LGBT

Masterpiece Cakeshop Faces Yet Another Legal Fight over Cakes

After the state ends a lawsuit over a transgender celebration cake, the customer files her own civil claim.

|

June is LGBT Pride Month, meaning that every single brand you love is covered in rainbows and glitter and declaring their support for all people gay, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise nonconforming in some fashion. Some of it is pure pandering, while some of it is tied to useful fundraising for valuable charitable causes. All of it is an awesome reflection of a positive cultural shift toward public inclusion of a class of people who were once treated like predators and sex fiends.

But a transgender Denver attorney named Autumn Scardina is spending this month using the courts in Colorado to go after a bakery that has become famous for its unwillingness to play along. Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop are being sued, yet again, for refusing to bake somebody a cake.

Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop were central to a Supreme Court decision focusing on whether a baker could be required, under a state's anti-discrimination public accommodation laws, to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Ultimately, the court ruled 7-2 in Phillips' favor, but under a narrow analysis that determined the state's civil rights agency had shown bias against Phillips' religion when making its decision. The ruling left the underlying legal question unanswered of whether a baker who doesn't support same-sex marriage could be forced to make a wedding cake or whether doing so was compelling speech.

At the same time as that case was winding its way up to the Supreme Court, Phillips was contacted by Scardina for the purpose of making some sort of transgender celebratory cake—pink on the inside but with blue frosting. Masterpiece Cakeshop declined to make her cake, and Phillips indicated he held religious objections to "celebrating" a gender transition, just as he objected to same-sex marriage.

Scardina complained to Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, which went after him yet again under the state's anti-discrimination laws. Phillips fought back and countersued, arguing that the state was targeting him for punishment due to his religious beliefs.

In March, the state of Colorado and Phillips both agreed to drop their respective lawsuits. But while the state declined to keep pursuing this fight, this didn't stop Scardina from acting on her own in civil court. Scardina is herself an attorney who represents plaintiffs in LGBT discrimination cases, but here she's turning to lawyers with the Denver-based firms Reilly Pozner and King & Greisen to represent her in the city's District Court.

So this third lawsuit is fundamentally a repeat of the second lawsuit. Scardina is accusing the bakery of violating her civil rights as well as engaging in false advertising.

During this whole legal fight, Phillips has maintained that he was not discriminating against LGBT customers, but rather refusing to compromise his religious beliefs to create cakes that contained a message that he disagreed with. He would sell gay people birthday cakes and other baked goods, but he wouldn't make them a wedding cake. He would sell Scardina a cake, but he wouldn't make a cake for her that celebrated her transgender transition.

But in Scardina's lawsuit, her attempt to buy a cake from Phillips is described differently from how Phillips has told the story. In her lawsuit, she claims that she initially requested simply a birthday cake that had a pink interior with blue frosting. She says the shop seemed fine with that. Then she volunteered to them that the colors of the cake were meaningful to her because they signified her transition. It was only after they found out what the cake meant to her, she claims, that they objected and refused to bake the cake.

Her story seems to vary from what Phillips previously claimed, which is that she approached them for the purpose of making a cake specifically to celebrate her transgender identity. I don't know which version of the story (if either) is true, but if what Scardina is claiming is accurate, that means the shop didn't even see the cake itself as expressing a "message" until Scardina revealed it. If she had said nothing, she wants us to believe that the shop would have simply made the cake. Her argument, then, is that despite what Phillips claims, he is indeed rejecting her as a customer for being transgender.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Phillips before the Supreme Court, says that this new lawsuit is simply a "rehash" of the previous one. Senior counsel Jim Campbell put out a statement noting, "It stumbles over the one detail that matters most: Jack serves everyone; he just cannot express all messages through his custom cakes."

Scardina's lawsuit, though, is claiming this isn't actually the case. The cake wasn't expressing a message. Which story behind the cake is the truth may end up helping determine the outcome of the lawsuit.

That the "reason" Phillips rejected her is so important makes this entire fight all the more culturally exhausting. Because this lawsuit was filed during Pride month, we can see the extensive effort nearly every other vendor outside of Masterpiece Cakeshop has been making to appeal to LGBT customers. If anything, the timing of Scardina's lawsuit highlights how much an outlier this bakery actually is, and that there are easy and simple marketplace solutions to the problem that perhaps do not require court interventions at all.

Read the lawsuit yourself here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

389 responses to “Masterpiece Cakeshop Faces Yet Another Legal Fight over Cakes

    1. Yup. The loser should pay and in this scenario its the Gay Mafia. Add punitive damages against the Plaintiff as clearly this is a rehash of the same attempt to force people to bake cakes.

      I bet the Gay Mafia simply cannot understand how the baker is still getting customers and donations for legal fees.

    2. Scardina seems like the kind of douchebag that desperately needs to have the living shit beaten out of her/him/it.

  1. there are easy and simple marketplace solutions to the problem that perhaps do not require court interventions at all.

    Real revenge is destroying the person who wronged you. Choosing an alternative option is for cucks.

    1. And I, too, hope he and his legal council destroy Autumn Scardina.

      That is what you meant, right? 🙂

  2. Facebook and Twitter are private companies…

  3. Could someone explain to me what the fuck it is with cakes?

    1. Wilford Brimley had something to say about cakes, I’ve heard.

      1. Wow. Had to google that. Had to go deep. Funny as heck. Well played, sir!

      2. But I am also a general. And a general’s job is to BY GOD get things done!
        Now you want that mail, don’t you Mr. Kramer?!

    2. It is not cakes, per se. That is just the vehicle of choice.

      It is the crushing of dissent, of ensuring no one dare having an opinion that is not approved of by the anger mob.

      In simple terms – Fascism.

      1. That is exactly what it is. And Shackford covers up that fact by pretending these people are well meaning

        1. I don’t see Shackleford pretending they are well-meaning as much as he’s not assigning motives one way or the other, even if we all know what the true motives are.

          1. I think he’s rubbing one out while writing this, brimming with the thought of crushing a dissenter.

            1. And what makes you think that?

          2. John has a hardon for Shackford worse than his hardon for Trump. The only difference is which way he swings with each.

      2. It is the punishing of heresy and lack of obeisance to the ever shifting LBGTQ dogma.

      3. Re: “It is not cakes, per se. That is just the vehicle of choice.”
        It’s worse than that.
        The authoritarian left is prosecuting their culture war on all fronts, using every possible vehicle.
        From comics to anime to video games to tabletop games to bathrooms to computer programming to movies to science fiction books to even The LINUX Foundation, they are invading every possible social interaction.
        Niemoller’s poem holds even more true now than ever. The left will force every non-leftist group band together to destroy the SJW menace.

    3. Cakes are made by small businesses owned by actual people. This makes them ideal targets for people seeking vengeance on whatever Christians they can get their claws into for past wrongs of other Christians.

      The author wrote about “…a positive cultural shift toward public inclusion of a class of people who were once treated like predators…” However, the LGBTQERTYWTFLOLEIEIO crowd seem perfectly happy with a different kind of predator claiming to represent them.

      1. LGBTQERTYWTFLOLEIEIO crowd

        Hey you bigot, didn’t you get the memo? It’s LGBTQWERTYASDFWTFLOLEIEIO now. 😉

      2. Not sure I understand why everyone feels the need to make fun of and shit all over the Lettuce-Guac-Bacon-Tomato sandwich. It’s quite delightful.

        1. Don’t forget the queso.

  4. Fuck you ass clowns – bake your own fucking cake if no one will bake it for you.

    Here’s a recipe

    1. And the situation isn’t even remotely close to one where no one will bake them a cake.

      1. +10

        None of these cases would exist if the alphabet-people hadn’t gone _looking_ for a shop that would refuse to customize a cake with their message.

  5. How many cakes could s/he have ordered elsewhere and eaten for the same time & cost of all these ridiculous lawsuits? One per week, maybe? Two?

    1. If the legal fees involved in this are anything close to mine a federal court case, it’s far more than 1-2 per week.

    2. How many cakes could s/he have ordered elsewhere and eaten for the same time & cost of all these ridiculous lawsuits? One per week, maybe? Two?

      See! They aren’t all craven hedonists!

      1. That’s right, some of them are outright fanatics.

  6. Shackford is as usual insulting the intelligence of the reader by pretending this has anything to do with gay rights and is not just the gay left trying to destroy any dissent. These people are totalitarians. Shackford just doesn’t give a shit about that because he figures they will never come for him

    1. Did you read the same article I did? Or is there a secret version where Shackleton’s true intentions are revealed?

      1. The rest of us never get to see the super secret John version of the articles.

        1. Ctrl-F “vile” Not Found
          Ctrl-F “harassment” Not Found

          Remember, Crowder was “vile” and “homophobic” for saying all those mean things about Maza. Scardina just has a different version of events and is no way harassing someone who, by libertarian principles, should be allowed to associate (or not) with whomever he pleases for any reason. Funny, that argument isn’t made here…

          1. Didnt bother with the article. Did shackleford even mention scardinia has ordered nearly a dozen cakes including one of satan sucking off a dildo? Totes just about equality.

        2. This is the third lawsuit against him. It’s patently obvious to just about anyone that this isn’t about civil rights and is totally about ruining this guy since they couldn’t the first time.

    2. June is LGBT Pride Month, meaning that every single brand you love is covered in rainbows and glitter and declaring their support for all people gay, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise nonconforming in some fashion. Some of it is pure pandering, while some of it is tied to useful fundraising for valuable charitable causes. All of it is an awesome reflection of a positive cultural shift toward public inclusion of a class of people who were once treated like predators and sex fiends.

      And they’ve been promoted from predators and sex fiends to a mob destroying the lives and livelihoods by siccing the government on wrongthinkers.

      A matter of great pride. There should be a cop’s pistol and truncheon on the rainbow flag.

      1. It just takes one member of the “protected class” to claim discrimination and they’re allowed to represent the whole group, so who on earth knows how representative this plaintiff is – a single dissatisfied person with resources to pursue a lawsuit is all it takes.

        1. There are instances every day of members of protected classes using threat of the government cudgel to push people around. The majority of these never make the news

          I would think otherwise if any there was any pushback to the cake warriors from the LGBGTQ community, but there isn’t.

        2. Well there’s your problem: having “protected classes” instead of laws preventing discrimination. What’s that? Equal protection under the law doesn’t quite level the playing field that last degree or two? Well fuck everything then!!

          1. Deranged weirdos like Scardina should be grateful they live in a place where their bizarre bullshit is tolerated at all.

    3. Shackford is as usual insulting the intelligence of the reader by pretending this has anything to do with gay rights and is not just the gay left trying to destroy any dissent. These people are totalitarians. Shackford just doesn’t give a shit about that because he figures they will never come for him

      He’s definitely whitewashing a bit. Acting, like homosexuality (and sexuality more broadly) has nothing to do with or is absolutely 100% divorced from any and all perversion. That’s in addition to pretending like we just added more seats at the table for gays and trannies rather than telling smokers to GTFO and asking straight women if there isn’t something they could be doing in the kitchen.

      Ultimately, it comes down to the mix of retarded ignorance, wishful thinking, and revisionist history that believes that, somehow, we all *know* Rock Hudson, Richard Burr, and Richard Chamberlain were gay but, prior to 1990 everybody else was absolutely clueless.

  7. Freedom of Association is protected by the First Amendment just the same as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

    If Freedom of Association is to have any meaning, then like Freedom of Speech, it must include tolerance of use that we find objectionable. If you want to say bigoted things, I have to tolerate it (with very narrow exceptions). If you want to hang out with bigoted people, I should have to tolerate that to. Yes, that includes commercial activities.

    And yes, that does mean that most anti-discrimination law is suspect under a Freedom of Association challenge. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. The proper way to “punish” merchants who refuse to serve people is boycotts, social pressure and patience, not litigation and coercive legislation. History shows that the former approach is the only way to make lasting change. The latter approach breeds nothing but resentment, resistance and a hardening of positions.

    1. Well said.

    2. This isn’t even a freedom of association issue–this is a mentally ill tranny directly targeting someone out of pure malice. His only motivation is to ensure Jack Phillips can’t make a living.

      The fact that this same troon has put in multiple requests for Satanic-themed cakes shows that concerns over “bigotry” are as fake as Scardina’s gender preference.

    3. Freedom of Association is protected by the First Amendment

      It is? How?

      1. While you should always be cautious about trusting Wikipedia, in this case article on Freedom of Association is okay, particularly the section on legal bases.

    4. “hardening of positions”? What’s Carlos Mazas’ position on hardening? Or have I misunderstood this whole gay thing?

