snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07 December 2013, 04:07 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,644
Chef Baker discriminated by denying gay couple wedding cake

A Colorado bakery owner illegally discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake for the pair because of his Christian religious beliefs, a judge has ruled.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9B602S20131207
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07 December 2013, 05:47 AM
Meka Meka is offline
 
Join Date: 20 December 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,125
Default

Quote:
because of his Christian religious beliefs
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07 December 2013, 06:07 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

He's probably not really a Scotsman either.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07 December 2013, 07:05 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,439
Default

Indeed. I for one refuse to use pCm ever again. Why must a Christian moron necessarily be a pseudo Christian? I daresay I have grown sick of the notion of tolerance as an essential component of Christianity when the history of organized religion, to include Christianity, is replete with examples of systemic intolerance.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07 December 2013, 07:38 AM
Meka Meka is offline
 
Join Date: 20 December 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,125
Default

Oh, I'm not denying that there are plenty of people like him out there.* That said, in no way do they speak for all Christians. He and I clearly have different ideas of what that means. Which of us are the "true" Christians? While I'm not about to hold myself up as a shining example, I really don't think this passes the "what would Jesus do?" test either.

* And yes, that includes a depressingly sizable number of Christian leaders.

Last edited by Meka; 07 December 2013 at 07:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09 December 2013, 01:24 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meka View Post
While I'm not about to hold myself up as a shining example, I really don't think this passes the "what would Jesus do?" test either.
Jesus, who spent most of his ministry on the road with twelve guys, associated with prostitutes and *gasp* tax collectors, and gave impassioned speeches about the fact that people who make a show of their "devotion" would probably not earn his father's good will.

I think Meka and I are in agreement.

It's not about "Christians" it's about christians who are vocal about their faith, but apparently haven't been troubled to read the instruction manual.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04 June 2018, 05:01 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,051
Default

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...ple/ar-AAydEGF
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04 June 2018, 05:09 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,442
Default

NPR's coverage this morning stated that the court ruled on very narrow grounds. They really didn't rule either way on whether or not it's legal for a business to refuse to provide services to gay people on religious grounds, but simply that this specific baker didn't get a fair hearing from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04 June 2018, 05:22 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,800
Default

So SCOTUS basically side-stepped the issue?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04 June 2018, 05:26 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,128
Default

From the article:

Quote:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy said.
Good luck with that. The problem is exactly that some people's sincere religious beliefs require them to subject gay persons to indignities.


Also, is this bit

Quote:
former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."
supposed to justify the claim that

Quote:
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion
?

Because that doesn't read to me as hostility toward religion. It reads to me like a plain statement of fact.

If Rice said that all or even most religion does so, that would be hostility. I don't know what else was in the commission's statements; maybe there was something that does back the claim.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04 June 2018, 05:30 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,743
Default

One might say so. (ETA: in response to GenYus). One might say the same about their decision in Azar vs. Garza (the immigrant teen abortion case.) I’m wondering if the liberal justices are trying to split the baby to at least avoid creating bad precedent under the current circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04 June 2018, 05:32 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,800
Default

ETA: (Regarding thorny locust's comment about the hostility of the commission.)

It was much more than that. From the decision (pdf):

Quote:
As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04 June 2018, 05:34 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,804
Default

The hostility is addressed on pages 2-3 of the ruling. The bit you quoted is part of it.
Quote:
As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality
of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’
case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages
who prevailed before the Commission.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04 June 2018, 07:17 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,128
Default

OK; they had additional context to go by.

Though I'm still not sure whether

Quote:
compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust
refers to some additional language by that commissioner, or whether they're saying that they think it's automatically hostility to religion in general to point out that people did indeed invoke sincerely held religious beliefs to attempt to defend slavery.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 15 August 2018, 11:06 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,951
Default Colorado baker who refused to make cake for gays sues again

A Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds — a stance partially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — has sued the state over its opposition to his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition, his attorneys said Wednesday.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...-case-57196056
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 15 August 2018, 11:19 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,800
Default

Quote:
he status of being male or female ... is given by God, is biologically determined
I guess that means that God is definitely not omnipotent and/or omniscient as there are a number of people whose genes do not fit into the binary choices male or female.

PS. I'm going to be in Colorado soon, I wonder if I should go order an abortion cake so this guy can have the whole set.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16 August 2018, 12:25 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,128
Default

For that matter, there are people who are born with visible characteristics that aren't neatly either male or female.

Not to mention lots of other species, which he presumably thinks were also created by God, in which it's entirely standard to be both male and female at once, or to switch genders during one organism's lifetime.

-- and I think he'd also need a divorce cake; though it's possible that he doesn't object to that, which is actually mentioned in the Bible.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16 August 2018, 12:37 AM
Onyx_TKD Onyx_TKD is offline
 
Join Date: 17 December 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 385
Default

If it weren't for the fact that it would require forking money over to this guy, I'd love to see some experimentation to see where he actually draws the line. I.e., have someone go in and order some innocuous but specific cake (like the pink with blue icing design described) and only tell him after the cake is complete that it's to celebrate a [same-sex wedding/gender transition/etc.] and point out the significance of the design elements to that event. Or better yet, if someone could pull it off, get him to design the cake without revealing the details he'd object to, like getting him to design a wedding cake without revealing the fact that it's for a same-sex couple. Just because I'm curious to know what the reaction would be.

Would he throw a hissy fit, refuse to sell them the cake, and trash it? If so, he would be clearly discriminating against the customer based on their identity rather than declining to make a cake design he found offensive, since he was willing to make the cake when he didn't know the event. Would he grit his teeth and complete the transaction? (Unfortunately, since he's already been in legal fights over it, it would now be ambiguous whether he was willing to sell a cake that didn't overtly reference what he had religious objections to or if he simply recognized a set-up that could be used against him in court.) Could he manage it without slipping in some kind of offensive commentary?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16 August 2018, 01:41 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,461
Default

I wonder what would happen if a Jewish or Muslim person tried to buy a religious-themed cake from him?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16 August 2018, 06:40 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,092
Default

Maybe we could come up with some Humanist or Atheist equivalent of a Bar Mitzvah or Confirmation ceremony (at which a young person accepts responsibility for his own actions and affirms that any consequences arising therefrom are not supernaturally influenced, or something) and see how merchants are with ordering cakes or whatever to celebrate it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Same-sex couple files complaint against bakery that refused to make wedding cake firefighter_raven Soapbox Derby 95 29 December 2015 11:33 PM
Iraq vet sues Michigan for denying him 'INFIDEL' vanity license plate snopes Moot Court 38 23 September 2013 07:25 PM
The Beach Boys almost ruined this couple's wedding vows snopes Social Studies 11 09 September 2013 08:53 PM
Tiger photobombs couple’s wedding photo snopes Wild Kingdom 5 21 June 2013 05:52 PM
Best Buy denying claims to soldiers Squishy0405 Inboxer Rebellion 24 11 April 2007 04:54 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.