SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Salodin]

Yeah i was gonna say...you don't walk into the store and take out the first cake you see in the fridge for your wedding. You get that shit designed and baked fresh, never frozen. Which is why what he offered wasn't satisfactory to the couple, but also why he can get away with objecting to providing that service.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[dasva]

I wouldn't know. My family hasn't really been big on big marriages with all the pizazz... or in my aunts cases marriages at all lol.

[Rooney]

Quote Originally Posted by http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...l-colo-app.pdf
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.

Sounds like he refused to sell them any kind of cake, but would sell them other stuff they could use for the wedding. At that point the only objection he's raising is using a cake specifically in their (gay) wedding. Since he's willing to sell other baked goods to use at the wedding, the breaking bread aspect is out. Once that's gone, there is no religious objection left.

[TummieGaruda]

Ok now I'm wondering why they didn't want one of the ones already designed/made if that's the case. Were they looking for trouble?

Because he offered them premade birthday cakes and biscuits...for a wedding lol. What they should have done was had friends of theirs pose as an engage couple and get the cake for them. Then deliver it to their ceremony and take a ton of photos of them cutting the cake and post it on the bakers Facebook page with messages of thanks.

[dasva]

Because he offered them premade birthday cakes and biscuits...for a wedding lol. What they should have done was had friends of theirs pose as an engage couple and get the cake for them. Then deliver it to their ceremony and take a ton of photos of them cutting the cake and post it on the bakers Facebook page with messages of thanks.

My response was to the thing above my statement part where that was disputed and the court favored the cake makers claims. Hence the if that's the case part

the parties dispute whether Phillips refused to create a custom wedding cake for the individual respondents, or whether he refused to sell them any wedding cake (includ­ing a premade one). But the Colorado Court of Appeals resolved this factual dispute in Phillips’ favor. The court described his conduct as a refusal to “design and create a cake to celebrate [a] same-sex wedding.

[Prim]

That’s how I read it. He would not sell them a cake, custom or otherwise (again, even assuming there is an “otherwise” like an off-the-shelf wedding cake), that would conceivably be interpreted as a wedding cake. They could buy all the cookies and cupcakes they wanted. If someone can cite him saying “I’ve got these non-gay wedding cakes in the freezer you’re welcome to have” then I agree that’s a different story.

And yes, the fact that it was a cake does matter. The specific food item does matter. That’s exactly the point of about 10 pages of the decision. They argue cakes are part of the wedding ceremony, and you can’t have a proper wedding ceremony without cake, and because the two are so tightly bound he can’t make a wedding cake without implicitly endorsing the [same-sex] wedding. I’m saying “traditional” parts of ceremonies like cakes are more malleable now than in the past. I’ve gone to a few receptions with a mountain of cupcakes as “the cake” and I never thought the wedding was null and void because of it.

Phillips also sees the inherent symbolism in wedding cakes. To him, a wedding cake inherently communicates that “a wedding has oc­curred, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated.” App. 162.
Wedding cakes do, in fact, communicate this message. A tradition from Victorian England that made its way to America after the Civil War, “[w]edding cakes are so packed with symbolism that it is hard to know where to begin.” M. Krondl, Sweet Invention: A History of Dessert 321 (2011) (Krondl); see also ibid. (explaining the symbol­ ism behind the color, texture, flavor, and cutting of the cake). If an average person walked into a room and saw a white, multi-tiered cake, he would immediately know that he had stumbled upon a wedding. The cake is “so stand­ ardised and inevitable a part of getting married that few ever think to question it.” Charsley, Interpretation and Custom: The Case of the Wedding Cake, 22 Man 93, 95 (1987). Almost no wedding, no matter how spartan, is missing the cake. See id., at 98. “A whole series of events expected in the context of a wedding would be impossible without it: an essential photograph, the cutting, the toast, and the distribution of both cake and favours at the wed­ ding and afterwards.” Ibid. Although the cake is eventu­ ally eaten, that is not its primary purpose. See id., at 95 (“It is not unusual to hear people declaring that they do not like wedding cake, meaning that they do not like to eat it. This includes people who are, without question, having such cakes for their weddings”); id., at 97 (“Nothing is made of the eating itself”); Krondl 320–321 (explaining that wedding cakes have long been described as “inedi­ ble”). The cake’s purpose is to mark the beginning of a new marriage and to celebrate the couple.