  8. This is an abuse of the legal system and is why we need a loser pays court system. And by loser I mean the lawyers who worked in the case should pay if the client cannot or they lose their license to practice.

    1. we need a loser pays court system. And by loser I mean the lawyers who worked in the case should pay if the client cannot or they lose their license to practice.

      Good luck getting a lawyer to represent you against any significant corporation or public entity, Little Person.

      1. An individual suing a large corporation is already nearly hopeless under our current system.

        1. That’s true, and that’s true in no small part because it’s already the case that the large corporation is going to sit their whole legal team down in front of you and say “all fourteen of these people bill at $500 an hour, and we’ll be seeking their fee in our counterclaim against you.”

          1. If their legal team is good, you’ll never even get to court. They’ll just delay, continue, and discover until you’re bled dry. Under a loser pays system, a little guy trying to sue Goliath would be no worse off than they are now. Loser pays would help protect individuals and small businesses from meritless lawsuits, and could help a little person defending himself against legal action from big businesses.

            1. a little guy trying to sue Goliath would be no worse off than they are now

              Yes, they would, since in addition to being bled dry by the delays, they’ll be on the hook for the legal fees for all the people who so skillfully caused those delays. At the moment he is fairly well insulated from that unless his claim is wildly frivolous – he’s only out what he chooses to spend.

              Loser pays . . . could help a little person defending himself against legal action from big businesses.

              Unless he loses, in which case he is royally and permanently fucked. You’ll have that same “good, never goes to court” legal team saying “settle now or spend the rest of your life paying off the millions we’re going to spend making sure you lose.”

        2. Not true at all. Getting something from a counterclaim is rare. So corporations pay far more to defend than to settle, as long as no jury would deem the suit vexatious, fraudulent, etc. The very large corporation where I worked decided one year to fight all frivolous suits to send a message to attorneys. We gave up after six months because it was killing us financially, and it costs a plaintiff’s attorney very little to start these suits. Only loser pays will stop this.

          1. Agreed – ‘loser pays’ definitely favors the extremely well funded corporate players over individuals who may be damaged by them.

            Or was that not the main the point you were making?

            1. So, you’re in favor of frivolous suits against corporations?

              1. Of course he is.

      2. Yet somehow people manage to find lawyers in all the other countries around the world that have loser-pays systems.

        The “little guy” argument against loser-pays is directly contradicted by the actual data and experience in countries that have it.

        1. In other countries, suing people is not considered a right. You’re expected to convince a barrister that you have a winning case before you get access to the courts. That filters out a lot of the frivolous cases that can be so expensive for defendants in this country.

          1. You’re expected to convince a barrister that you have a winning case before you get access to the courts.

            Not a terrible idea.

        2. The “little guy” argument against loser-pays is directly contradicted by the actual data and experience in countries that have it.

          I’ve never heard that argument made before – can you link to something? I’m not being snarky, I’m legitimately interested.

          We tried the ‘loser pays’ thing in CA and it didn’t have the effect people thought it would. In fact, we technically have ‘loser pays’ in CA, but you have to lose really decisively in order for it to be enforceable – i.e. your case has to be frivolous or otherwise brought in bad faith. Losing a good-faith dispute doesn’t count, since even in the current situation (as I pointed out and have personally experienced) the threat of recovering legal fees can have a considerable chilling effect on legitimate causes of action.

          1. That’s not loser pays.

            1. That’s not loser pays.

              Not in practice, no, because ‘loser pays’ didn’t stand up to scrutiny under any legal theory.

      3. You mean like someone suing, say, Monsanto over glyphosate? Or Mesothelioma? Hernia meshes? Why, if it were a thing someone might even have made a movie out of it.

        There are a remarkable # of ads on TV for lawyers working on contingency for something that can’t happen.

        Now you’ll claim that loser pays is different. Well, yes, it means that there’s some additional risk besides just the capital the lawyers already invest, but it’s a stretch to claim that it would eliminate the chance of legal representation.

        Or here’s another proposal: legal representation is a human right. It should be provided by a single payer structure with the government setting strict compensation limits and assigning lawyers randomly. After all, if health care is a right surely representation for life shattering events is too.

    2. Loser Pays needs to be capped though so the loser doesn’t owe more than what they paid their own side, to keep the side that can spend 7 figures on attorneys without blinking from using it as a cudgel.

  9. Of course ,she didn’t go to that exact bakery just to start another lawsuit . I mean, it’s just a coincident .

    1. She really, really likes their cakes.

    2. She’s a hand-picked client by a consortium of lawyers. The shit is chess, not checkers.

      1. No, he’s just a freak with a grudge.

      2. No. She’s a lawyer who’s making her name within a VERY powerful and rich LGBT network here in Denver/Boulder. They started back in the 90’s when the religious right down in CO Springs (who own politics in that city and are highly theocratic) got a statewide referendum passed prohibiting any city from having an ordinance with protected status for gays (Aspen, Boulder, Denver already had such an ordinance in place). That referendum was ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes (Romer v Evans) – but it really pissed off gays. Since then, that network has mostly funded general arts/culture stuff to the tune of hundreds of millions. But when the theocrats start in on anti-gay stuff, the network gets its bazookas out and charges into politics.

        I don’t know whether this baker is just collateral damage. Or whether he’s one of the Colorado Springs theocrats up in Denver.

        Regardless – CO Springs and Denver/Boulder are about as polar opposite politically as you can get. And 60 miles apart means politics on some issues becomes war at the intra-state and local level. Which is why both sides want to roll stuff up to the fed level to impose a solution.

        1. They started back in the 90’s when the religious right down in CO Springs (who own politics in that city and are highly theocratic)

          Oh, bullshit. The Springs runs more conservative, but that’s mainly due to the HUGE military presence there, not the religious right. The religious right haven’t been a force in CO politics for about 25 years, so don’t pretend as if they have any authority whatsoever.

          I don’t know whether this baker is just collateral damage. Or whether he’s one of the Colorado Springs theocrats up in Denver.

          Maybe you should actually do some research on the events surrounding this case before shooting your mouth off, then. Because this has nothing to do with the “Colorado Springs theocrats” you get so easily triggered over. Hell, considering you just power-leveled yourself by indicating that you live in the Denver metro area, your ignorance about the case is inexcusable.

          The case has nothing to do with any supposed rivalry between the Denver/Boulder and the Springs.

          1. The religious right haven’t been a force in CO politics for about 25 years

            That’s bullshit. I used to be GOP and in 2008 was a Paul delegate to state convention. I would guess that here in Denver maybe 2/3 of precinct chairs then were socons who had taken over those precinct chairs in the 70/80’s during the Schafly/Falwell days. And that’s in Denver that is completely one-party rule and not the R’s. Yeah those precinct folks often have to internally battle the country-club crowd – and its the country-club crowd that is usually the front face of the party (in most places in CO). But if the country-club wants voter turnout for R’s – they gotta go thru the socons even here.

            And Focus on Family, HQ in the Springs, has a hell of a lot more influence locally in the Springs than you seem to imagine. Like – oh – evangelizing on the taxpayer dime at the Air Force Academy, Peterson, and Fort Carson.

            1. I used to be GOP and in 2008 was a Paul delegate to state convention. I would guess that here in Denver maybe 2/3 of precinct chairs then were socons who had taken over those precinct chairs in the 70/80’s during the Schafly/Falwell days….But if the country-club wants voter turnout for R’s – they gotta go thru the socons even here.

              That’s the problem, you’re guessing instead of using facts, which probably explains your bipolar perspective on the supposed Springs/Denver-Boulder rivalry.

              Start naming names, or shut the fuck up.

              And Focus on Family, HQ in the Springs, has a hell of a lot more influence locally in the Springs than you seem to imagine. Like – oh – evangelizing on the taxpayer dime at the Air Force Academy, Peterson, and Fort Carson.

              That doesn’t prove anything about them owning politics in the Springs. Can you cite specific laws that have been passed in the city that were a direct result of FoF lobbying?

              1. Loudmouths whose outrage and arguments always seems to align with the interests of stale-thinking bigots and superstitious right-wing slack-jaws are among my favorite faux libertarians.

                1. Arthur L. Hickbot blurps NPC Hicklib response #3.

              2. you’re guessing instead of using facts

                No Im not guessing. The GOP state convention was even more dominated by the religious right than Denver. Passing personhood amendments and such with slates of their approved candidates for this board and that committee. They were near 100% of the behind-the-scenes energy there. And yes the state GOP itself is dominated by El Paso County or was in 2008. That convention is why I left the GOP. The combo of socons and country-club cronydonors doesn’t have a chance of doing anything libertarian.

                That doesn’t prove anything about them owning politics in the Springs.

                You don’t get it. If a pol in CO now stands above ground and tries to do anything anti-gay, this group is going to kneecap them and fund their opponent before they succeed. On any other issue, they don’t care. They aren’t playing defense and they are quite successful. Starting in about 2004 in CO when they defeated 2 of the 3 state critters who were proposing anti-gay-marriage legislation and in the process flipped the legislature from R to D. Any guess as to where those critters were based? Here’s a bio of one from about 10 years ago.

                1. The GOP state convention was even more dominated by the religious right than Denver. Passing personhood amendments and such with slates of their approved candidates for this board and that committee. They were near 100% of the behind-the-scenes energy there.

                  Who, specifically?

                  You don’t get it. If a pol in CO now stands above ground and tries to do anything anti-gay, this group is going to kneecap them and fund their opponent before they succeed. On any other issue, they don’t care.

                  You made the claim that “religious theocrats” own politics in the Springs. Now you’re expanding your reach to El Paso county.

                  Which particular laws in the Springs have been passed in the last 25 years by these individuals that were the result of FoF lobbying, like you claimed?

                  On top of your exceptional ignorance on the whole case (rather a surprise, given how extensive this case has been covered by both Reason and the local media), your characterization of Jack Phillips as either “collateral damage” or a CSprings “religious theocrat” was probably the most retarded part of your OP.

                  1. The local media has basically covered this story exactly like the national media. And I’ll bet it’s the same for the local media in Co Springs as well. There has been nothing in-depth or investigative. Just the opinions of the various courts and then ‘the closing’ of the stuff between the baker and the govt. Has nothing to do with this lawyer continuing to pursue their own civil case and you know it. So I am perfectly fair in my characterization of Jack Phillips v the various individuals who’ve been hounding him – IDFK shit about Jack Phillips – and neither do you.

                    What is deluded is that you wanted to jump in with your nonsense that the local/state GOP has almost nothing to do with the religious right now. That is bullshit – and both you and I know that. Here are just the various ballot initiatives where the two have combined:
                    2006 – Amendment 43, Referendum H, I, K, DCN
                    2008 – Amendment 46, 48
                    2010 – Initiative 62
                    2014 – Amendment 67

                    I’m no longer in the GOP so don’t follow the internal shit re primaries and such anymore. But I provided ACTUAL info re how it was when I WAS in the GOP – and you’ve done FUCKALL NOTHING except deny that. You’re a typical fucking conservative. Your head planted up your ass, denying everything about everything and yelling I can’t hear you.

                    1. The local media has basically covered this story exactly like the national media.

                      Which makes your contention that Phillips was “collateral damage” or a “Colorado Springs theocrat” even more retarded.

                      And I’ll bet it’s the same for the local media in Co Springs as well.

                      What is your obsession with Colorado Springs? This case has fuck-all to do with that city. If anything, your use of the Springs as a red herring is far more telling about your own personal issues than it does about Colorado’s gay mafia trying to put Phillips out of business.

                      There has been nothing in-depth or investigative.

                      Oh, bullshit. Jesse Paul’s been following this case in the Denver Post for several months now.

                      But I provided ACTUAL info re how it was when I WAS in the GOP – and you’ve done FUCKALL NOTHING except deny that

                      You made the claim that these people “own” politics in Colorado Springs and provided no proof. And still no actual fucking names. The fact that you don’t follow internal shit going on today is irrelevant.

                      You’re a typical fucking conservative. Your head planted up your ass, denying everything about everything and yelling I can’t hear you

                      This is pretty rich from someone claiming that there’s been “no in-depth coverage” of this case. You’re a typical fucking proglydyte, projecting your personal neuroses on to unrelated events.

                    2. your use of the Springs as a red herring is far more telling about your own personal issues than it does about Colorado’s gay mafia trying to put Phillips out of business.

                      I’m not disagreeing that that is what they are trying to do. What I don’t know – and neither do you – is whether Jack Phillips is ‘just a baker’ or whether he was eg using his bakery in 2006 as a billboard for/against Amendment 43 or Referendum I. Those POLITICAL opinions are his right to express but they are precisely what I called theological (the imposition of the religious on the political). And that would change the nature of his refusal to bake the cakes. It becomes a political attempt to nullify the law when it goes against him.

