Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on December 9, 2013 by Allahpundit

A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes…

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

***

According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.

Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”…

Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge’s decision was “reprehensible” and “antithetical to everything America stands for.”

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” Martin said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system.”

***

In July of 2012 my son and his fiancé invited me to join them at a bakery for a cake tasting and to discuss a design that was recommended by their event planner. What should have been a fun and special moment turned into a day I will never forget. The three of us walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop, and a man at the counter motioned for us to sit at a small table and then joined us. When the man asked whose wedding this was for, and my son said “it is for our wedding,” the man said that he does not make cakes for same- sex couples’ weddings or commitment ceremonies. When my son said “really?” the man tried to justify his stance by saying he will make birthday cakes or other occasion cakes for gays, just not a wedding cake.

I just sat there in disbelief. All of the levity that we felt on the drive to the bakery was gone. As I left that bakery, my heart was breaking for my son and his fiancé. What should have been a joyous occasion had turned into a humiliating occasion…

The decision that Judge Spencer made has renewed my hope that no other couple in Colorado will face discrimination by a business owner based on their sexual orientation. It was never about the cake. It was about my son being treated like a lesser person.

***

There will be no accommodation between gay rights activists and those seeking religious freedom to opt out of the gay rights movement. Gay rights activists demand tolerance for their lifestyle, but will not tolerate those who choose to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Increasingly, courts around the country are siding with the gay rights movement against those relying on the first freedoms of the country. While many would prefer to sit this out, they will be made to care.

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good. We are more and more rapidly arriving at a point in this country where Christians are being forced from the public square unless they abandon the tenets of their faith. In our secular society, Christianity is something you do on a Sunday and who you sleep with defines you.

For Christians defined by their faith, this paradigm of being defined by your sexual preference instead of your faith is deeply troublesome and will see more and more of these stories crop up.

***

But Judge Spencer shot down the constitutional arguments, noting that the Supreme Court has “repeatedly found” that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. “Conceptually, [Mr. Phillips's] refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage,” wrote Judge Spencer…

Wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.

The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.

***

“If the service or the product is expressive, if it sends a message, and the government says you have to make it, create it, and carry it for someone else, that is forced speech,” Ms. Martin told KNUS-AM talk-show host Peter Boyles.

Ms. Martin also warned that “this is just the first step.”

“If they can make Jack speak someone else’s message when they want it spoken and where they want it spoken, that is a government that we should all fear,” she said…

“It’s about the government telling you what you’re supposed to feel and believe. It doesn’t have anything to do with gay or straight,” said Mr. Boyles on Thursday’s program. “This is about this man’s right to say no, and what comes from that. This is what political correctness, authoritarianism is all about.”

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

…Bmore!

KOOLAID2 on December 10, 2013 at 7:25 PM

I like your style…but why is it you only consistently show up
on gay related threads? That is the only time I see you.
Seriously.

bazil9 on December 10, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Thanks. :)

I do most of my debating in the gay threads because most people here are right on most other issues so there’s not as much need for me to comment. I believe the current predominant conservative attitude on homosexuality is toxic to the party in the long run so the sooner we get around to rethinking the issue the better off we will be politically. And politics aside, not treating gay people like second-class citizens is also the correct moral and legal thing to do, and when you get to be morally, politically and legally correct on an issue it’s always nice.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 7:49 PM

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 7:49 PM

YW~
There may not be a need to comment on other issues
but I would welcome it. :] You debate like a gentleman. Refreshing.
Especially on such a heated topic….you keep your cool.
Drop by qotd or other threads more often.

bazil9 on December 10, 2013 at 8:09 PM

YW~
There may not be a need to comment on other issues
but I would welcome it. :] You debate like a gentleman. Refreshing.
Especially on such a heated topic….you keep your cool.

Drop by qotd or other threads more often.

bazil9 on December 10, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Hilarious – thank you for the comedy! :)

Discharge – “State Violence State Control”

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Since I am a gentleman and this thread is nearly dead so not many people are likely to see it I’m going to give you the out for the baker that doesn’t require any judicial activism at all. Feel free to quote this idea in the future; people will think you’re clever for it.

State law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which puts Mr. Phillips and others like him in a position they would rather not be in. In flat-out refusing service he set himself up for exactly what’s happened to him. It is not right but it was predictable. What he should have done when the gay couple came in was said something like this:

“Before we start there is something I want you to be aware of. My religious beliefs teach me that marriage between two people of the same gender is immoral. The state has an anti-discrimination law so I cannot refuse to provide my services to you, and I will do so if you still wish to bring your business to my store. If you do then even despite my personal objections you will get nothing less than my very best effort, the same I would provide to any other customer that comes into my store. But since I do not believe I should profit from something I believe immoral if you bring me your business then every penny of profit I make off this sale will be donated directly to the National Organization for Marriage. Now shall I bring out the samples?”