[Byrthnoth]

Burning hot lib take: Protections for behavior based on religious beliefs are effectively open ended and stupid the end.

[dasva]

Well it looks like it says his side is he just wouldn't make a custom one the other side is he wouldn't sell any wedding cake. With the court siding with his side of the story but it still seeming to be somewhat in question. Ultimately seems to be a he said she said.

[Rooney]

Regardless, his objection is so specific and narrow that I can't buy it's religion based.

[zoobernut]

He did not deny them that service though. He denied them the specific design that they wanted. This was the crux of the argument, that at that moment he became an artist, and the artist has the freedom to reject a commission if it violates his religious principles.

If he has to make that cake, he has to make every cake. A law saying "you don't have to make a cake, unless its for gay people, then you have to make the cake. but every other time yeah you don't have to do it." doesn't work, man.

Yes it does work that is why we literally have laws that specifically lay out protected classes of people. They could actually say he has to make a gay cake but not a Nazi one. We already have laws that function exactly like that. So no he wouldn't have to "make every cake". If a certain segment of people wanted federal protection they would have to go get it before going back to the cake shop.

I would say that the likely hood of nazi's becoming a protected group is low but given this current administration stranger things have happened.

Edit: There is a lot more to this than just that portion but I just felt the need to comment on what you said there in general and not specific to this case. Also I know it is complicated when you have two conflicting protected classes of people and either decision on either side is going to seemingly infringe on someones rights.

[Tymon]

Yes it does work that is why we literally have laws that specifically lay out protected classes of people. They could actually say he has to make a gay cake but not a Nazi one. We already have laws that function exactly like that. So no he wouldn't have to "make every cake". If a certain segment of people wanted federal protection they would have to go get it before going back to the cake shop.

I would say that the likely hood of nazi's becoming a protected group is low but given this current administration stranger things have happened.

Edit: There is a lot more to this than just that portion but I just felt the need to comment on what you said there in general and not specific to this case. Also I know it is complicated when you have two conflicting protected classes of people and either decision on either side is going to seemingly infringe on someones rights.

You're not wrong. It's actually the point of the ruling. The Court decided, essentially, that the freedom of religion (and free speech) trumps the rights given to the protected class, in this case LGBT.

[Salodin]

Quote Originally Posted by http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...l-colo-app.pdf
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.

Sounds like he refused to sell them any kind of cake, but would sell them other stuff they could use for the wedding. At that point the only objection he's raising is using a cake specifically in their (gay) wedding. Since he's willing to sell other baked goods to use at the wedding, the breaking bread aspect is out. Once that's gone, there is no religious objection left.

First, because he offered them other items but declined to be commissioned in creating a cake, he is not turning away service from a protected class (based on sexuality), so he's good there. Second, as an artist, he can refuse to create art that contradicts his protected religious preferences, so he's good there as well. Full stop.

He probably isn't making designs on other baked goods based on sexuality (because other baked goods are usually not personalized like a wedding cake); he's probably just baking some chocolate chip cookies or cupcakes with some plain colored frosting on top. These also, to give him the benefit of the doubt, could be used outside of the wedding at a reception or pre party. The commission to design and create a wedding cake goes above and beyond that, specifically being created to be viewed, appreciated, and consumed at the wedding. You can not reasonably ask a person to design and create art they find unconscionable, and if you do then I stand by previous comments that we should never go full libtard.

Here's a quote from right after that for some more context

The ALJ found that Phillips has been a Christian for approximately thirty-five years and believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art, that he can honor God through his artistic talents, and that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages.

From the facts of the case Phillips went above and beyond trying to accomodate the couple while still reconciling that with what his beliefs are. He refused the cake but offered other baked goods, most of which he knew would probably be served at the same wedding but decided to turn the other eye because he wasn't topping them with two Grooms holding hands (or whatever stereotype we use for a "gay baked goods"). Honestly, had I known all these facts before this decision came out, I would have sided with him when this all first went down.

If he refused all service I'd understand the outrage, but that is not the case.

The Court decided, essentially, that the freedom of religion (and free speech) trumps the rights given to the protected class, in this case LGBT.

Couldn't disagree more.

[Rooney]

If he refused all service I'd understand the outrage, but that is not the case.