                      My own inclination was to assume he is ‘just a baker’ and is thus ‘collateral damage’ in their war. Until you went all stupid and pretended that stuff like Amendment 43 and Ref I didn’t even exist cuz religious right has had no influence for a quarter century. Even today, all 3 GOP reps oppose same-sex marriage on ‘religious’ grounds – and back when CO had 4 GOP reps the 4th was a Tancredo type in the Denver burbs. So the ‘gay mafia’ goal is to either a)eliminate those issues as a way for a 4th GOP rep (ie a majority of the CO delegation) to get elected in those burbs or b)eliminate the possibility of a GOP rep to get elected there period.

                      Their ‘war’ is not petty and personal. It is ALL business and political.

        2. That group of people should be targeted for lawsuits, harassment, etc. until they are crushed. Malignant piece of shot like the, should always be destroyed.

    3. She could have taken her business to a gay baker, but we know how rare gays are in the baking profession.

      1. Especially on the decorating end.

  10. I had pie and chocolate cake at my wedding because wedding cake sucks and it costs an arm and a leg. Maybe I should have just sued somebody instead of solving the problem myself

  11. Its obvious this about setting a precedence. Scardina is looking to get the courts to rule in Scardina favor to set a precedence to discourage any other service provider from thinning about trying to deny service to someone based on religious beliefs. The only time a customer seeks the courts justice versus going to a competitor is when they are trying to make a point or set some kind of precedence.

    1. And she orchestrated the entire scenario (by her account) to create a seemingly innocuous cake that would carry a subtle symbolism she knew the owner would object to when revealed

  12. “If she had said nothing, she wants us to believe that the shop would have simply made the cake. Her argument, then, is that despite what Phillips claims, he is indeed rejecting her as a customer for being transgender.”

    Which is of course, both wrong and a lie. The shop, by both versions of events, never rejected the guy as a customer. They refused to engage in a specific piece of work for a customer, which isn’t the same at all, and is done by all kinds of businesses every day. The facts of the case don’t appear to support Shack’s interpretation at all. It is clearly a reach.

    Add to that a second point. If a customer engages with a business and said business has a known policy, deceiving that business in order to create grounds for a specious lawsuit is fraud and a perfectly acceptable reason to discontinue business with you.

    1. And when I say “Shack’s interpretation” I am not assuming thatche hold that actual position, just that the position he stated there is indefensible according to the facts.

    2. Right. It’s still not rejecting the customer because the customer is trans. It’s rejecting the cake design once the meaning of the design was made apparent. All evidence suggests that he would still happily make a regular birthday cake for a transgender person.

      1. That is precisely the point. He was happy to make a pink and blue cake. But not a Transgender Celebration cake. Therefore it is 100% about the message content — so this is all about speech.

        What would we say about a printer who refused to print gay pride leaflets? What if he refused to print Nazi propaganda? White supremacist posters?

        Now, apply this same set of standards to social media companies….

    3. You would think that if that were found to be true, there would be some kind of censure or disbaring for the lawyer that made such a fraudulent claim.

  13. Her argument, then, is that despite what Phillips claims, he is indeed rejecting her as a customer for being transgender.

    That doesn’t make sense. Let’s say Scardina runs a bakery, and Gavin McInnes comes in with a picture of the flag of Kekistan and asks for it on a cake. Scardina, not knowing what it is, says sure. Then McInnes tells her all about Kek. By Scardina’s “logic” that suddenly makes her guilty of discrimination for deciding she doesn’t want to put that on a cake.

    And really, if you substitute any other issue the answer is clear. We wouldn’t force someone to bake a cake celebrating scientology, or NAMBLA or most anything else. Why are gays special?

    1. Yep. I was envisioning a similar scenario involving a cake with a picture of a lion, elephant, and giraffe on it, which any baker almost certainly agree to make

      It would then be revealed that the cake was to celebrate a recent big game hunt in Africa, where the customer killed those three animals, and most bakers would likely reconsider making the cake

  14. What Scardina has done and is doing is just wrong and does nothing to further legitimate transgender interests and civil rights. She is clearly targeting this guy with the hopes of either forcing him to close his business or be forced to bake a cake he doesn’t want to bake because Scardina and other activists do not like his beliefs. I don’t like his beliefs either, but he is entitled to them. I’d be fine with calls for the public to boycott his business (but not fine with shaming anyone who ignores those calls).

    I do think that some people use their religion as a vehicle for unbridled bigotry. I believe those people have a profound misunderstanding of their religion. Or maybe they don’t. Perhaps it’s always been about who is worthy of hatred.

    1. “I do think that some people use their religion as a vehicle for unbridled bigotry.”

      But enough about the radical gay-rights activists.

      1. Any alleged bigotry by the baker isn’t “unbridled” because it’s bridled by other bakers who will snap up the business the “bigoted” baker passes up on.

        1. It isn’t about that. It’s ablut crushing anyone who dares not obey their sick agenda.

  15. I used to be sympathetic to the difficulties encountered by the LGBTQERTYWTFLOLEIEIO crowd, but I’m starting not to be. Maybe some of them could step up and speak out against this sort of nonsense, ya think?

    1. It is horrible that govt agents could arrest and imprison someone because of behavior between consenting adults behind closed doors. It is equally horrible when people are targeted for violence because they look absolutely fabulous. Those are legitimate areas of protest for the LGBT community and those who support it.
      This however, is literally looking to find people who don’t agree that certain sexual behavior is ok, but do absolutely nothing to force people to keep from engaging in it. It is just as horrible because this seeks to ruin the business and finances of someone who has never tried to use force or fraud to hurt anyone else (as far as this issue is concerned).

      1. Yes, I’ve encountered the either/or attitude that either you want gay people beaten up and murdered or you want them to be able to sic the govt on dissenting businesses. It must be one or the other!

        Meanwhile, the kind of people who tend to be sympathetic to the bakers also tend to be sympathetic to the right to bear arms, which is a better cure for “gay-bashing” than all the candlelight vigils in the world.

        1. It is so frustrating. For one, I don’t share the baker’s views. But, that doesn’t matter. He is the one being forced to do something against his will.
          For a libertine pagan, I sure end up on the side of conservative Christian’s rights a lot. UGH!

          1. They tend to be good people who have the right of things most of the time…

        2. “either you want gay people beaten up and murdered or you want them to be able to sic the govt on dissenting businesses. It must be one or the other!”

          Wrong.
          Most often it’s both or neither.
          The politics of pity wants victims they can place on a pedestal, the more the better, in order to gain power to sic government on wrongthinkers. If victims aren’t provided, they will be created.
          In this case, the tranny clearly wants both.
          The baker likely wants neither.

          1. Matthew Shepard gave his life for the cause!! Or for the cause of gay playwrights. Either or both.

            1. I thought he up his life because he wouldn’t give up his meth stash?

        3. Indeed. See: Pink Pistols.

    2. I would be more sympathetic if their examples of victimhood were actually sympathetic. Instead you get stories such as this, which is like a handicapped Nazi complaining that the Jews he’s trying to round up don’t have a ramp to their door.

      1. Brilliant

    3. It’s important to remember that annoying asshole activists don’t generally actually represent the groups they claim to represent.

      1. It’s important to remember that annoying asshole activists don’t generally actually represent the groups they claim to represent.

        But then you might get the impression that women, gays, trannies, etc. really haven’t had things so bad for the past 225 yrs. and that a significant portion of the leviathan is just a self-licking ice cream cone.

    4. The Left in general no longer seems to care that they’re alienating a lot of people who could agree with them on at least some issues. For instance I think a fair number of people in the independent and libertarian camps are okay with LBGT rights on, if nothing else, the “minding my own damn business” principle. The Left promptly burns them for it, and then goes about muttering “why are all these people so bigoted?”

      1. The Left in general no longer seems to care that they’re alienating a lot of people who could agree with them on at least some issues.

        And this is why not only do we have Trump as President, but he is likely to be re-elected.

        1. And recall that one of Trump’s fellow rich guys got up in front of the Republican convention and said he (not trump, the speaker) was an out and proud gay man. Which I don’t think happened at a Republican convention before.

          If this were about tolerance then the media, etc. would have at least paused for a moment to celebrate this milestone (at least a milestone from *their* point of view), but it doesn’t count because living together in peace isn’t the goal here – or rather it’s the peace of subjugation and thralldom which is being sought.

          1. If this were about tolerance then the media, etc. would have at least paused for a moment to celebrate this milestone

            You would think. But then it’s a cardinal rule of politics never to admit that your crusade has been successful.

          2. Peter Thiel, the gay man who bankrupted Gawker because they outed him before he was ready to come out of the closet.

            1. Thiel didn’t bankrupt Gawker. Hulk Hogan did, and it was because Gawker published a sex video of Hogan that was filmed without Hogan’s consent. Thiel simply bankrolled Hogan’s lawsuit.

    5. Okay.

      This sounds like a nuisance lawsuit.

      That said, the overall argument has not been settled. Phillips and his lawyers argue that he is not selling a service, he is selling “art”, and that as “art”, he should not be bound by non-discrimination laws.

      In front of the SCOTUS, when asked how and where to draw the line between “art” and “service”, Phillip’s lawyer had no coherent answer, with it flipping based on whether they were asking about a baker, a hair stylist, an architect. It also flipped on whether the “message” was about gays, blacks, or Jews.

      If this “art, not service” is going to be what we curtail public accommodations law with, it needs to be consistent, understandable, and not priviledge one belief over another (that is, if it protects anti-gay beliefs, it has to protect anti-Catholic and anti-black beliefs as well). So far, it isn’t. This is likely a large part of why Kennedy punted rather then rule on the merits.

      Other options I’d be amiable to are just curtailing “public accommodations” so that thinks like bakeries, venues, florists and so on didn’t count. But only if you do so for all protected classes.

      Alternatively, i’m fine with doing away with all non-discrimination laws and see how it goes Wild West style.

      But the current “religious liberty” arguments, in court and legislation, explicitly favor anti-gay beliefs over all others, and don’t curtail such laws for other protected classes, just for gay folk. This special treatment is not acceptable. Either we all have to play nice, or we all get to pull out the long knives.

      1. Well said.

        But the current “religious liberty” arguments, in court and legislation, explicitly favor anti-gay beliefs over all others, and don’t curtail such laws for other protected classes, just for gay folk. This special treatment is not acceptable. Either we all have to play nice, or we all get to pull out the long knives.

        And this is exactly the argument I took Johnson to be making at the LP debates, for which he was so aggressively pilloried. The appropriate question is not whether gays should be a protected class, it’s whether there should be protected classes.

        1. But that’s not what Escher said.

          S/he stated that if there are protected classes, gays should be included.

          Why? Why should gays be a protected class?

          S/he also said s/he’d be open to doing away with protected classes.
          This is certainly something I can agree with. But it’s an entirely different point, and at odds with, what specifically should be a protected class.

          1. Bingo. Basically if he can’t get a leg up via anti-discrimination laws, what good are they to him?

        2. So much for ridiculing “the law is the law.”

      2. “If this “art, not service” is going to be what we curtail public accommodations law with, it needs to be consistent, understandable, and not priviledge one belief over another (that is, if it protects anti-gay beliefs, it has to protect anti-Catholic and anti-black beliefs as well). So far, it isn’t. This is likely a large part of why Kennedy punted rather then rule on the merits.”

        Please. Then explain the Washington coffee shop getting off scott free for ejecting christian customers.

        “But the current “religious liberty” arguments, in court and legislation, explicitly favor anti-gay beliefs over all others, and don’t curtail such laws for other protected classes, just for gay folk. This special treatment is not acceptable.”

        As opposed to anti-discrimination laws that explicitly favor gays beliefs over others. Because that is precisely what Colorado, Washington, and Scardino are demanding.

        So your argument basically boils down to since we have anti-discrimination laws, intersectionality demands that they be interpreted the way you want.

        1. Then explain the Washington coffee shop getting off scott free for ejecting christian customers.

          To the best of my knowledge, they never filed a lawsuit.

          So your argument basically boils down to since we have anti-discrimination laws, intersectionality demands that they be interpreted the way you want.

          Interpreted? Colorado and Washington have non-discrimination laws that explicitly include sexual orientation. What does intersectionality and interpretation have to do with it?

          1. And neither did the purported plaintiffs in Washington. The Washington AG took it upon himself to do it for them. Whoops.

            “Interpreted? Colorado and Washington have non-discrimination laws that explicitly include sexual orientation. What does intersectionality and interpretation have to do with it?”

            And the First Amendment is a law which explicitly includes religious freedom.