At that point it’s back on the couple seeking the service. Even if they storm out in a huff all offended there is no discrimination claim at this point so the business owner isn’t in any legal trouble. If the couple doesn’t leave and still wants to do business there even though their money will be used against them then that’s on them. Simple.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Since I am a gentleman…

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I skipped the rest, because I already know how dull & self-serving of a talker you are!

You, who’s taken the statist position while calling me, the anti-statist, a “liberal” (ROFL@you!) shows that you’re deluded, like Choomie does when he praises himself for being fair & bipartisan.

You are a bad listener, and a smug jerk, who cannot handle the truth about himself! :)

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Since I am a gentleman and this thread is nearly dead so not many people are likely to see it I’m going to give you the out for the baker that doesn’t require any judicial activism at all. Feel free to quote this idea in the future; people will think you’re clever for it.

State law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which puts Mr. Phillips and others like him in a position they would rather not be in. In flat-out refusing service he set himself up for exactly what’s happened to him. It is not right but it was predictable. What he should have done when the gay couple came in was said something like this:

“Before we start there is something I want you to be aware of. My religious beliefs teach me that marriage between two people of the same gender is immoral. The state has an anti-discrimination law so I cannot refuse to provide my services to you, and I will do so if you still wish to bring your business to my store. If you do then even despite my personal objections you will get nothing less than my very best effort, the same I would provide to any other customer that comes into my store. But since I do not believe I should profit from something I believe immoral if you bring me your business then every penny of profit I make off this sale will be donated directly to the National Organization for Marriage. Now shall I bring out the samples?”

At that point it’s back on the couple seeking the service. Even if they storm out in a huff all offended there is no discrimination claim at this point so the business owner isn’t in any legal trouble. If the couple doesn’t leave and still wants to do business there even though their money will be used against them then that’s on them. Simple.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM

tl;dr

Murphy9 on December 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM

bluegill, the problem is not an unidentified “crap law.” Many here seem to agree under our Constitution we discrimination against black/biracial couples is disallowed. At least as it relates to providing confections, nobody has really offered a principled legal reason why such service can be denied to a gay couple. Those who argue we should be able to deny service to ANYONE make the most coherent argument, but one must recognize that is far from how the Constitution is and has long been interpreted. That is why I don’t fault the judge. As for the dopey “leftarded”/”rightarded” terms, I was mocking Anti-Control for his use of the former.

Anti-Control repeats himself, insisting that “specific service” should be a basis of legal discrimination. It doesn’t address the race analogy or the suit analogy. It’s a mere assertion. I think Anti-Control is groping for the phrase “personal service.” Under existing law, such exceptions are narrowly defined. It’s not “specific” or “customized” service that may permit an exception. It’s the matter of forcing someone to engage in activity contrary to their beliefs that can give a person an out. Baking a cake of a certain size and color is not a “personal service” in that way.

The broad appeal in favor of freedom I appreciate. But there is no doubt our freedom is not plenary in the public realm. Forcing someone to go to a gay wedding in order to take photos is a personal service that forces the person to actually participate in the event they find offensive. Bake a cake and let people buy it is different. I sympathize with the baker’s feelings completely, but as for rule of law, nobody here is making a good argument.

Crispian on December 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM

As for the dopey “leftarded”/”rightarded” terms, I was mocking Anti-Control for his use of the former.

Your “mockery” wasn’t very good…I expect that you won’t realize this! :)

Anti-Control repeats himself, insisting that “specific service” should be a basis of legal discrimination. It doesn’t address the race analogy or the suit analogy. It’s a mere assertion. I think Anti-Control is groping for the phrase “personal service.” Under existing law, such exceptions are narrowly defined. It’s not “specific” or “customized” service that may permit an exception. It’s the matter of forcing someone to engage in activity contrary to their beliefs that can give a person an out. Baking a cake of a certain size and color is not a “personal service” in that way.

Crispian on December 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Forcing Phillips to make a customized cake for the selfish lads (which is in fact the case here) is as “discriminatory” as it would be for a tattoo artist to decline to give a specific tattoo to a potential client.

Independent/private contract work is not legally identical to at-large commercial sales. That people like you aren’t smart enough to understand the basic principles at hand here is why debating you about it is a waste of time – you want what you want, and don’t care if you have to squeeze others to get your way. You’re a bunch of immoral control freaks…

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 9:39 PM

tl;dr

Murphy9 on December 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM

You can lead a horse to water but can’t make him think.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 9:42 PM

bluegill, the problem is not an unidentified “crap law.” Many here seem to agree under our Constitution we discrimination against black/biracial couples is disallowed. At least as it relates to providing confections, nobody has really offered a principled legal reason why such service can be denied to a gay couple. Those who argue we should be able to deny service to ANYONE make the most coherent argument, but one must recognize that is far from how the Constitution is and has long been interpreted. That is why I don’t fault the judge. As for the dopey “leftarded”/”rightarded” terms, I was mocking Anti-Control for his use of the former.