That's exactly my problem with his defense. He'll sell goods to gay couples. He'll even (presumably) sell cakes to gay couples for other purposes. He'll sell goods to a gay couple specifically to celebrate their wedding. All good here, no discrimination. But he won't make them a wedding cake.

Use the artist defense: he doesn't agree with the design or message of the cake. Fine, assuming he would also decline a straight couple for the same design/message. I'm having a hard time coming up with a religious defense that makes any sort of sense, considering he'll sell to gay people, including items specifically to be used to celebrate their wedding. At that point, you're down to it being a cake versus something else. And I would think making the argument that a cake is specifically religious in this context would be a tall order.

[Salodin]

That's exactly my problem with his defense. He'll sell goods to gay couples. He'll even (presumably) sell cakes to gay couples for other purposes. He'll sell goods to a gay couple specifically to celebrate their wedding. All good here, no discrimination. But he won't make them a wedding cake.

Use the artist defense: he doesn't agree with the design or message of the cake. Fine, assuming he would also decline a straight couple for the same design/message. I'm having a hard time coming up with a religious defense that makes any sort of sense, considering he'll sell to gay people, including items specifically to be used to celebrate their wedding. At that point, you're down to it being a cake versus something else. And I would think making the argument that a cake is specifically religious in this context would be a tall order.

I think a lot of people are adding facts to the case that just don't exist. He isn't selling other baked goods specifically for the wedding; he's strictly just selling them other baked goods they could end up using in their wedding. Designing and producing a cake specifically for the gay wedding is completely different, on many levels some of which I went over above. They never got around to discussing specifics of the cake, so you can't make the argument you made because you just don't know if it's reasonable to assume a straight couple could have ordered the same cake. If I'm offering my anecdote, based on all gay wedding cakes I've ever seen publicized, the fact that it was a same sex couple being wed would be featured prominently on the cake, and I don't think it's unfair to assume that in some way the fact that it's a "gay wedding cake" would appear somewhere on this dudes art. Maybe they wanted a plain colored fondant cake, in which case I'd agree with your argument, but both parties never got that far and you can't assume one way or the other.

He doesn't agree with the usage of his art if it's in a gay wedding, but he is willing to turn a blind eye to selling generic goods because you can give the couple the benefit of the doubt if they said they would love his delicious baked goods and won't use them in their wedding specifically. That would allow him to service this protected class of people while not violating his religious principles. You can not give that benefit of the doubt for a wedding cake, whose sole purpose is to be appreciated and consumed at the wedding, the homosexual one at that.

Either this guy thought long and hard in preparation for this moment many moons prior to the incident, or he genuinely did not mind serving homosexual individuals as long as it wasn't towards a gay wedding, something of which he vehemently opposes based on his protected status.

I feel like y'all wish religion wasn't a protected class, and I find it funny that this must have been what truly religious individuals felt like when SCOTUS determined that sexuality was a protected class.

[Rooney]

I just threw out the artist defense, as that would be the free speech defense (which I believe they also tried to use?). I'm totally fine w/ religion being a protected class. I'm also fine with using it as a legal defense, provided you can actually point to something in your religion that's relevant. Personally, I do not see that in this case. Does the bible even come close to mentioning gay weddings?

[Tymon]

The laws are not based off of your interpretation of Christianity, nor mine, nor anyone here.

It's possible to come up with an interpretation of the Bible that called for the Crusades; same as the Quran can be interpreted in a way that justifies Wahabbism, Salafism, Jihad, etc.

If there are a set of rules that must be followed to claim religious beliefs I'm not sure what they are. Probably anything considered reasonable by any reasonable number of people.

You might not think it's reasonable to find a gay marriage immoral, but unfortunately many millions do. Without a doubt enough, I'm afraid.

[Salodin]

It doesn't have to be in the bible I think, as long as it's tradition in the religion. And it is traditional in this (any?) religion to ban gay marriages. You can't force someone in a protected class to do something that goes against their protected practices. They made sure that this has to be decided on a case by case basis though.

[Byrthnoth]

FSM people can wear collanders on their heads for Driver's Licenses in some states, yeah?

[Tymon]

FSM people can wear collanders on their heads for Driver's Licenses in some states, yeah?

https://www.insideedition.com/headli...lander-on-head

[Salodin]

The sacrifices we make for the freedoms we enjoy...