          2. WA is now largely run by extremist far left marxists. Subhuman garbage like Gov. Jay Inslee and that shitbag AG Bob Ferguson.

            They both belong on a blacklist, or in prison, not in public office.

      3. “But the current “religious liberty” arguments, in court and legislation, explicitly favor anti-gay beliefs over all others, and don’t curtail such laws for other protected classes, just for gay folk. This special treatment is not acceptable.”

        So it’s religious peoples fault that they are being targeted for not wanting to bake cakes or take pictures?

    6. “Maybe some of them could step up and speak out against this sort of nonsense, ya think?”

      I know some pretty common sense gay guys, but they couldn’t publicly oppose this kind of asshole behavior (so to speak) without getting shat upon, or covered with some other disgusting excreta.

      1. So, the usual Tuesday night?

  16. Then she volunteered to them that the colors of the cake were meaningful to her because they signified her transition. It was only after they found out what the cake meant to her, she claims, that they objected and refused to bake the cake.

    So once he realized the message, he wouldn’t bake the cake. That seems to support his argument, not hers.

    1. Yes, I was confused by that. This is no different then if somebody requested him make a cake with a German phrase saying ‘for my gay wedding’ and him being fine with it until they told him what the phrase meant.

      He objects to the message, and the person ordering the cake went ahead and told him what the message was when it became evident she couldn’t sue him until she goaded him into refusing to make her cake.

      What a fucking miserable person, the lawyer is.

      1. The Venn diagram of miserable persons and lawyers has some significant overlap.

      2. “What a fucking miserable person, the lawyer is.”

        You prefer a gay-bashing bigot?

        Or it is just bigotry and stale thinking in general you like?

        1. You mean like the bigotry of trying to force someone to do something against their beliefs?

          Totalitarians are my favorite kind of faux libertarians.

        2. “gay bashing”? Huh? He was sitting in his bakery, not calling people names. (or physically bashing them)

          Also, you seem to view the word ‘bigot’ as just something to put into a blank spot in an insult. It has a meaning, you know. But then, you DO cling to your sloppy usages, don’t you? I mean, “stale thinking” lol!

        3. this may come as a shock to an abject moron like you Rev, but it’s possible to think they’re both wrong.

    2. I thought we were all assured that bakers aren’t being forced to endorse any particular messages, simply to provide services.

      But it seems that not only can they be forced to bake cakes, they can be forced to bake a message into the cake.

      1. I thought we were all assured that bakers aren’t being forced to endorse any particular messages, simply to provide services.

        And unlike the first time around, Philliips has been winning his case this time, hasn’t he?

        1. Define winning.

          Phillips paying his own legal expenses while the state agency dips into the taxpayers’ pockets to pay *its* legal expenses?

          Is that what winning feels like?

          1. “Both Phillips and the state will pay their own court costs and attorneys’ fees related to the two cases, the state said.”

            https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-state-of-colorado-agree-to-drop-court-cases

          2. I don’t know if it’s currently true, but at least when he was on the path to the SCOTUS, ADF was providing services pro bono.

            So sure.

            1. AS long as he gets punished, it’s all good.

  17. I wonder if she would represent a client who tried to get him to bake a red and black “Ovens are for Fags” swastika covered cake?

    Or is does she get to choose her clientele?

    1. Seems like she’d have a hard time claiming it wasn’t her area of competency…

  18. “while some of it is tied to useful fundraising for valuable charitable causes”

    Like what? Planned parenthood?

    1. That would be an odd choice for Gay Pride.

      1. Haven’t you heard? Men can get pregnant now.

        1. Or at least identify as pregnant. Which is now the same thing.

          1. “Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the *right* to have babies.”
            ~Judith, Life of Brian

  19. Her argument, then, is that despite what Phillips claims, he is indeed rejecting her as a customer for being transgender.

    Wrong. He is rejecting making a cake that she has claimed expresses a message. He only found out about it when she said so. IOW, even according to her story, it was the message, not her transgender status, that matters.

  20. Seems appropriate….
    https://youtu.be/f1gfZwejPv8

    If nothing else I’m at least getting an education on why our ancestors felt it necessary to put the boot on the necks of nonconformists. Apparently because if you don’t put the boot on their necks, you’ll have their boot on yours.

  21. “But in Scardina’s lawsuit, her attempt to buy a cake from Phillips is described differently from how Phillips has told the story. In her lawsuit, she claims that she initially requested simply a birthday cake that had a pink interior with blue frosting. She says the shop seemed fine with that. Then she volunteered to them that the colors of the cake were meaningful to her because they signified her transition. It was only after they found out what the cake meant to her, she claims, that they objected and refused to bake the cake.”

    Isn’t that exactly what Phillips said? That he didn’t want to make a cake that violates his beliefs, such as celebrating a “transitioning”.

    If they said “I want a cake that is red, white, and black…because I think Nazis are cool”, he would’ve said no due to the reason.

    I’d ask WHY it had to mention the reason at all. Seems like an attempt to “get” Phillips.

    1. Seems like an attempt to “get” Phillips.

      I have no doubt that is the only reason she went to that particular bakery at all.

    1. Screwed up the link, but you all know the song.

  22. All of it is an awesome reflection of a positive cultural shift toward public inclusion of a class of people who were once treated like predators and sex fiends.

    Libertarians?

    1. Journalists?

  23. To me, this is just the difference between positive and negative rights – toleration is a negative right, acceptance is a positive right. It’s enough when you move into my neighborhood that I don’t vandalize your house in an attempt to drive you out of the neighborhood for whatever reason, it’s too much for you to demand that I invite you over for dinner if I don’t like you. “You leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” is the minimal social contract and what is fair, anything beyond that is violating somebody’s rights.

    1. They’re not just demanding you invite them to dinner. They want you to serve a vegan menu.

      1. And in the case of race2dinner.com they want to tell you what a horrible person you are while you serve them dinner.

    2. Wokatarianism is all about positive rights.

  24. On one hand we have a private company (Google) deciding what product (youtube video) goes out their door. The product is not made by Google.
    On the other hand we have a private company (Baker) deciding what product (cake) goes out their door. The product is made by the baker.

    Why would a private company have a right to decide what goes out their door when it’s not their product, but is not allowed to decide when it is?

    1. When were the employees of YouTube making videos for uploaders?

  25. Why hasn’t this place done a story on Oberlin College being fined 11 million for defaming a bakery as racist? Or did I miss it?

    1. Wrong kind of victims.

    2. Just wait. The screed about how this is a dangerous suppression of freedom of speech is coming.

      1. Pretty sure the Oberlin College court decision hurts immigrants the most. At this point, why not just give Dalmia her money and skip the article?

  26. These gay folks suing to force someone to bake a stupid cake better watch out. If they were to win, you better get ready for all the conservative voices that have been banned from social media sites to file lawsuits as well. Oh and next time some ass-clown berates and refuses service to those other ass-clowns wearing MAGA hats better watch out too. What comes around will in fact go around.

    1. Well, you see, political opinion isn’t always a protected class.

      Of course, this is totally arbitrary – why should sexual orientation be protected while political orientation isn’t?

      (Hint: Avoid the problem by protecting neither, at least where private companies are concerned, unless there’s a voluntary contract protecting such status)

      1. Of course, this is totally arbitrary – why should sexual orientation be protected while political orientation isn’t?

        Broadly speaking, non-discrimination laws that focus on “innate traits” (like race and sex) are easier to persuade people on. “We shouldn’t judge folks for how they were born” and all that.

        We do have a few special carve-outs based on choices (like religion and veteran status), but those are the exception, not the norm.

        Further, such laws are generally reserved for a group that’s faced systemic discrimination in our history.

        With those notions in mind, it’s easy to see how sexual orientation fits in with other enumerated categories (innate, historical discrimination) while politics does not (not innate, not much historical discrimination).

        That said, politics is covered in some places (like California), because theory aside, ultimately it’s up to legislators and current events. So if you want politics to be covered, you’re going to have to advocate for it.

        (Hint: Avoid the problem by protecting neither, at least where private companies are concerned, unless there’s a voluntary contract protecting such status)

        Call me when that’s the status quo.

        As-is, the status quo is that in half the US I can be refused service by any given butcher, baker or candle-stick maker because of their god’s view of gays. And then that same butcher, baker or candle-stick maker can follow me back to my (hypothetical) comic book shop, and I am obligated to ignore their god’s view of gays and serve them.

        This status quo is not acceptable. So while I find your “do away with all non-discrimination laws and let the Free Market sort it out” acceptable, I will also accept including sexual orientation alongside religion in non-discrimination laws.

        1. I said neither political orientation nor sexual orientation should be protected.

          As for history of discrimination, check out America’s rich history of election-day riots, robed night-riding terrorists attacking people for being Republican, and so on.

          As for a one-way ratchet by which each new suspect classification triggers the addition of another suspect classification because “fairness,” then you’ll have to face up to the right to exclude, say, Republicans from your comic-book store. THAT’S SO UNFAIR!

          1. I said neither political orientation nor sexual orientation should be protected.

            And I was answering your question of “why one group and not another”. Activism matters.

            As for a one-way ratchet […]

            Spare me your tears. I’ve already said I find your dream acceptable. But if you’re not going to get out there and fight for it, don’t expect me to act like it’s already real.

            1. So let me ask what I’ve asked others…which *additional* suspect classifications should be added to the civil-rights laws (confining ourselves here to limits on private business).

              You want protection for sexual orientation – how about political orientation? What about height, weight and physical attractiveness (to a large extent hereditary traits – even weight is related to an inherited desire to eat)? What about status as a smoker? Student status?

              I’m only giving examples from my research that exist in one or more jurisdictions.

              Basically, is there any logical stopping place, or do we keep adding suspect classifications and precluding anyone other than Rothbardian libertarians and anarchists from interposing any objections?

              1. So let me ask what I’ve asked others…which *additional* suspect classifications should be added to the civil-rights laws (confining ourselves here to limits on private business).

                The political process to get any group covered, be it at the city, county, state, or federal level, is pretty harrowing. It takes organization, time, a fair chunk of change, a lot of effort, and endless lobbying.

                It is, in short, not for the faint of heart. And it must necessarily be persuasive. Not just to the legislators who are going to make the vote, not just the executives who are going to sign it, but also the voters who voted them in (and then re-elect them afterwards).

                Any group that can make it through all that, getting enough state-by-state support and eventually federal support to get a nation-wide solution? Is already vetted not by me, but by the American people.

                As Ben Franklin said, we have a democracy, if we can keep it. And sure, it’s terrible. It’s got problems. But it’s better then everything else tried so far.

                1. So as long as the majority accept it, then it’s A-OK. So again, why were you fighting against DOMA? After all it was vetted by the American people.

                  The quote is, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

                  Why am I not surprised you got that wrong?

                  1. It’s hard to find where the logical stopping-place is. That slope is slipperier than a greased pig.

                  2. So as long as the majority accept it, then it’s A-OK. So again, why were you fighting against DOMA?

                    Because you’re failing to understand why I’m not worried about the expansion of non-discrimination law, and then projecting your wrong notion to a different topic and getting a predictably bad result.

                    And you’re not surprised because, as presented, it’s not a quote, it’s a paraphrase.

                    1. So your position is fine, with anyone who has no worries about a slippery slope. To those who have such worries, you have no assurances at all to offer – quite the contrary, you offer the prospect of more and more suspect classifications being added to a law which, as I understand it, you claim shouldn’t exist at all.

    2. No it won’t. If you freakish religious morons insist on making everything a whiny pissy-pants zero-sum game of the Gays vs. Jesus, prepare for Jesus to lose.

      We didn’t initiate that idea. It’s time for religion to die a well- and long-deserved death, before it kills us all.

      1. Tony, is Kirkland making you say that? Blink once for yes.

      2. Tony,
        I don’t share the baker’s views (nor of conservative Christians social views in general). I am not just libertarian on sexual matters, and I am damn near libertine. And I am a pagan that doesn’t worship the Jewish Zombie (just kidding folks!)
        But you don’t believe in freedom if you don’t believe that someone has the right to not be forced to engage in a transaction that they don’t want to. If the baker can be forced to sell a certain cake, should we force people to buy certain cakes? (Actually, of course you do. After all, you supported Obamacare).

        1. Should a sandwich shop manager be permitted to refuse to serve a sandwich to a black person because he’s black?

          We have litigated this extensively. I won’t call you a racist for thinking it’s a better social order to protect the right to discriminate at the expense of the right to be free from discrimination in this circumstance. But it’s not ordained by the flying spaghetti monster that automatically the shop owner gets all the rights and the customer gets none. That’s never been the case.