Crispian on December 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Quite correct; however, I don’t find the fact that we’ve been interpreting the Constitution incorrectly in the past as a good reason to continue doing so. The judge’s ruling is correct because while we’re forced to operate under the current incorrect interpretation we are obligated to interpret it in the same wrong way for everybody so we’re at least consistent. Also that does not change the fact that if the opportunity arose at SCOTUS we should rid ourselves of the whole abominable thing.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 9:58 PM

I skipped the rest, because I already know how dull & self-serving of a talker you are!

You, who’s taken the statist position while calling me, the anti-statist, a “liberal” (ROFL@you!) shows that you’re deluded, like Choomie does when he praises himself for being fair & bipartisan.

You are a bad listener, and a smug jerk, who cannot handle the truth about himself! :)

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 9:07 PM

You’re making things up again.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 10:02 PM

You’re making things up again.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 10:02 PM

No, you’re making it up that I’m making something up.

What’s also true is that you’re still a smug, pontificating jerk, who does not know how to listen nor disagree like an adult!

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 10:08 PM

No, you’re making it up that I’m making something up.

What’s also true is that you’re still a smug, pontificating jerk, who does not know how to listen nor disagree like an adult!

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Ah, an argument in the proud tradition of “I know you are, but what am I?”

Hit the showers. You’re done.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Ah, an argument in the proud tradition of “I know you are, but what am I?”

Hit the showers. You’re done.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 10:12 PM

This, coming from the guy who believes “You’re making things up again” is some kind of winning argument…priceless!

ROFL@you!

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 10:18 PM

This, coming from the guy who believes “You’re making things up again” is some kind of winning argument…priceless!

ROFL@you!

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 10:18 PM

“You’re making things up again” isn’t an really an argument. I won the argument a long time ago as soon as I caught you cheering for judicial activism, and rather than attack my point (which I suspect you refrained from doing because you knew I had you) you were forced to result to name calling instead.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 10:50 PM

You can lead a horse to water but can’t make him think.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 9:42 PM

That is your excuse?

Good grief…

Murphy9 on December 10, 2013 at 10:53 PM

“You’re making things up again” isn’t an really an argument. I won the argument a long time ago as soon as I caught you cheering for judicial activism, and rather than attack my point (which I suspect you refrained from doing because you knew I had you) you were forced to result to name calling instead.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 10:50 PM

This is too easy….”You’re making things up again.”

ROFL@you!

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 10:55 PM

That is your excuse?

Good grief…

Murphy9 on December 10, 2013 at 10:53 PM

I wasn’t aware that I needed an excuse. I was amused that you thought three paragraphs was too much for you. If you ever open the Bible you’re in for a shock, and not just from the content itself.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 11:34 PM

This is too easy….”You’re making things up again.”

ROFL@you!

Anti-Control on December 10, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Now I’m starting to feel bad for you. It’s like you’ve been humbled to the point that you need the last word, *any* last word, to save the tiniest bit of face. My point has been made, yours has been exposed and I trust the judgment of most readers to see that. There’s no more to be gained by me continuing to rub your nose in it so go ahead and persist if it makes you feel better.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Now I’m starting to feel bad for you. It’s like you’ve been humbled to the point that you need the last word, *any* last word, to save the tiniest bit of face. My point has been made, yours has been exposed and I trust the judgment of most readers to see that. There’s no more to be gained by me continuing to rub your nose in it so go ahead and persist if it makes you feel better.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 11:42 PM

You don’t know what “echo chamber” or “confirmation bias” mean, do you, statist?

ROFL@you & your pomposity!

Anti-Control on December 11, 2013 at 4:21 AM

There is only one issue at stake in this matter. A business owner has a right to decide whom he will and will not serve. Period. If his choice causes him to lose business, but he believes in the choice by conscience, the government has NO standing to force him to behave otherwise.

That. Is. All.

Freelancer on December 11, 2013 at 5:07 AM

If these Muslims normally catered bar mitzvahs but refused when they found out a certain client was Jewish then yes they would be compelled to offer their services.

alchemist19 on December 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Very doubtful. There would be an outcry if any muslim was forced to do something against their beliefs. In this case, because the baker is Christian, it’s OK to use the force of law against him.

Also laughable: “they found out” the client was Jewish, after agreeing to cater a bar mitzvah. What planet are we talking about?

virgo on December 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Anti-Control, again, my sympathies are with the baker. alchemist19 gets it. This isn’t about how we feel. Your tattoo analogy is only right if you’re saying a tattoo artist could refuse to give a flaming skull to a gay person, while still giving the same tattoo to a non-gay person. If the baker has an objection to the actual particulars of the cake (chocolate with white frosting) for ANY customer that’s one thing. If his objection is the placement of a figuring of two men, then I’m totally with you.

“Independent/private contract work is not legally identical to at-large commercial sales.”

I don’t know what you mean by “legally identical.” Is there a law or Supreme Court decision you have in mind? You’re starting to sound like liberals who argue in favor a the abortion requirement for insurance provided by employers. ‘How can a big corporation possibly have moral objections,’ they ask – just as you suggest should be the case here.

Crispian on December 11, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6