Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says is the law of the land. That doesn’t make it the right law.
A pious homophobe won one. But he lost several years of business doing his “art” for anyone. And the decision is explicitly not “the law of the land,” only for this homophobe. Let’s hope the other homophobes will be fearful of the cost of getting someone like the stupid commissioner to give them an out.
Even though the un-supreme court dropped the ball, again, the local citizens can fix this. Stop spending money at this bakery. About 5-6 mo. ago I read about the first bakery that refused to serve a gay couple (don’t remember where they were located), the bakery is out of business now. Karma can bite you in the ass.
This is an outright falsehood. The court made no such declaration.
“There’s no getting out of the labyrinth of the absurd the moment belief of any sort is substituted as a fundament of law.”
The fundament of law enshrines the protection of the free exercise and free expression of belief. In no way does that make belief itself a substitute for the fundament of law.
“For all that, no one was questioning Phillips’s faith, only his refusal to do for one couple what he would do for any other, as long as they were heteros.”
His refusal was based on the nature of the ceremony, not the orientation of the customers. A gay customer could have commissioned his signature custom wedding cake services as a gift to a straight couple and all indications are Phillips would have accepted that commission, and that he would likewise have refused a commission request from a straight customer to make a cake for a homosexual wedding. He would also have declined to make a cake for a heterosexual Hindu, or Wiccan wedding.
“The cake was not about gay sex.”
Correct. It was about gay marriage.
“Only Phillips made it so.”
Jack Phillips’ belief that gay marriage is un-Christian is not unique to Jack Phillips. There are millions who hold that view. But even if he were the only one who held that belief, the First Amendment would still protect his right to choose not to disparage that belief.
“But he was doing it sincerely and he was a good, white, past-middle-age Colorado Christian as opposed to, say, a particularly retrograde Saudi Muslim baker who thinks he can still get away with not making cakes for Jews”
If a case were to come up where a custom Muslim artist refused a commission to create a work celebrating a Jewish ceremony or ritual, the result should be the same.
“In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court endorsed what amounts to a sign in the window: No wedding cakes for gays.”
No, it would be ‘no wedding cakes for gay weddings’. Again, it’s about the ceremony, not the customers. He also would not accept commissions for Halloween events, or for works celebrating rituals and ceremonies from non-Christian religions.
The decisions here are, on the whole, a win for First Amendment rights, and I don’t see that as a bad thing, nor something we should wish be overturned.
As I understand fundamentalist Chrstianity, it’s basic message is that the eternal existing Creator of billions of galaxies had a son whom he sent to earth to do two things (1) make sure that gay people did not have nice weddings and (2) prevent women from terminating pregnancies.
I know I’m going to regret engaging you, but I have to ask what your source is for these “would haves.” As I heard the story, the couple had been customers of Masterpiece for some time, and they made an appointment when one of their mothers was going to be in town; I believe she had offered to buy their cake. They had their own design ideas, which they brought with them (meaning Masterpiece would only have had to execute the couple’s art, not violate their own). It was in front of the mother that Phillips said, ‘Oh, no. I don’t do cakes for the likes of you.’ I’ve heard nothing about any other groups that Phillips (or his assistants) refuse to serve.
In the words of Rowan Atkinson regarding religious beliefs, “What is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?”
Note: Organized religion is antithetical to animal rights as well.
Phillips has been very clear and consistent through this whole affair that he does not discriminate against customers, but he doesn’t lend his art to every message. He doesn’t do Halloween theme decorations, or cakes for divorce celebrations, or bachelor parties, he won’t do unpatriotic messages, he won’t do derogatory or disparaging messages–including disparagement of gays–and he doesn’t do messages which conflict with his Christian beliefs.
“As I heard the story, the couple had been customers of Masterpiece for some time,”
Which tends to undercut the notion that he was discriminating against them as customers.
“and they made an appointment when one of their mothers was going to be in town; I believe she had offered to buy their cake.”
And was she gay? Because if not, then clearly he did not turn her down as a customer on account of her sexual orientation.
“They had their own design ideas, which they brought with them (meaning Masterpiece would only have had to execute the couple’s art, not violate their own).”
That isn’t Phillips’ process. He interviews the couple, he works up some general theme ideas in consultation with them, then–drawing on inspiration from his Master, as he puts it–he produces an original watercolor rendition for final approval before creating the cake. If they specifically wanted his
signature work, that means they wanted his process, and his artistry.
“It was in front of the mother that Phillips said, ‘Oh, no. I don’t do cakes for the likes of you.’”
At some point, a paraphrase becomes so loose that it becomes misrepresentation. The highly consistent account from Phillips was that he said “Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” and “You know, I’ll make you a birthday cake, shower cake, I’ll sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t do cakes for same-sex weddings.” His refusal was based on the content of the message, not the attributes of the customers.
“I’ve heard nothing about any other groups that Phillips (or his assistants) refuse to serve.”
I’m basing that on Phillips own account of his Christian source of inspiration, and regarding other kinds of messages he will not convey. It isn’t a big leap from that to conclude he would also have declined Hindu or Wiccan themed commissions, but if you like, feel free to make that an abstract hypothetical instead of a hypothetical about Jack Phillips in particular. If some Christian contract artist declined a commission to do art with a Hindu or Wiccan theme, do you think that should be considered a religious discrimination violation of their civil rights?
You were an eyewitness? Yeah, I knew I was going to regret engaging you. Not one link to back up your claims.
No, I wasn’t. What I cited was the highly consistent account from Phillips. Your clue that’s what I was referring to should have been where I specifically prefaced the quote as being “the highly consistent account from Phillips”.
“Yeah, I knew I was going to regret engaging you.”
If you would actually learn from your mistakes, maybe they wouldn’t be such a source of regret.
“Not one link to back up your claims.”
Says the person who who used a plainly false quote that would have demolished the entire basis of Phillips case had he actually said it. And you really should have learned by now that challenging me on sources has never worked out for you. But sure, you want links to Phillips account of what he said, then here:
And the Supreme Court incorporated a characterization of his account in their ruling, saying “Phillips informed the couple that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.”
Or, you know, you could have Googled my version of the quote and found hundreds of entries vs. your version of the quote (“I don’t do cakes for the likes of you.”) which returns, let’s see, zero results. You do know how to Google, don’t you?