          1. Should a sandwich shop manager be permitted to refuse to serve a sandwich to a black person because he’s black?

            Yes.

            If you open a sandwich shop called “Gay Boy,” should you be allowed to refuse service to straight people?

            Yes.

            If a minority student group on a college campus wants to use their own money to fund a space that’s free of white people, should they be allowed to?

            Yes.

            Do you see how if one person has rights, all people should have those same rights? And no, no one has a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor.

            1. The road you’re driving on is the fruit of someone else’s labor. Don’t like paying for it, move to somewhere with no government and see how you like it.

              We can’t remake society every time a new jerkoff libertarian is born. That’s just a practical matter.

              1. The road you’re driving on is the fruit of someone else’s labor. Don’t like paying for it, move to somewhere with no government and see how you like it.

                Guess what? I pay taxes, which pay for the roads. I’m not an anarchist. Do you really still not know the difference?

                Nothing in what you said responds to anything that I said in any way.

                1. I was responding to your claim that no one has the rights to the fruit of other people’s labor. But we all do. It’s the very essence of civilization. We pool resources, because the alternative is crap.

                  1. Driving on the roads doesn’t take the fruit of someone’s labor you ignorant slut.

                    1. Why not? Because it’s devastating to your entire worldview?

                    2. Because the roads are paid for through a usage tax and whatever kind of tax you would call vehicle registration. Or in the case of toll roads, through initial investment and future toll collecting. The person who does the labor gets paid for his work from these various funding sources.

                      You would think after ten years of posting here you would know that most of us aren’t anarchist.

                    3. You’re okay with taxation and pooling resources as long as the means of taxation are not ones that affect rich people.

            2. Do you see how if one person has rights, all people should have those same rights? And no, no one has a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor.

              Sure.

              But the sandwich shop manager is not permitted to refuse customers because they’re black, my (hypothetical) comic shop is not permitted to refuse customers based on their murderous holy books, and so-on.

              Don’t expect other people to be beholden to a dream you aren’t willing to fight for.

              1. Don’t expect other people to be beholden to a dream you aren’t willing to fight for.

                I don’t understand what you think you’re saying with this.

                1. Not does anyone else.

                2. You’re arguing that gay folk shouldn’t pursue equality under existing legal frameworks because that existing legal framework is incompatible with your Utopian ideal, all the while you are unwilling to actually fight for your Utopian ideal.

                  So while I could accept your “free-for-all” dream if it came to pass, this kind of chiding of folks that are working in reality is absurd.

                  1. So explain how Phillips is any different than Youtube banning content.

                    1. No. I addressed the problems with Phillips current and past cases above, and YouTube is a red herring that has nothing to do with non-discrimination law.

                    2. So now the 1A is a red herring. It’s just that pesky Constitution thing.

                  2. You’re arguing that gay folk shouldn’t pursue equality under existing legal frameworks

                    Harrassment, fraud, and vexatious litigation isn’t “pursuing equality under an existing legal framework,” especially when there’s another fucking cakeshop a block away.

                    1. And I’m not debating the merits of Phillip’s cases, past or present.

                    2. “And I’m not debating the merits of Phillip’s cases, past or present.”

                      Of course you are. You are advocating for using anti-discrimination laws as a cudgel. In your “reality” that is not only acceptable, but preferred. That is no different than the discrimination you mythically experienced.

                    3. No. I addressed the problems with Phillips current and past cases above

                      And I’m not debating the merits of Phillip’s cases, past or present.

                      Make up your mind, fuckwit.

                  3. “You’re arguing that gay folk shouldn’t pursue equality”

                    Except they aren’t pursuing, and you aren’t arguing for, equality under the law.
                    They, and you, are advocating special treatment under the law.
                    Your problem isn’t inequality under the law, your problem is the distribution of inequality under the current special victim class spoils system of the law.

        2. But you don’t believe in freedom if you don’t believe that someone has the right to not be forced to engage in a transaction that they don’t want to.

          That bridge was crossed and burned to cinders over fifty years ago.

          1. So you were fine with the status quo before Obergefell. Because that was the law.

            1. Nah. Try again?

              1. We are. That’s the point about having a principle. Because that bridge was burned when Scardino lost the first time.

                1. I mean “try again” in respect to your failed divination attempt.

  27. No one can force another to enter into a contract.
    Unless you’re politically incorrect.
    Then all bets are off.

  28. The behavior of the apparently desperately bigoted cakeshop owners is perfectly analogous to this:

    “I don’t like miscegenation, so I refuse to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple.”

    I expect a libertarian to favor the baker even in this case. But civilized people realize that anti-discrimination law is a great innovation of modern society, giving some measure of equity to discriminated-against groups in a society that would otherwise work at all levels to maintain their status as second-class. And if you’re cool with that, I don’t see how you expect minorities to pay their full share of taxes.

    1. I would expect a libertarian to have a different definition than you of “full share of taxes.”

      1. Commerce is, I’m sure you’ll agree, an integral part of any society. It is permitted to be run by private actors with private means in large part, but is also a creation of a stable, conscientious state. If you can’t fully partake of the commerce of your community, I don’t see why you should be expected to fully play your role in the social contract, however minimal you think that role should be.

        1. What about political dissenters? Should they be entitled to “fully partake of the commerce of your community”?

          I refer of course to Hitler birthday cakes.

          1. Or another example (or the same example, depending on your point of view) –

            a “Happy Birthday President Trump” cake.

          2. It wouldn’t be in the spirit of free speech to require shop owners to endorse any particular political message.

            The basic humanity of human beings is not a political message. Well, maybe it is. It’s certainly been a contentious idea. But the constitution thankfully protects it as a basic right. And if it doesn’t, it should.

            1. “It wouldn’t be in the spirit of free speech to require shop owners to endorse any particular political message.

              “The basic humanity of human beings is not a political message. Well, maybe it is.”

              Like I said above, the people who tend to support the bakers also support the right to bear arms, which is more effective than cakes when it comes to protecting oneself against assailants who deny your humanity.

              Really, who poses a greater threat, the people who say you should find a baker willing to serve you without threats, or the people who say you should be disarmed when out on the street facing potential assailants or murderers?

              Take a look at your allies.

              1. People with guns are a threat to themselves and others.

                Don’t hit me with the stupid, false premise that owning a gun makes you safer. It doesn’t. Life isn’t a video game.

                1. People with guns are a threat to themselves and others.

                  Especially when the government is the one with the guns.

                2. The fact of owning a gun is meaningless unless, of course, you’re trained in its proper use.

                  But if some gay-basher wants to make trouble for an unarmed gay person, maybe that gay person can call on an SJW to protect them.

                  1. Maybe all citizens, from infants to alzheimer’s patients, should have a gun each, since they make things safer.

                    Of course if someone decides they want a submachine gun to increase their odds, everyone has to get a submachine gun. And on and on until we have a nuke apiece.

                    Don’t do free lobbying work for an evil industry. It does not become you.

                    1. A gun’s a tool. So’s a kitchen knife. So are you.

                      Except for you, these tools are morally neutral.

                    2. Of course if someone decides they want a submachine gun to increase their odds, everyone has to get a submachine gun.

                      Because everybody has to be equal in all things?

                    3. Tony, you do realize that one of the founding purposes of the NRA was to support black’s rights to self defense in the south? The ultimate problem is that one lone person, be it a gay white man, a straight black woman, whatever can be hurt by gangs of people with nothing more than their fists or wooden bats. Which was quite common. They didn’t need guns to lynch blacks or to beat up gays.
                      One person with a gun acting in self-defense can protect against a group of people who want to do them harm.

                    4. Maybe all citizens, from infants to alzheimer’s patients, should have a gun each, since they make things safer.

                      How did you read what Eddy said and get that out of it?

                    5. The concept I’m referring to is the arms race. If nobody had a gun, all you’d need is a knife. If everyone has an uzi, you need one too. Where does it end? The court is at least prudent enough to recognize that the line has to be drawn somewhere.

                      That we draw the line in two different places doesn’t make one of us good and the other evil. My gauge for that is how many corpses result from the policy.

                    6. If nobody had a gun, all you’d need is a knife.

                      Guess what? We live in a world where guns exist.

                      That we draw the line in two different places doesn’t make one of us good and the other evil.

                      That’s awfully big of you.

                      My gauge for that is how many corpses result from the policy.

                      Oh, I see – the preceding sentence was bullshit. Carry on.

                  2. Actually, Reverand Raymond Broshears did that back in the 70s. Ended up forming a posse that would cruise the streets of San Francisco to terrorize would be gay-bashers.

                    Police hated them, and it didn’t actually make anyone safer, because vigilantism doesn’t actually solve societal issues.

                    1. Why the confusion between self defense and vigilantism?

                      If you’re not going around bashing gays, you’re entitled to expect that gays will at minimum leave you alone.

                    2. maybe that gay person can call on an SJW to protect them.

                      What did you think you were suggesting, however sarcastically?

                      That said, responsible gun owners don’t carry in bars or clubs. Alcohol and gun powder don’t mix, ya know? So “moar guns” only works against anti-gay violence (which often targets men and women on the way back from clubs and bars) if it’s not self-defense, but defense of others.

                      So yeah. Roving rainbow posse to make sure folks get home safe.

                    3. “responsible gun owners don’t carry in bars or clubs”

                      Maybe the straw men should defend themselves, you’re beating up on the straw men so much today.

                    4. You started by talking about “a posse that would cruise the streets of San Francisco to terrorize would be gay-bashers.”

                      That not only doesn’t sound like self-defense, it doesn’t seem like defense of others, either.

                      Wikipedia led me to this article about the group you mentioned:

                      https://archives.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2016/06/16/yesterdays-crimes-the-lavender-panthers-san-franciscos-lgbt-vigilantes

                      It said their weapons were pool cues and they only kept guns in homes and offices.

                      .

                    5. But as described in the article, it sounds like SF’s social contract had broken down as police failed to protect gays. I don’t know how accurate that is, but it’s how the writer portrayed it.

                3. Don’t hit me with the stupid, false premise that owning a gun makes you safer.

                  Truly spoken like someone who has never lived in a questionable neighborhood, and has never experienced being of a low enough social status for the police to not respond when you call.

                  1. Tony suffers from severe white guilt.
                    We should all pray for him.

                4. Also, I assure you. My guns are a threat to no one. Except those who present a threat to me and mine. It really isn’t that hard to get basic firearm training such that you can handle them safely, and can use them if necessary. In fact, literally millions of Americans do just that. Especially when you consider that well in excess of 99% of all firearms owned by civilians in the US are NEVER used to cause damage or injury to other people.

                  1. I’d be in favor of requiring firearm training before you’re allowed to own a gun.

                    We can’t just confiscate them all. That’s a practical matter.

                    1. We can’t just confiscate them all. That’s a practical matter.

                      Yes – especially in the question of who is this “we,” why do you think it includes you, and who gets all the “confiscated” guns?

                    2. Right after we validate that voters are qualified to vote.

                    3. A huge majority of gun owners DO know how to operate them, without government-mandated and run training.
                      YOU otoh, I can envision ‘practicing’ in front of a mirror, jabbing with the gun and making ‘pew! pew!’ sounds.

        2. “permitted to be run by private actors”</I?
          Tony,
          Do you honestly have any concept of personal freedom? Why does freedom end when money gets involved? Are you suggesting that LGBTQ people can't find cakes that celebrate their lives? Does the baker get to force people to buy his cakes? Then why does the buyer get to force people to make their cakes?

          1. It’s a matter of facts on the ground. The origin of anti-discrimination law was in communities where people treated minority communities like utter trash. It was, on its face, a social problem, and local governments weren’t up to the job of fixing it. If people can’t find a bathroom they’re allowed to use while traveling from place to place, that’s a problem. It may not be one conveniently addressed by sophomoric libertarian platitudes that reward themselves for simplicity, but it’s just one of those things that crop up from time to time.

            There are plenty of reasons a shop owner can refuse service. But it was found prudent not to permit them to do so on the basis of race, religion, sex, disability status, etc., because it was a more just society that way. The way I see it, once the problem of evil bigots is solved, the laws become obsolete anyway, so why whine about it? But if they remain relevant, there is no good excuse for excluding sexual orientation while protecting all the other classes.

            1. The origin of anti-discrimination law was in communities where people treated minority communities like utter trash. It was, on its face, a social problem, and local governments weren’t up to the job of fixing it.

              You have that pretty much exactly backwards.

