twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,948
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Jun 17, 2021 17:39:03 GMT
linkThis is the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS gave him a victory more on procedure than merits, simply ruling that the Human Civil Rights Commission was "hostile" to his viewpoint and refused to consider his arguments. The ruling did NOT state that discrimination was okay, but rather you have to let the defendant at least make the argument regarding religious beliefs. IIRC, the ruling also stated that it is conceivable that the HRC would have been justified in ruling against him after hearing his arguments. It's kind of like a defendant getting a reversal due to police/prosecutors making a procedural error. It doesn't mean the defendant is guilty; it just means that someone didn't do their job correctly during the process. So now he is back at it again. The plaintiff requested a birthday cake with blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent her transition. The baker refused and says his religious beliefs prevent him from making the cake with that "message." Seriously, what message? Pink and blue? They are colors, not a message. There is no indication that he was required to write any words supporting transgender rights, and the colors could just as easily be her favorite colors. Would he refuse a strawberry cake covered in blue fondant for a baby shower? And of course, Ted Cruz had to weigh in on the issue. ETA: Thank you lizacreates for the correction of the name of the agency that originally ruled on the wedding cake case.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 17, 2021 18:01:42 GMT
Of course it was a set up. And I have no doubt if she had just ordered a pink and blue cake with no further explanation, he would have baked it. That's the part that is bothers me about this type of case. I have zero issue with the argument that it's a product and anyone should be able to go in and order a product and be sold that product without discriminating. But you go into a known bigot's establishment discussing your gender conversion and how his cake is going to represent it... Yeah you're muddying the waters and absolutely attempting to generate a lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 17, 2021 18:11:57 GMT
Of course it was a set up. And I have no doubt if she had just ordered a pink and blue cake with no further explanation, he would have baked it. That's the part that is bothers me about this type of case. I have zero issue with the argument that it's a product and anyone should be able to go in and order a product and be sold that product without discriminating. But you go into a known bigot's establishment discussing your gender conversion and how his cake is going to represent it... Yeah you're muddying the waters and absolutely attempting to generate a lawsuit. agreed. And it doesn't hurt this guy. Instead it helps his business by keeping him in the news and other people pay his legal fees.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 17, 2021 20:12:18 GMT
That’s not how I remember it. (It was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.) The SC clearly ruled on the merits of the Free Exercise Clause. What they did not was re free speech as it specifically pertains to compelled speech.
Also, in this newer case, it wasn’t about the cake colors. Scardina told Phillip’s wife that “the design was a reflection of her transition from male to female.” Up until that point her custom order was being treated just like any other. Unless this baker is the only one in existence in this entire city, there was no reason for Scardina to even patronize the bakery since she was well aware of the prior controversy. So I agree with others here that this was an intended trap.
The LGBTQ community should not be “othered” and just like any individual they should be free to enjoy basic human rights. But to intentionally target someone with the plan to frame him for his religious beliefs crosses the line. To me, personally, that is no longer activism. That is harassment.
|
|