogan that actively incentives sin. 

    When the followers of your religion actually straighten up and finally obey the instructions left behind by their faith’s founder, then — and only then! — can you dare claim any ability to condemn “an increasingly immoral world.” Let me know when you’ve gotten them to do so, OK? 

    Re: “You can’t cite a single case of a single mainstream Christian voice trying to get you thrown out of the country …” 

    Oh wait. I’m sorry. I was mistaken. It was actually atheists that Christians want thrown out of the country. What they wanted gays to do, was to be penned in somewhere and allowed to die off — or to collectively kill themselves

    I apologize for having gotten that so drastically wrong. Can you ever forgive me? 

    Re: “Like little mum-and-dad bakeries, for instance.” 

    It must be awful for those poor, harried bakers to have to put up with the expectation that they actually do their jobs and, like, bake cakes already. How dreadful! 

    Re: “Hey – you’re the ones throwing spiteful little tantrums …” 

    … says the tantrum-throwing militant Christianist. Hypocrite much? 

    Re: “… and even plotting revenge …” 

    Huh? WTF are you talking about? 

    Re: “Now I’ve always known that gays are the most promiscuous bipeds on the planet.” 

    They can’t really be much more promiscuous than Christians. But hey, what do I know? I’m neither gay nor Christian. 

    Re: “Are you also going for the record as the most vindictive?” 

    I’m nowhere near as “vindictive” as Christians who want gays killed off in the name of their Jesus (see links above). 

    Re: “I mean, there has to be a reason why you call each other ‘bitches,’ right?” 

    No one calls me a “bitch,” and I don’t call anyone else that, either. So I’ve got no clue what you’re going on about. 

  • You chiming in means he was definitely completely full of crap. A sure sign the actions were motivated by malice and bigotry. Your citation to Plessy being entirely irrelevant since railroads operate under public regulation and cooperation in a way unlike a vendor in open commerce.

    The Green Book did not just list black owned businesses. That being said, your support of modern day segregation is not surprising. You love any excuse to act arrogantly and maliciously. It is the main appeal of your brand if Christian belief.

  • Ah. A scatter-gun blast of anti-Christian polemical propaganda.

    So that’s who does your thinking for you, is it?

    Well, it’s good to know where you’re coming from. You’re not gay; you’re just a smugly virtue-signalling intersectional leftist.

    Got it.

  • As you know, Phillips did stand up for his actual principles. (Rather bravely, too.) That he didn’t stand up for your spiteful and deliberate straw man doesn’t reflect badly upon him.

  • Vendors in open commerce don’t operate under regulation? ROFL! State and municipal codes don’t exist — making the news story being discussed a fantasy.

    “The Green Book did not just list black owned businesses.” Clearly you have no idea of what the Green Book did or did not list. In fact, in its later years, as segregation laws began to be lifted in many places, the Green Book was criticized by many activists for continuing to direct black customers to black-owned businesses instead of to newly-integrated ones.

    Your repetitious talking points reveal a great deal about you, Tate. Obviously you have been stung a great deal by being treated as a “social inferior,” but whatever happened to you I feel sure it had far less to do with anyone’s “malice” than with your own lack of breeding and education, as your foregoing posts demonstrate. Please do something about this — it is at least partially curable.

  • Not to even close to the same connection with public services like a railroad. But it was a good try.

    I find it absolutely hilarious that you don’t even bother to hide the intention to segregate. So much that you just want to go down hair splitting and semantics rabbit holes.

    Have fun with that. You can’t be taken seriously.

  • Re: “A scatter-gun blast of anti-Christian polemical propaganda.” 

    Aw, you poor thing! Why, it must be soooooooo awful to have your precious, sacred religion critiqued, by the likes of some insolent, cynical, godless agnostic heathen! 

    Just keep in mind, martyr, that you invited that barrage, when you pronounced the “pure” nature of your faith when you said: “And Christians have largely tried to keep themselves away from the seedier aspects of an increasingly immoral world.” The lesson, here? Don’t brag about the perfection of your religion if you can’t tolerate being told it’s morally deficient. 