              The origin of anti-discrimination laws was in the Federal government that, in response to community-level resistance to the Jim Crow laws and the successful challenge and ejection of those laws from the books, felt the need to put in place active laws creating special protected classes of people that no one was really asking for and that there was no clear need for. But without those, the Federal government could claim no credit for the Civil Rights movement, which wasn’t a position the Federal government wanted to be in.

              If people can’t find a bathroom they’re allowed to use while traveling from place to place, that’s a problem.

              It’s a good thing that the laws requiring separate facilities for black and whites were overturned, huh?

              The way I see it, once the problem of evil bigots is solved, the laws become obsolete anyway, so why whine about it?

              What if we wind up solving the problem of evil bigots but not the problem of litigious sociopaths?

              there is no good excuse for excluding sexual orientation while protecting all the other classes.

              Agreed, which is why libertarians tend to be opposed to the creation of special classes of people that are more equal than the rest of us.

              1. You make my point for me by muddying the waters about which level of government is responsible. I don’t particularly care, as long as someone steps up to do the right thing. I think civil rights legislation was a great triumph of the US federal government and a glaring failure of federalism, but whatever, who cares. Government still sets the rules for how societies operate. That’s what governments do. Say you’re a dictator and you set up a laissez-faire government. Aren’t the the social consequences of that choice on your shoulders, same as they would be if you set up a centrally planned nightmare? You don’t get to opt out of responsibility. Doing nothing is an active choice.

                You cannot oppose the concept of special classes. They exist in nature. Some people are men, some are women, some black some white, some gay some straight, etc. If there’s a history of discrimination along these lines, that’s the social problem being addressed. And nobody should be upset about it because it increases individual freedom bigly while diminishing only trivial, toxic freedoms in return.

                1. You make my point for me by muddying the waters about which level of government is responsible.

                  No, I exactly don’t. You argued that racism was a community failure that had to be fixed by the federal government. I pointed out that the racism you’re talking about was a matter of laws that had to be repealed, not laws that needed to be passed. The federal government needed to play no role in that. It is not a trivial, unimportant aspect to the argument you were making – it is the argument you were making.

                  Government still sets the rules for how societies operate.

                  No, it doesn’t. History is littered with the remains of regimes who thought that way. Government, at best, codifies pre-existing social rules.

                  Say you’re a dictator and you set up a laissez-faire government. Aren’t the the social consequences of that choice on your shoulders, same as they would be if you set up a centrally planned nightmare?

                  If you stop telling your neighbor what to do, does that make you responsible for his actions?

                  Doing nothing is an active choice.

                  Heavy.

                  You cannot oppose the concept of special classes. They exist in nature.

                  Yes I can and no they don’t. I thought you had some kind of philosophy degree? Or was it that you took a class once?

                  1. had to be fixed by the federal government.

                    A description not a prescription. If local yokels could keep up with civilization, it would never have been needed. Small-government types are their own worst enemy, because they prove themselves inadequate to the task of local self-government, which continues to be true today.

                    Government, at best, codifies pre-existing social rules.

                    A fascinating idea. I happen to believe it’s a good thing when governments are structures so as not to stray too far from popular will. But I didn’t say the opposite of that. I said government has a definitional function. It’s the tool by which we enforce popular will. But gays were never going to get equal rights if 90% of the country opposed it.

                    If you stop telling your neighbor what to do, does that make you responsible for his actions?

                    If they start trespassing and breaking your shit, you might feel a little mistaken about the endeavor. But then even libertarians will spare no expense to protect the artificial concept of property. Basic human dignity? Meh. You got yours.

                    Yes I can and no they don’t.

                    Well, religion is arguably unnatural, but it’s still protected. I can only assume libertarians were agitating for removing their nondiscrimination rates this whole time, long before gays came along and asked for the same rights, and I just missed it.

                    1. Only Tony could think that something like religion, which the vast majority of humanity over the last three to four thousand years has practiced, is ‘unnatural’.

                      Dumbass.

                    2. What’s unnatural is the embarrassing failure rate of libertarians to remove progressive antidiscrimination law which they have undoubtedly been working for this entire time and not just whenever the rights of blacks or gays become part of the conversation.

            2. Regardless of the philosophical correctness of anti-discrimination laws, the social problems you mention were issues not of convenience, but of necessity. Blacks literally couldn’t find a restaurant to serve them in large swaths of territory, etc. So it was never even about whether or not an individual person was an asshole or not. It was about a systemic problem that affected lives. I don’t think one could make an argument that someone couldn’t get a cake made that met their exact requirements in a timely fashion due to some systemic discrimination.

              1. That’s a reasonable argument, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to keep laws on the books that protect against discrimination against race, sex, disability status, veteran status, and religion, but not sexual orientation.

                To do so, in fact, indicates a deliberate preference for certain religious proclivities, which is unconstitutional.

                1. “That’s a reasonable argument, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to keep laws on the books that protect against discrimination against race, sex, disability status, veteran status, and religion, but not sexual orientation.”

                  You’re right. We should eliminate them all.

                  1. But let’s be clear, you are not favoring less government intervention. You simply favor the jackboots being on the side of shop owners instead of customers.

                    1. That’s the exact opposite of what he said, Tony.

                    2. So you think he doesn’t approve of enforcing trespassing laws?

                      There is no small government option here. It’s a choice of whether to favor the bigot shop owners or the customers. There is no stone on which the truth about this conundrum is etched. You just have to decide which is more socially useful.

                    3. Why do you hate property rights, Tony?

                      Oh, that’s right, you don’t own anything.

                    4. I don’t hate property rights. I’m just not so fucking stupid that I think they are absolute. You can’t rape babies on your property, and you can’t discriminate against customers for being black either. It’s just civilization. How many times do I have to explain this?

          2. He believes in freedom for him and the retarded monkeys in DC (at least the ones with a D after their names). Everyone else? Not so much.

      2. In fact, maybe that “full share” might be lower if we had a less ambitious government trying to harass the private sector with arbitrary regulations.

    2. There’s a difference between anti-discrimination and a mentally ill tranny who thinks he’s a woman trying to drive a cake decorator out of business through lawfare.

      And if you’re cool with that, I don’t see how you expect minorities to pay their full share of taxes.

      What “full share”? They barely pay taxes as it is.

      1. The guy who sides with the ostensible adults who claim fairy tales to be true is tossing around questions about mental fitness?

        Does conservatism create people without self-awareness, or merely attract them?

        1. The guy who sides with ostensible adults who claim that biology is a social construct is tossing around questions about mental fitness?

          Does progressivism create hicklibs without self-awareness, or merely attract them?

    3. “I don’t like miscegenation, so I refuse to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple.”

      Tony – thought experiment for you, using your own example.

      I have little doubt in your mind your scenario is some white redneck in a MAGA hat, but do you know what? In my personal experience the most open and passionate opposition to interracial relationships has been expressed by black women angry that black men are dating white women and leaving black women single.

      So – imagine your statement is being made by a black woman baker who doesn’t want to encourage black men to marry white women.

      In your formulation should she be forced?

      1. Of course. These laws don’t work unless they apply to everyone equally. Otherwise you get obnoxious pencil-dicks whining about “protected classes.”

        1. Of course.

          And so what’s the point? What are you really accomplishing here?

          1. A more perfect union.

            1. By pitting different classes of people against each other? Seems like a weird way to go about it.

              1. The Jesus cunts started that.

                1. The Jesus cunts started that.

                  C’mon, man – my 11-year-old can do better than that.

                2. Fuck off and die, Christophobe.

                  1. I’m not afraid of dead people who never existed.

              2. If non-discrimination laws are “pitting different classes of people against each other”, then that ship sailed over half a century ago.

                As-is, I am obligated, by state and federal law, to ignore that a person’s religion literally calls for my death. In over half the states, they are permitted to consider that same part of their religion.

                Simply put, we are already “pitted against each other”. All I’m asking is that we be given equal ground.

                1. When did the baker in this story threaten you with death?

                  1. Probably about the time you learned to parse a sentence.

                2. If non-discrimination laws are “pitting different classes of people against each other”, then that ship sailed over half a century ago.

                  So then, what? We’re doomed? Should I just hunker down and arm myself for the coming race/sexual-orientation war?

                  As-is, I am obligated, by state and federal law, to ignore that a person’s religion literally calls for my death.

                  And you shouldn’t be.

                  All I’m asking is that we be given equal ground.

                  By whom? Do you see that the primary effect of your stance is to entrench a different group that is not you in their position of power? Your assertion of rights should be predicated on your existence as an individual human with inalienable rights (that can be shared by all) rather than as a member of a special class that needs special privileges.

                  Because there simply is no equal ground until we are all individuals rather than members of different classes with different statuses and privileges. And yes, I understand that society naturally has different statuses and privileges, but those can only be overcome if they’re not enshrined in law.

                  And as Cornell West pointed out so long ago, once we are defining different groups to jockey against one another for privileges, guess who’s going to win? It isn’t going to be the minorities and the marginalized.

                  1. So then, what? We’re doomed? Should I just hunker down and arm myself for the coming race/sexual-orientation war?
                    Again, if following non-discrimination laws makes you “doomed”, then we are already doomed. If following non-discrimination laws means we’re heading for war, then we are already heading for war.

                    And you shouldn’t be.

                    As I said, I could accept that.

                    But if you’re not willing to fight for it, don’t expect gay folk to do it for you.

                    1. “But if you’re not willing to fight for it, don’t expect gay folk to do it for you.”

                      What does this even mean? I’m sure the voices in your head are cheering it, but it’s a non sequitur.

                    2. It means what it sounds like.

                      Libertarians (such as yourself) love to complain that gay folk aren’t pushing the libertarian agenda that libertarians themselves aren’t willing to actually push.

                  2. So then, what? We’re doomed? Should I just hunker down and arm myself for the coming race/sexual-orientation war?

                    Just because Democrats and progressives view this as an epic struggle between races and sexual orientations doesn’t mean that the people play ball.

                    Most gays and lesbians don’t want people with guns to walk into cake shops to force bakers to bake cakes for them. Most racial minorities just want a better life for their kids.

                    And as Cornell West pointed out so long ago, once we are defining different groups to jockey against one another for privileges,

                    Yes, Cornell West wants us all to be equally poor and oppressed in his utopian socialist state, with him part of the ruling elite, of course! So much better! I suggest you don’t cite socialist totalitarians in support of racial equality.

                3. As-is, I am obligated, by state and federal law, to ignore that a person’s religion literally calls for my death

                  When did Islam take over half the states?

                  1. You do realize that non-discrimination laws concerning religion apply to all religions, regardless of majority/minority status, right?

                    That said, I don’t care that you disagree with other Christians regarding Leviticus. They’re Christians too.

                    1. Are you going to respond to his point?

                    2. Who are these all powerful Christians calling for your death? Besides Westboro obviously.

                    3. The Phelpsians aren’t Christians, they’re a bunch of fucking Democrat lawyers.

                    4. The Phelpses, whom I have encountered personally at many a pride parade, are, in my opinion, great champions of the first amendment.

                      Still waiting on Republicans to do anything useful ever.

                    5. Fine.

                      *ahem*

                      Red Rocks White Priviledge, learn to parse a sentence. That’s not even a bad-faith reading of what you quoted, it’s a straight-up lie.

                    6. Red Rocks White Priviledge, learn to parse a sentence. That’s not even a bad-faith reading of what you quoted, it’s a straight-up lie.

                      Why should I indulge your personal neuroses?

                4. “As-is, I am obligated, by state and federal law, to ignore that a person’s religion literally calls for my death. In over half the states, they are permitted to consider that same part of their religion.”

                  Versus what? You can demand that they like you? because that’s what this is really about. It’s not about equal footing. You have access to all of the government bennies, er, “rights.” But this isn’t about that. This is about revenge. But of course it won’t be the actual people whom you perceived wronged you. It will be someone who looks like them, or belongs to the same church. And that’s good enough.

                  1. Versus what?

                    Versus either (A) we both can consider their religion in deciding to serve the other, or (B) neither of us can consider their religion in deciding to serve the other.

                    I’ve been very explicit about this.

                    That said, if being bound by non-discrimination laws is a “demand that they like you”, then that is a demand that religious folk have been making for 50+ years and we’re all quite used to.

    4. But civilized people realize that anti-discrimination law is a great innovation of modern society, giving some measure of equity to discriminated-against groups in a society that would otherwise work at all levels to maintain their status as second-class.

      You’re factually wrong. Historically, minorities have made great advances in the absence of anti-discrimination law.

      But once introduced, anti-discrimination laws perpetuates the status of minorities as second-class citizens, destroys many avenues to economic advancement, and rewards racists and bigots.

