Christian Baker In Trouble Again!

[seer]

They just won't leave the man alone!

transgender birthday cakea birthday cake for a gender transition.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-complaint-ov/

[rogue06]

They just won't leave the man alone!

A silver lining

Source: Nephew of Famed Baker Jack Phillips Became a Christian After Seeing His Uncle Defend the Faith

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

a silver lining

Source: nephew of famed baker jack phillips became a christian after seeing his uncle defend the faith

source

© Copyright Original Source

amen!!!!!

[Sparko]

reading that story he might have a harder time this time.

If all the transgender person wanted was a pink and blue cake, I don't see how he can refuse to make it. It doesn't have any special significance on its own, just the symbolism to the person buying it. It didn't appear that they wanted any decoration or writing on it so it was not a piece of art but a plain cake. If the person ordering it didn't mention what it was for, he would never have known as far as I can tell. He also previously told the gay couple that he would gladly make them a cake for their birthday or other such celebration, just not a wedding cake.

I agree that this is obviously a set up and bullying.

[seer]

I agree that this is obviously a set up and bullying.

True that...

[Sparko]

I think Phillips has a case against the Colorado Commission for intentional harassment though. It looks like they are out to get him and are ignoring the Supreme Courts decision about them showing religious hostility.

[Sparko]

A silver lining

Source: Nephew of Famed Baker Jack Phillips Became a Christian After Seeing His Uncle Defend the Faith

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Genesis 50:20 English Standard Version (ESV)

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good

[Terraceth]

reading that story he might have a harder time this time.

If all the transgender person wanted was a pink and blue cake, I don't see how he can refuse to make it. It doesn't have any special significance on its own, just the symbolism to the person buying it. It didn't appear that they wanted any decoration or writing on it so it was not a piece of art but a plain cake. If the person ordering it didn't mention what it was for, he would never have known as far as I can tell. He also previously told the gay couple that he would gladly make them a cake for their birthday or other such celebration, just not a wedding cake.

Given that one of the strongest arguments he had in regards to the original case was that he was discriminating based on the product itself, not who was buying it, it is harder to argue against this when it seems to be a much more "standardized" product and therefore the argument in question doesn't apply.

On the other hand, there's an argument that can be used here that couldn't be used in the original case. Let's look at the law:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

"Sexual orientation" is listed there, but "gender identity" isn't. While some have argued that a prohibition of discriminating based on sex therefore includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and I know at least one circuit court ruled that's the case, the Supreme Court itself has never stated that. At any rate, a plausible argument that applies here but not in the original case is that that even if he was discriminating against the customer in this case, it wouldn't run afoul of the law. Though admittedly, an addition of "gender identity" by an adjustment to the law would render that argument moot for future cases.

[LeaC]

Though admittedly, an addition of "gender identity" by an adjustment to the law would render that argument moot for future cases.

Legally, this sounds like a nightmare. The only evidence of a gender identity is the person's say-so, while all the other categories on that last are based on some real qualification.

Harassment may be a defense here... I had heard that this was only after repeated requests from this same person for various offensive cakes?

[Sparko]

Given that one of the strongest arguments he had in regards to the original case was that he was discriminating based on the product itself, not who was buying it, it is harder to argue against this when it seems to be a much more "standardized" product and therefore the argument in question doesn't apply.

On the other hand, there's an argument that can be used here that couldn't be used in the original case. Let's look at the law:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

"Sexual orientation" is listed there, but "gender identity" isn't. While some have argued that a prohibition of discriminating based on sex therefore includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and I know at least one circuit court ruled that's the case, the Supreme Court itself has never stated that. At any rate, a plausible argument that applies here but not in the original case is that that even if he was discriminating against the customer in this case, it wouldn't run afoul of the law. Though admittedly, an addition of "gender identity" by an adjustment to the law would render that argument moot for future cases.

yeah and liberals are quick to argue that gender is not biological sex.

[NorrinRadd]

They just won't leave the man alone!

*sigh*

I'd like to read about the case, but it's hard to find an online article from a source that is both unbiased and not hidden behind a paywall or a "We don't like adblockers" facade.

[firstfloor]

They just won't leave the man alone!

There seems to be a need to find the line between behaviours necessitated by sincerely held but unfounded religious beliefs and straight forward bigotry. Some religioso try to hide their bigotry behind The Bible. They ought to be tested.

[myth]

There seems to be a need to find the line between behaviours necessitated by sincerely held but unfounded religious beliefs and straight forward bigotry. Some religioso try to hide their bigotry behind The Bible. They ought to be tested.

Well, that's exactly the heart of the problem, isn't it? Seems like many of the liberals on the other side of the gay cake argument don't actually think it's a sincere religious belief. Obviously, some don't care. But if there's no actual religious issue at stake, then the whole ordeal is much less interesting. It's very difficult to find a consensus on a litmus test for the sincerity of religious beliefs.

[JimL]

Well, that's exactly the heart of the problem, isn't it? Seems like many of the liberals on the other side of the gay cake argument don't actually think it's a sincere religious belief. Obviously, some don't care. But if there's no actual religious issue at stake, then the whole ordeal is much less interesting. It's very difficult to find a consensus on a litmus test for the sincerity of religious beliefs.

No, it actually is bigotry, this guy is simply anti gay people. Or does he only make christian wedding cakes? His religion doesn't believe in Muslimism either, or Hinduism, or whatever ism, but I'll bet you that he doesn't refuse to make wedding cakes for them.

[seer]

No, it actually is bigotry, this guy is simply anti gay people. Or does he only make christian wedding cakes? His religion doesn't believe in Muslimism either, or Hinduism, or whatever ism, but I'll bet you that he doesn't refuse to make wedding cakes for them.

What you consider bigotry Jim is quite honestly meaningless. But he also refuses to bake cakes for Halloween or anti-American celebrations. Does that mean he is a Halloween bigot?