Supreme court rules in favor of colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

[iNow]

Can we agree it’s impossible for us to know the motives of the wed couple in buying the cake, that for this reason it’s not a valid foundation of argument?

Perhaps they had malice intent and sought to be activists, singling out this baker for his evil Christianity... or perhaps they just wanted a cake and this place was the first they saw in the phone book.

We don’t know, can’t know, and should all agree to move on to other points since this current one is so specious and ridiculous. 

[Phi for All]

39 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I've pointed out facts. The fact that same-sex marriage wasn't allowed or recognised in the state of Colorado in 2012. The fact that they went to Massachusetts to get wed a month previous to the cake order. The fact that same-sex marriage was a hotly debated topic in 2012, both in Colorado and the rest of the country. The fact that it's fundy Christians who oppose it the most. 

None of that should allow you to not only guess at the motivations of the buyers, but then condemn their actions based only on your guesswork, and be taken seriously. As has been pointed out, despite your incredulity, buying a wedding cake is neither a criminal activity nor a political one, especially when the couple was already legally married in another state. 

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

All facts relevant to the case and discussion, and facts that are reasons that I gave why I suspect the motives of the cake buyers. It clearly shows that gay weddings were hot politics in 2012, and that it would be ludicrous to propose that this guy was unaware of all that, having gone to Massachusetts to get married. 

I'm still not seeing why the politics of the time should have steered this couple away from Masterpiece Cakeshop. Did you realize that's the name? Not "Devout Christian Cakes" or "Not For Gay Use Cakes" or even "Master Race Cakeshop". 

I also think it's ludicrous for you to suggest they should have bought a wedding cake in MA and have it shipped back to CO. Who would do THAT?! It's clear you really want to be right about this.

51 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Another fact is that I never claimed Colorado as Bible belt, I just hinted at it, when I said, "if I was gay, getting married in the bible belt". So I'd like to see the proof of that claim.       However, for the record, the whole USA is bible belt to me, compared to where I live. 

OK, more evidence that you just want to be "right" about this. That was no hint, it was a mistake you should own up to, you know, since you're human and all.

[mistermack]

I'm not going to post again, people are getting too hostile over nothing. But to anyone coming fresh to this, I would just point out that the baker WON his case on a vote of 7-2. You would think from reading this forum that he was kicked out of court.

The ruling was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were unduly hostile towards the baker. That sounds vaguely familiar to me. Shame that people can't have a civilised discussion, even when they disagree. 

"The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination." CNN. 

So the Colorado Civil Rights commission were perfectly happy to give their ruling, based on their guess at the baker's motives. But I'm apparently right out of order to suggest any motive for the complainants. What ludicrous double standards.

[iNow]

So I can avoid confusion, are you suggesting I’ve been hostile toward you?

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

So I can avoid confusion, are you suggesting I’ve been hostile toward you?

No.... I was certainly not thinking of you.

Not unless you went backwards through this thread and posted dislikes on my posts. Which someone did. Not that I put any value on it, but it does seem to indicate a bit of a rabid reaction.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Not unless you went backwards through this thread and posted dislikes on my posts. Which someone did. Not that I put any value on it, but it does seem to indicate a bit of a rabid reaction.

Rabid reaction?

You got voted down multiple times for suggesting the couple buy their wedding cake in a different state and have it shipped where they needed it. 

You got voted down for first claiming nobody could know what was in the gay couple's minds, and then making up motivations by which you condemned their actions as political and divisive. 

You were filling in the motivations of the couple in this case based on your personal feelings and very little else, and that probably came off as prejudiced. Hardly rabid reactions. You're convinced you're only stating your opinion, but the way you do it looks more like drawing conclusions based on misunderstanding and personal bias. And you obviously do put some value on your reputation, since you seem to view dissention regarding your conclusions as a rabid reaction.

[Ten oz]

On 6/8/2018 at 12:25 PM, mistermack said:

 In my first post, I said that if I was the judge, and it looked like the baker was being targeted for political purposes, I would be inclined to find for the baker. 

Baker was being targeted.

On 6/8/2018 at 1:34 PM, mistermack said:

As I said before, In my first post, I never responded to the specifics of this case. Rather to an hypothetical case where it was clear that the case was manufactured to push a political point. Why bring it up? I think it's relevant.

Baker was being targeted.

On 8/7/2018 at 4:26 PM, mistermack said:

However, these cases seem to be cropping up too frequently to be just normal trade. It looks suspiciously like activists are selecting committed Christian bakers, with provocative orders, fishing for a refusal, so that they can portray themselves as wronged and discriminated against. 