    BTW, what you call “polemical propaganda,” I call “factual reporting of the actual conduct of real-life Christians.” If you don’t like any of it, don’t snivel and whine at me; get off your backside, and correct and discipline your own co-religionists for their failings. OK? 

    Re: “So that’s who does your thinking for you, is it?” 

    It’s true. I admit it. Yes, indeed, I actually pay attention to what Christians say and do, and allow their own behavior to help me understand the nature of their own religion. I know, how awful of me, no? Why, it can’t be allowed! 

    Re: “Well, it’s good to know where you’re coming from.” 

    You say that as though I’ve tried to keep my thinking a secret, or something. Truthfully, I haven’t. I’ve made it clear as crystal. 

    Re: “You’re not gay; you’re just a smugly virtue-signalling intersectional leftist.” 

    I’ve got no clue what “intersectional” means. Sounds like a Right-wing snarl word. So congratulations for attempting to insult me with a term I couldn’t care less about. Oh, and I’m no Leftist. Nor am I a Rightist. Instead, I’m a Cynicalist. 

    Re: “Got it.” 

    If you’re accusing me of being a “Leftist,” you’ve got nothing, because you’re clueless. Which, of course, isn’t unusual for Christianists … most of them are ignorant buffoons too obsessed with their own sanctimonious outrage to bother figuring anything out. Instead, they just vent their fury all over the place, in the name of their deity. 

  • “Aw, you poor thing! Why, it must be soooooooo awful to have your precious, sacred religion critiqued, by the likes of some insolent, cynical, godless agnostic heathen!”

    Don’t worry about me. I’m sure I’ll get over it somehow.

    Not being such a snowflake that I feel “harmed” by having to walk to the next bakery.

    We’re not the ones begging for “thafe thpathes,” remember?

    “Just keep in mind, martyr, that you invited that barrage, when you pronounced the ‘pure’ nature of your faith when you said: ‘And Christians have largely tried to keep themselves away from the seedier aspects of an increasingly immoral world.’ The lesson, here? Don’t brag about the perfection of your religion if you can’t tolerate being told it’s morally deficient.”

    Who was “bragging?”

    Keep on beating up those straw men, PC. Without them, who could you ever feel superior to?

  • Re: “Not being such a snowflake …” 

    … says the snowflake who feels persecuted by critiques of Christianity. Hypocrite much? 

    Re: “Who was ‘bragging?'” 

    You did. Grow up and own what you posted, sniveler. 

    Re: “Keep on beating up those straw men, PC.” 

    I haven’t, so I don’t plan to continue. You, on the other hand, plan to continue milking that Christian martyr complex of yours. The “gay jihad,” after all, is after you … is it not? Weren’t you the one who simpered and moaned about that? 

  • “… says the snowflake who feels persecuted by critiques of Christianity. Hypocrite much?”

    Who said I felt persecuted? I certainly didn’t.

    Because I don’t.

    Reading really isn’t something you excel at, is it?

    “You did. Grow up and own what you posted, sniveler.”

    No. I did not.

    You made that up.

    You’re lying, as seems rather common around here.

    “The ‘gay jihad,’ after all, is after you … is it not?”

    No. Why would I suppose that?

    In the meantime, though, I note yet again that on the very day that the gay jihad failed to crush Jack Phillips, a “woman” went to the trouble of ordering a cake “she” didn’t want, simply to set him up for another round of lawfare.

    You can try to dismiss that with another truckload of spiteful epithets – they’re all you’ve got, after all – but that fact remains.

    Unchallenged.

  • Re: “Who said I felt persecuted? I certainly didn’t.” 

    You complained about a “gay jihad” campaigning against you and your religion. You referred to it many times in many comments here. 

    Re: “You made that up.” 

    No, I didn’t “make up” all your complaints about a “gay jihad.” 

    Re: “No. Why would I suppose that?” 

