Colorado baker sued again

Do the comments of the regulatory body forever taint it so that it is vulnerable against accusations of religious antipathy?

Is this case different because there is no sacrament involved?

Does it matter that the baker is willing to sell the transgender customer a birthday cake, etc. but not one that celebrates the anniversary of transition from male to female?

At some point SCOTUS will have to take a position on religious freedom vs lgbtq rights.

What’s not clear from this article or any others I’ve read is whether the requested cake in question physically differed in any way from other cakes they sell for other occasions.

It seems it’s characterized by the color scheme:

I have no idea if that sort of scheme is common or not.

I doubt if the Commission even cares if they lose in the Supreme Court again. If they can drive this guy out of business, maybe the thought criminals in Colorado can be bullied into submission no matter what the Constitution says.

Which largely explains the tantrums over Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.


The part NPR doesn’t mention is how since the Supreme’s decision, Mr. Phillips has been targeted by activists.

Funny how spin can happen by omission. We have news, then fake news, not really news at all, and of course in this example, news sans the details.

The tantrums over Kavanugh and Gorsuch are because of Garland.

I think that this is a reasonable basis for outrage.

This is basically turning the SCOTUS nomination process into something that can only successfully be achieved when both the white house and the senate are controlled by the same party.

So basically until a Republican President nominates Gorsuch, there can be no reconciliation.

Bork got a hearing and a vote. Gorsuch was told that he had to wait until both the senate and the white house had to be controlled by the same party. Sure they SAID they would let him through if Hillary won but its not a credible assurance.

And yes, screw Colorado. They may become to religious freedom what Alabama is to black voting rights. Eternally suspect.

Find another homophobic baker to sue this time.

I thought it was pretty clear from the first lawsuit that they were already being targetted by activists.

Please walk me through the thought process of these people. Here is how I see it:

*This person does not want to bake me a cake because he doesn’t like me.

I’m going to tattle on him because I want someone that doesn’t like me to bake me a cake for a special occasion. *

Is this strange to anyone? They are angered that they cannot physically force a human being to manipulate his body such a way that a cake to their liking is produced. I wonder how they would treat a helpless person under no public scrutiny. Would they physically grab the person and marionette them into doing what they want. This is an antisocial impulse.

I just don’t understand people like this. To me, it is the height of entitlement. It’s a cake. You are not entitled to physically force an individual to do what you want them to do with their body.

For a baker he sure doesn’t bake much.

I’m not so much concerned with whether it’s common, but whether the baker would make that very same cake for a birthday or something. If not, I see no problem. If he would, then I do.

You left out that the person wanting the cake doesn’t like the baker, either. There are two very common human feelings:

  1. Enjoyment of forcing someone you don’t like into doing something s/he doesn’t want to do.
  2. Enjoyment of refusing to do something that someone you don’t like wants you to do.

Both are in play here and both are spiced with “I’m doing this for great justice!”

If the law says the baker can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity (and I don’t recall at the moment), then it seems like there’d be a relatively simple test activists could do, similar to the ways they exposed bigoted landlords in past decades – at some point, send in a straight person or couple to buy a cake with the pink/blue/whatever color scheme, and then at another point send the trans person at a different time to buy the exact same cake, and see if the baker balks the second time. But there’s been so much back and forth on the issue that I don’t remember the present state of the law.

I gather a big part of the process is to specifically tell the baker specifically that the cake is for an LGBTQ event, just to have him refuse on that basis.

I’m not sure what would happen if someone ordered a customized cake and then told the baker afterward that the design had some LGBTQ significance.

That was my thought too. I hope they did this.

Would they tell the baker what the cake was for?

Well, obviously. It’s not as though this is some big liberal secret. You might just as well criticize Rosa Parks for causing hassle for one particular bus driver. The point is not to persecute one particular baker, it is to put a test case before the Court. The activists are persisting largely because the Supreme Court dodged the core issue the last time.

Yes I understand enjoying not doing what you don’t want to do. What I dont understand is the first one, especially when it is supposedly for a special occasion.

I don’t know. Presumably, the activist lawyers would instruct them to state the purpose (or anything else) in the way most likely to result in a violation of the law if the bakers have bigoted policies.

Of course. How the hell else did it make it all the way to SCOTUS? But the harassment was on hold until the agitators did not get the decision they wanted, so it began anew,