      1. So with no anti discrimination laws, Colorado might finally have a gay wedding cake shop?

        1. Before gays and lesbians became so widely accepted by society, we had our own cafes, restaurants, bars, bookstores, clothing stores, even auto mechanics. Many gays and lesbians who could not find other employment built successful lives around that. All of that has gone away as mainstream companies have discovered that we are good customers and stopped discriminating against us. It’s a shame in some ways and good in others.

          But the idea that in 2019, we need government to step in and crack down on the occasional business which, for one reason or another, doesn’t want to serve us is ludicrous. Such laws make us look weak, powerless, and totalitarian. They aren’t needed and I don’t want any part of them.

  29. Why doesn’t someone file a bar complaint against Autumn Scardina? This seems like a pretty clear violation of rules 3.1, 8.4(c), (d), (g), and (h), and likely 4.2 or 4.3.

  30. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!!

    Haha

  31. But how can you punish someone who hasn’t wronged you and potentially destry them financially if you don’t make them defend themselves against frivilous lawsuits?

  32. Forcing someone to perform a service they declined to perform does not compell speech, it compels action.

    So it’s not a 1st Amendment issue, rather it’s a 13th and possibly a 5th…

    1. You’ll forgive people for assuming a guy with a cake shop is making cakes because he wants to.

  33. Silly me. I thought the core rallying cry of the sexual non-conforming was and is “mind your own business”. Now, it seems to be “I will mind your business”. WTF happened?

    1. They got power.

    2. 1964, which made non-discrimination laws a part of the national status quo.

    3. That’s a few activists. Most gays just want to be left alone, like everybody else.

  34. When you have to keep going to the same cake store over and over again, I assume that says something about the prevalence of the discrimination.

  35. But when Hannah Montana licked a “kill the baby” pro-abortion cake, suddenly the cake baker wanted a First Amendment right to protect his artwork…..

  36. Fuck me, am I ever sick and tired of LGBQTPHOMOS.

  37. As somebody who has always been fine with gay people, I have to say, I’ve fucking had enough of the gay lobby! These people are out of fucking control. I’m tired of all their shit, and am no longer supporting anything The Gays want until they start acting like decent human beings again.

    Also, the story the man who thinks he is a woman is telling is perfectly consistent with the baker doing it for the reasons he states.

    There is nothing inherently ideological about a pink cake with a blue frosting… But when you specifically say it is about transitioning, that then adds the meaning. Therefore it makes sense they would be okay with making it before finding out the meaning you apply to it.

    It’s like somebody who wants a cake with a lasso on it. One might be a cowboy who says they work on a ranch, and want the lasso there. Another might want a lasso and say it’s for a KKK party he’s throwing, and represents lassoing and dragging a black guy behind his truck. It would be reasonable for the guy to not care about the cowboy, but tell the KKK guy to fuck off. Same cake, different meaning, different morals brought into question.

    1. For me, the flying of the LBGTQ flag at embassies and Parliament is a step too far.

      It’s not an official flag.

      Gays are part and citizen of the nation-state they belong. If you’re Canadian or American that’s the flag representing those countries.

      Flying another flag on government land is pushing limits and engages in pointless and mindless symbolism.

      1. Pride isn’t about you.

        1. Look, Tony, it’s just dumb. Nobody cares that you love to suck dicks dude. I just don’t fucking care. But should we celebrate people who have a foot fetish? Or those that are specifically into BDSM? Or banging pregnant chicks?

          As far as I’m concerned gay people are born with mildly abnormal brain wiring that makes them attracted to the same sex. Trans shite and whatever other things are probably mostly the same deal.

          That doesn’t make you bad people… But you just have a weird kink more or less. I don’t think we should celebrate foot fetishes anymore than we need to celebrate being The Gay. It’s just dumb.

          1. So don’t go to the parade. Watch your sportsball and scream at your idiot offspring. I don’t come to where you work and knock the vaginas out of your mouth.

            1. I don’t come to where you work and knock the vaginas out of your mouth.

              No, you just file unending lawsuits against a cakemaker when there’s another literally a block away that will fulfill your request.

              1. I try not to ruffle feathers. Nor am I much of a sweets person. But it would be good to clarify this controversy in law.

            2. If that were true I’d have less of a problem. And maybe you, as a person, aren’t a problem. Lots of my gay friends are fine.

              But the gay lobby has lost its shit. They’re trying to force people to bend to their will on insane issues. Until that shit stops, I’m gonna have to bag on all you fags a bit here and there 🙂

              1. The gay lobby? You sound insane. Sorry. Nobody’s forcing you to get your dick chopped off and fellate trannies in the bathroom, or whatever it is you think is being imposed on you.

                1. Ugh. Forcing people to bake cake. Suing people for not hiring some hack 3rd rate employee who happens to be gay, by claiming it is discrimination when it is not. Trying to force trans people into bathrooms/showerrooms etc where people do not want them.

                  I could go on for days. I personally don’t care much about most of this shit… I’ve been hanging out at weird places that let trannies use whatever bathroom they want since I turned 21… But the Gay Lobby is using lawsuits and trying to put through laws to FORCE this behavior. It’s bullshit.

    2. My favorite political argument of all time: “You people annoy me, so I’m not gonna support rights for you I otherwise would!” Compelling.

      1. Well Tony, the thing is that I used to support you guys when you were asking for SANE SHIT.

        Now they’ve basically got everything that is reasonable… And are starting to ask for absurd stuff, like special privileges that normal people don’t have. If a straight pedo can’t demand a cake with 45 men beating off onto a 8 year old girl on it, and force the baker to make it with government force, then a baker should be able to tell gays to fuck off too… But I suspect nobody would defend the pedo. Or maybe Jeff and a few progs would, but not many!

        I believe in TRUE freedom of association, even if it is in a mean way, or based on beliefs I think are stupid. We should have zero anti discrimination laws.

        Furthermore, the tranny stuff is waaay out of line. Men should not be playing in women’s sports. It’s not fair to actual women. I also think that unless it is a private facility, there should be no requirement that biological men are allowed in women’s facilities like shower rooms, etc. I’m kind of 50/50 on bathrooms, but naked dudes with dicks in shower rooms with naked little girls (think at a public pool) is a bridge too far IMO.

        If you guys went back to being reasonable I wouldn’t have a problem, but you already have everything reasonable. You guys are like environmentalists: You won the fight for everything important, but because you built up all these big lobby groups, you decided to start pushing for insane shit so the gravy train doesn’t stop rolling for professional activists.

        1. We should have zero anti discrimination laws.

          Fair enough. Not especially compelling coming from someone who might be white, male, Christian, and abled, but I don’t know you, so maybe it’s an actual principle.

          Consider that you’re being made to feel agitated by political interests that are focused on entirely different things, like tax cuts for billionaire geezers.

          The only thing being asked for is that sexual orientation be included among the traits people can’t be discriminated against for. That means I can’t turn you away from my shop for being straight, either, which is the beauty of such laws. But if you don’t want any, that’s legit, until such time as moron bigots start oppressing people again, at which point I’m sure you’ll understand we’ll have to revisit the issue.

          You can’t expect people to pull themselves up from their bootstraps if society in a de facto way takes their boots away from them.

          1. I’m not Christian, and I have enough Mexican and native blood to have a touch of a tan… But otherwise yeah.

            But to me it is a principle. The fact is that if a black guy wants to own a bar that doesn’t allow in any whites, I’m fine with that. And I think the opposite should be true too. Frankly, I don’t think almost any of that sort of thing would happen realistically anyway. But to whatever degree it does it should be allowed.

            Why shouldn’t a gay guy be able to have a business that refuses to serve straight people? I would be fine with that. A lot of my gay friends actually bitch about how all the straight bros go to gay clubs nowadays and have ruined them for actual gay people… Which is shitty. You SHOULD be able to have your own space, and frankly so should some stodgy old trad-cons who don’t want any of The Gays in their bar while they get drunk and chain smoke Mab Reds.

            Freedom is freedom, and sometimes some people won’t like it… But that doesn’t make it any less valid a thing to protect.

            1. I’m OK with a distinction between a public accommodation business and a private club type business. The goal is to prevent a situation in which a class of people are systematically unable to participate in the commerce of their community because of bigoted discrimination. It renders suspect all arguments about how people should have to make their own way in society. If you can’t use the bathroom or get lunch anywhere, that’s rather a hindrance.

              1. The thing is Tony, I just don’t see that happening nowadays. People are being unpersoned for the minorest offenses… You really think it’s going to be like 1952 Alabama again everywhere?

                I don’t. But frankly, even if it went back that way… If all of society dislikes some group that much, maybe they should fucking move to somewhere else where they’re not hated? I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a country where I was hated as the default position. That’s one of the things that worries me about the future trends in America, given that I’m more or less of the only demographic where it is society acceptable to publicly hate on…

      2. They’ve gone beyond asking for rights (they have those) and want special privileges now, you incredible fuckwit,

          1. Name one.

            I’ll name several. Anti-discrimination laws in business and employment. Hate crime legislation.

            1. All of which apply to white, straight males too. I said name a “special privilege” that applies only to minorities.

              1. Yes, they apply to “white, straight males” in the sense that they actively discriminate against and hurt “white, straight males”, while granting special benefits and privileges to other groups.

                That’s because courts have decided that “disparate impact” is evidence of discrimination under those laws.

          2. Not to mention being allowed to participate in single sex only activities for the opposite sex of what they actually are!

      3. My favorite political argument of all time: “You people annoy me, so I’m not gonna support rights for you I otherwise would!” Compelling

        I am gay. I believe in non-discrimination by the government. I don’t believe in the “rights” people like you fabricate out of thin air.

        I don’t want anti-discrimination laws. I am indifferent to gay marriage. I don’t want schools to teach elementary school kids about sexual orientation.

        And when people like you advance that kind of authoritarian nonsense in a way that gives me as a gay man a bad name, it’s time to speak out and tell you to go to hell.

        1. + 1,000

          I think a lot of it comes down to this: A lot of people of whatever “marginalized” group, but especially the sexual/gender stuff, are not happy with people ACCEPTING their lifestyle… They demand that people actually approve of it, and indeed praise it. They’re insecure about themselves, and want external validation IMO.

          I only wish more gay guys were like you than like Tony!

          1. There are a lot of gay guys like me, we just don’t make a big deal out of it.

            1. Oh, I’ve known a number, you guys just don’t get much play in the media.

        2. I’m not only indifferent to gay marriage, I’m opposed to it. But I have no choice but to favor legal equality. I’m actually a gay supremacist, but I’ll take legal equality… for now.

          I disagree about schools. I don’t know why you think children should have to grow up as we did, thinking penis in vagina is the only acceptable way to experience adulthood. But whatever. That’s still you expressing a preference about what happens in school, so I don’t understand why I’m the authoritarian and you’re not.

          1. Why is it the schools job to teach that shit?

            School should be for the three Rs, and throw in some history, civics, etc. It’s not a place to discuss every issue that may come up in a persons personal life.

    3. Good analogy there. I would add that the KKK is real (and evil) whereas gender is biological reality that is NOT changed by surgery and hormones. If you can change your DNA from XY to XX or vice versa, then you would have a “sex change”. If you are in the KKK you are an A hole (your heart has to change).

      1. More or less. Their arguments are bunk.

    4. I’ve fucking had enough of the gay lobby!

      So do I and I am gay. Those people don’t represent gays and lesbians, they represent leftists who happen to pick different identity groups as justifications for their politics.

      1. Yeah. I’ve known quite a few gay people who differ in opinion from “Big Gay” (like big oil, but gayer!) on a lot of issues… Yet their voices never get much traction.

        One thing that I’ve really seen pop up is a split on trans inclusion in sports and other similar things. A lot of gay people I know think taking things that far is pretty dicey. I even know a trans person who thinks it’s dumb.

        LGBT etc people are not as monolithic as people think…

  38. For any unambiguous question there is only one answer and it is the truth that we all share in peace.

    This is not simply a question of denying service.

    The ambiguity is in the detail of the service that is being requested.

    Both logic and science prove that any sexuality other than heterosexuality is either a choice or a disorder. One that precludes mating and denies the superior nature of a biological family. The LGBTGQ movement is based on a lie.

    The real question here is “should anyone be forced to lie?”.

    The answer is obvious.

    1. Both logic and science prove that any sexuality other than heterosexuality is either a choice or a disorder.

      So which is it in your case?

      1. I prefer both logic and science equally.

        1. I appreciate that; you should always strive for logic and science, unattainable as they are to you.

          But my question was about the source of your homosexuality: was it a choice or a disorder in your case?

          1. Correction.

            The LGBasset hound movement is based on a lie if it’s a choice, and plain bat shit craziness if it’s a disorder.

            You demonstrate the latter.