I think if the baker suspects that he's being used in a crusade, he's entitled to refuse. So long as he makes it clear that it's being used in a political campaign that he is objecting to, rather than serving gay customers. 

Baker has the right to refuse if being targeted.

On 8/8/2018 at 6:00 AM, mistermack said:

If you don't want to see, then you will not see. I see activists seeking out staunchly Christian bakers, and ordering cakes with provocative messages on them. You see nothing of the sort. Just innocent people wanting a cake. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Baker was being targeted.

On 8/8/2018 at 6:56 AM, mistermack said:

The US has a ludicrous legal system, so quoting it doesn't make it right.

Cannot trust the legal system

18 hours ago, mistermack said:

The couple were actually married in Massachusetts a month previously, which does make you wonder why they were buying it at all. They obviously were well aware of the legal position in Colorado at the time. It's portrayed as a genuine case, but it does smack of activism.

Baker was being targeted.

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

In a way, yes. Because of the WAY that they were advocating it, with a contrived case against the baker. Basically, misusing the anti-discrimination laws against an innocent party, to further the end of legalising same-sex marriage. Which at the time, was a couple of years away, in Colorado, and three nationwide. 

Baker was being targeted.

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

But a gay couple in Colorado would have been very well aware of the current scene. To portray them as a couple of innocents expecting any and every shop in the Bible Belt to be happy baking a cake for a gay wedding is disingenuous. They would have known, or expected refusal. In Colorado. In 2012. You couldn't be an openly gay couple and be that naive at that time.

Baker was being targeted. *Colorado is not in or bordering the bible belt.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I'm not going to post again, people are getting too hostile over nothing. But to anyone coming fresh to this, I would just point out that the baker WON his case on a vote of 7-2. You would think from reading this forum that he was kicked out of court.

The ruling was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were unduly hostile towards the baker. That sounds vaguely familiar to me. Shame that people can't have a civilised discussion, even when they disagree. 

"The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination." CNN. 

So the Colorado Civil Rights commission were perfectly happy to give their ruling, based on their guess at the baker's motives. But I'm apparently right out of order to suggest any motive for the complainants. What ludicrous double standards.

This thread is titled "Supreme Courts rules in Favor of Colorado Baker .....". Everyone here knows what the verdict was. Falling back on the a Supreme Courts Religious Freedom verdict in no way supports what you have been arguing for pages. At no point have you made a Religious Freedom argument. Rather you have repeatedly insisted that the Baker had the right to refuse service on grounds they were being targeted for political activism. What one specifically argues matters. Ironically you selected to highlight the Kennedy's ruling which states as much. 

Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[27] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[28]

[iNow]

Seems this wasn’t about marriage given that this same Baker now refuses to bake a cake for a trans person celebrating a birthday and transition.

Seems, in fact, that bigotry cloaked in religiosity is the most parsimonious explanation. 

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2018/8/16/17701712/masterpiece-cakeshop-jack-phillips-colorado-baker-transgender

Colorado baker who refused to serve gay couple now wants to refuse to serve transgender person

[Phi for All]

This cake was supposed to be pink on the inside and blue on the outside. Again, nothing in the design would be considered objectionable on a birthday cake. 

This is bigotry at its worst, and I don't think this businessman deserves a license to do business with the public. 

[DrP]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This cake was supposed to be pink on the inside and blue on the outside. Again, nothing in the design would be considered objectionable on a birthday cake. 

This is bigotry at its worst, and I don't think this businessman deserves a license to do business with the public. 

....someone told me that my slippery slop argument was a fallacy...  in this respect I don't think it is a fallacy as we actually see it happening here. How he won his case idk.

How many others will this debacle empower to go public with their bigotry?

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, DrP said:

....someone told me that my slippery slop argument was a fallacy...  in this respect I don't think it is a fallacy as we actually see it happening here. How he won his case idk.

How many others will this debacle empower to go public with their bigotry?

If you read the SCOTUS ruling it clearly takes objection to the way the law was written and ruled on in Colorado itself rather than sides with the Baker. I highlighted a portion in a previous post where Kennedy even said he would have rule against the baker had the law in CO been different. It is important to remember that SCOTUS, like all courts, as suppose to rule based on the arguments presented and the existing law. Even a murderer like OJ walks when a case is bumbled. SCOTUS aren't investigators seeking truth.