    Why would you use that phrase, if you didn’t think gays were out to get you and your religion? It makes no sense for you to mention a “gay jihad” numerous times but not think it’s not harmful to you or your ilk. 

    Oh wait. You went on, in this very comment, to use that phrase in just such a way: 

    “In the meantime, though, I note yet again that on the very day that the gay jihad failed to crush Jack Phillips …” 

    So you DO, in fact, imagine your supposed “gay jihad” IS, in fact, specifically targeting — and trying “to crush” (your words, again!) — a follower of your religion. 

    Look, it’s fine for you to imagine this “gay jihad” that you perceive is trying to wipe out your religion. I mean, it’s a free country, and if you want to delude yourself, you certainly can. A mature adult would admit thinking this way, once it’s been shown they do. 

    Oh wait. I forgot! You’re not a mature adult. So sorry … my mistake! 

  • “No offense, but…”

    No offense, but take offense.

    (i wasn’t born yesterday, and neither was mcgraw)

  • Let’s split the difference: You’re focusing on the person; I’m focusing on the behaviors. Two sides of the same coin.

  • It’s rather hilarious that you would start sneering about a “persecution” narrative in the very same comment in which you claim that there are “so many militant Christianists[sic] out there campaigning to oppress gays, outlaw them, and maybe even run them out of the country.”

    “Hypocritical much?”

  • Re: “… you claim that there are ‘so many militant Christianists[sic] out there campaigning to oppress gays, outlaw them, and maybe even run them out of the country.'” 

    So, there are no Christianists who want gays killed off, eh? What about the pastor who declared they should all be penned up somewhere and allowed to die? What about the Christianist who demanded they all collectively commit suicide?

    By the way, “Christianist” is a real word. It’s Christianity’s parallel of Islamists in Islam. 

    Re: “‘Hypocritical much?'” 

    I’m not being hypocritical. You are. The funny thing is, though, even if I were, it wouldn’t be a problem. I’m not a Christian, so I’m allowed to be a hypocrite if I choose to. Christians, on the other hand, can’t be hypocrites. Their own Jesus clearly and unambiguously forbid it

    You know, I’m still waiting to find out what harm, exactly, will befall bakers who sell cakes to gays. No one has provided any compelling, objective, verifiable evidence of any damage it might cause them. I wonder … have you the courage to provide it? 

  • I don’t care if someone has control over the trait or not. Religion is a trait that we’ve decided that it’s not okay to discriminate on the basis of. People have complete control over that. So, your argument that we should only not discriminate against immutable traits isn’t upheld by either Federal Law, or any State Law.

    In fact, the Supreme Court has said that in the very case that you claim to be familiar with: “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts.”

    The Supreme Court also said: “It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”

    The Supreme Court also said basically that someone couldn’t put out a sign that said, “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages”. That is exactly what Mr. Phillips did, basically. He stated that he would not sell anything to Mr. Craig and Mr. Phillips because it was to be used in a gay wedding. It wasn’t the decoration of that cake. It was the fact that it was a same-sex couple ordering it and not an opposite-sex couple.

    So, whether or not it’s an “behavioral trait” or a “physical trait” has no bearing on whether or not it should be protected. There is a history of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and that alone gives government a compelling interest in preventing discrimination.

  • He clearly stated that he has a Christian Bakery, that’s why he also doesn’t make Halloween cakes. Why the bad faith animus to make him do something he doesn’t want? Go to somewhere! I dare you to go to a Muslim Baker & see what happens.

  • He clearly stated that he has a Christian Bakery, that’s why he also doesn’t make Halloween cakes. Why the bad faith animus to make him do something he doesn’t want? Go to somewhere! I dare you to go to a Muslim Baker & see what happens

  • The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal treatment of all citizens (which includes folks with a wide range of physical characteristics). Perhaps I’m forgetful, but I’m not aware of anywhere in the Constitution that guarantees the right to equal treatment of general behavioral tendencies (such as sexual orientation).

ADVERTISEMENTs