            1. I’m sorry, Rob, it’s you who is batshit crazy. And a latent homosexual to boot, because no straight man obsesses over homosexuality the way you do.

              1. Is that your faggot way of agreeing with me?

                1. Indeed, it’s two faggots agreeing: you and me!

                  1. The only thing I shoved up your ass and down your throat is the truth.

                    You’re welcome.

  39. Autumn Scardina is a faux-righteous bully-cunt.

    These people are no different than fascist or Mafia thugs. The only difference is they use the legal system to ruin people’s lives in order to get them to submit.

  40. From Facebook:

    “Scardina Law
    18 hrs ·
    Clients and colleagues, we need your help:
    As our former partner Autumn Scardina gains media coverage for her litigation against Masterpiece Cakeshop, our firm attracts bigots from across the nation seeking to express their hatred for the LGBTQ community through false reviews of our firm. While some fake reviews are removed, many remain. This lowers our rating thereby making it more difficult for those in need to find competent, caring, and effective counsel.

    It seems the best way to combat the negative attention is to ask those of you with positive experiences with our work product, ethics, and legal skills to provide a counterbalancing review. So please, if you have a moment, please help us help others by sharing your experiences with Scardina Law using this link”

    This is rich.

    Then leave these people alone you bully and you won’t get bad reviews.

    1. I don’t like fake reviews any more than aggressive litigation. Bad form on those giving reviews on any product or service without having used it. Still, it’d be ignorant to pretend that this lawyer isn’t doing worse and wouldn’t encourage supporters to do the same to opponents. There are better venues to expose how shitty this person is.

      1. If people choose to self identify as customers who is to say otherwise?

    2. “We won’t be so blatant as to ask our allies to post positive false reviews, but we know that by posting this they will do that anyway”

    3. our firm attracts bigots from across the nation seeking to express their hatred for the LGBTQ community

      I express my hatred for collectivist ambulance chasers who treat me as a letter in an acronym for an identity group that I never wanted to be part of.

  41. I don’t see why Scardina’s version of the story is functionally different than Phillips’s version. In fact, I almost think Scardina’s reinforces the idea that Phillips is refusing based on the message he’d be conveying or supporting in his mind. When the cake was just some meaningless blue and pink colors in Phillips’s mind, he was fine with it; once he was notified those colors meant something he didn’t want to support, THEN he wasn’t fine with it.

  42. This is a fantastic example for examining what people believe and why. In this case the left is hard core in favor of compelling people to espouse the beliefs they agree with. And the right is adamant about protecting the rights of small businesses to eschew speech they disagree with.

    But it isn’t just the speaker who is concerned with the content of the speech…

    What would we say about a printer who refused to print gay pride leaflets? What if he refused to print Nazi propaganda? White supremacist posters?

    Now, apply this same set of standards to social media companies…. What if they decided to suppress conservative views? Or Christian views?

    Or what if they decided that transgender advocates were disfavored instead?

    It doesn’t seem that many folks are operating from a principle other than “I support stuff I agree with and I oppose stuff I disagree with!”

    1. Apples and oranges.

      A printer has the right to object to being compelled to print content he finds objectionable. Unless a couple is asking a baker to write something with icing, there is no content on a cake. If a gay couple asks him to make them a cake exactly like one he’d make for a straight couple, there is no content on that cake, and he has no material interest in how that cake is used.

      Social media companies are private entities and have the right to set their own standards for what content is posted on their sites. If someone wants to set up a conservative social media company that suppresses liberal viewpoints, he’s well within his rights to do so.

      A business which is open to the public is required by public accommodation laws to serve all people without discriminating against them based on who they are. If he would sell a cake to a white person, he must sell that cake to a black person, or a gay person, etc.

      1. Social media companies are private entities and have the right to set their own standards for what content is posted on their sites.

        That’s a fine argument, except for the fact that Facebook, Google, and Twitter have achieved their near monopoly status through regulatory capture and are trying to maintain it through lobbying.

        A business which is open to the public is required by public accommodation laws to serve all people without discriminating against them based on who they are. If he would sell a cake to a white person, he must sell that cake to a black person, or a gay person, etc.

        What you are doing is forcing me as a gay man to unwittingly give my money and support to businesses that hate me, and to prevent free market mechanisms from eliminating such businesses from the market. On top of that, you are destroying businesses that specifically cater to minorities.

        Anti-discrimination laws are not just an unwarranted infringement on individual liberties, they actually hurt the very groups they purport to help.

        1. “That’s a fine argument, except for the fact that Facebook, Google, and Twitter have achieved their near monopoly status through regulatory capture and are trying to maintain it through lobbying.”

          That’s a completely different issue, raising issues of how the government does or should regulate these businesses and/or treat them like public utilities, but the fact is they still are companies, not government entities, and therefore not bound to respect 1st Amendment protections, which only protect people from government action.

          “What you are doing is forcing me as a gay man to unwittingly give my money and support to businesses that hate me, and to prevent free market mechanisms from eliminating such businesses from the market. On top of that, you are destroying businesses that specifically cater to minorities.”

          Oh good grief, what an overwrought and nonsensical argument. You know how Chik-Fil-A’s CEO feels about you, right? Should they be allowed to deny you service the way lunch counters did black people in the 50s? But you do know about how Chik-Fil-A’s president feels about you, even though his company is legally obligated to serve you, don’t you? Nobody is saying business owners can’t make their feelings known, just that they can’t deny service. Are you telling me you don’t have the common sense to know when a business isn’t being friendly towards you, and seek out a friendlier business? Not to mention there will be plenty of businesses that don’t like you but are perfectly happy to take your money. The suggestion that businesses be allowed to discriminate by law just so you won’t “accidentally” give money to someone who doesn’t like you is preposterous. What if you and your husband are on a car trip and it’s late and you need to stop at a hotel for the night, and the only hotel for miles around has a “no gays” policy? So your only options are to keep driving, even though that’s dangerous because you’re tired, or sleep in your car on the side of the road, which carries its own dangers? Would you be supportive of the hotelier’s “right to discriminate” then? Because that kind of crap happened all the time to black people up through the 60s.

          “Anti-discrimination laws are not just an unwarranted infringement on individual liberties, they actually hurt the very groups they purport to help.”

          And how is prohibiting businesses from discriminating “destroying businesses that specifically cater to minorities?” How on earth would narrowing a customer base be good for a business? We have a lot of businesses down here that have traditionally specifically catered to minorities – pho shops, taquerias, panaderias, black barbecue joints, etc. The ones where word of mouth travels beyond their traditional minority community customer base, those are the ones that become most successful, whose owners are able open up additional locations. Those businesses aren’t destroyed, they boom.

          1. but the fact is they still are companies, not government entities, and therefore not bound to respect 1st Amendment protections, which only protect people from government action

            If they want to be fully private, then they can do what they want. But as a condition of government contracts, government licenses, and other government benefits, they have to play ball by government rules and government directives. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. Government can (and has) use this power to either implement censorship or to impose non-censorship on those companies. The deal is again “Google, either obey or lose billions in government contracts/benefits”.

            You know how Chik-Fil-A’s CEO feels about you, right? Should they be allowed to deny you service the way lunch counters did black people in the 50s?

            Lunch counters in the US were segregated primarily because of racist laws; most businesses wanted to integrate because it earned them more money. The US government was the cause of those injustices, until people finally stood up and rebelled against it.

            As for Chick-Fil-A, they have been able to legally discriminate against employees and customers based on sexual orientation under federal law and many state laws; it doesn’t seem to happen. They have gay employees who have spoken out. The Chick-fil-A CEO spoke out against gay marriage and donated to conservative groups, both actions I have no problem with whatsoever. But as a result, left wing groups have been trying to destroy their business by spreading the kinds of lies you repeat.

            And how is prohibiting businesses from discriminating “destroying businesses that specifically cater to minorities?” How on earth would narrowing a customer base be good for a business?

            Bingo: it wouldn’t be good for business. That’s precisely why most businesses don’t do it and why anti-discrimination laws are not needed.

            1. “If they want to be fully private, then they can do what they want. But as a condition of government contracts, government licenses, and other government benefits, they have to play ball by government rules and government directives. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. Government can (and has) use this power to either implement censorship or to impose non-censorship on those companies. The deal is again “Google, either obey or lose billions in government contracts/benefits”.:

              Companies have to abide by government rules and directives in their activities involved in fulfilling those government contracts. They are not required to for work they do in the civilian world. The government overtly coercing a company to change its perceived political leaning (which, let’s face it, is always going to depend on which party has the white house, and thus itself open to charges of partisan intent) is exactly the type of partisan government overreach libertarians and other small government types should want to avoid.

              “Lunch counters in the US were segregated primarily because of racist laws; most businesses wanted to integrate because it earned them more money. The US government was the cause of those injustices, until people finally stood up and rebelled against it.”

              That’s not really true, first, because there was no federal law requiring lunch counters be segregated, where there were laws, they were mostly municipal laws. Local businesses would have a lot of clout to change those laws if they really wanted to, but they didn’t. And in many, many places, segregated lunch counters were not by law, but by widespread practice through store policies. For instance, in Houston in the early 1960s TSU (a historically black university) students staged sit-ins at “whites only” lunch counters, movies and hotels in Houston, home at the time of the South’s largest black community. Meanwhile, black business community leaders got together behind the scenes with their counterparts in the white business community, the latter group led by Bob Dundas, Foley’s department store’s (now owned by Macy’s) head of marketing. Dundas came up with a plan, he got all the white businesses in downtown Houston to simultaneously desegregate, and got the black community to not publicize the desegregation, and got the local newspaper, TV, and radio outlets to agree NOT to report the story, by threatening to pull Foley’s advertising if they reported on the desegregation. The fact that City Hall had nothing to do with the desegregation shows that the longstanding segregation was NOT due to laws requiring it, and the white business community was reluctant to do so, and only did so because the pressure of the sit-ins was hurting their business. It’s a remarkable story for that time, really only made possible because Houston was a booming city, starting to become more modern and less Southern as white transplants moved in for the oil industry and NASA. In other southern cities, with or without municipal ordinances, desegregation was a lot less pleasant, and ultimately did take federal laws to end it.

              What “lies” have I supposedly repeated about Chik-Fil-A? Please be specific.

              “Bingo: it wouldn’t be good for business. That’s precisely why most businesses don’t do it and why anti-discrimination laws are not needed.”

              Yet discrimination has and to some extent still does happen, and at any rate we don’t refrain from passing laws against harmful practices just because “most” people wouldn’t engage in those practices anyway.

              1. Companies have to abide by government rules and directives in their activities involved in fulfilling those government contracts.

                That’s factually incorrect. The US government frequently makes obtaining government contracts at all conditional on conduct on unrelated non-government contracts.

                That’s not really true, first, because there was no federal law requiring lunch counters be segregated, where there were laws, they were mostly municipal laws.

                So you agree then that it was government (just not the federal government) that required segregation, while most private businesses would have preferred not to discriminated. QED

                What “lies” have I supposedly repeated about Chik-Fil-A? Please be specific.

                Your lies: Should [Chik-Fil-A] be allowed to deny you service the way lunch counters did black people in the 50s?, with the implication that Chik-Fil-A intends to discriminate against me as a customer and is only prevented from doing so by law. In fact, the exact opposite is true: Chik-Fil-A has a non-discrimination policy in place, but they could discriminate in many places if they wanted to. There is zero evidence that Chik-Fil-A as a company is anti-gay; the only link between Chik-Fil-A and homosexuality is that their CEO happens to donate to conservative causes. The rest is lies and propaganda.

                we don’t refrain from passing laws against harmful practices just because “most” people wouldn’t engage in those practices anyway.

                There is nothing harmful about a small percentage of businesses discriminating against anyone because, by definition, there are many, many alternatives. Nor is there any evidence that anti-discrimination laws actually prevent any harm; in fact, evidence suggests that anti-discrimination laws cause harm to the groups they ostensibly protect.

                The reason progressives like to pass these laws is not because they help people or are effective (they likely do neither), but simply because it increases their political power, that’s all.

    2. Now, apply this same set of standards to social media companies…. What if they decided to suppress conservative views? Or Christian views?

      I have no problem with private companies suppressing whatever speech they want to suppress on their platforms.

      The problem with Facebook and Google is that they have benefited from special government-granted privileges that have given them near monopolies. We need to abolish those privileges, and then those companies can censor to their hearts’ content.

    3. (A) Republicans and “the right” don’t care about protecting all views. Check the actual arguments and laws they’ve been proposing. It’s only the anti-gay views that get the special treatment.
      (B) Check out the Hands On Originals case. Printers are fine, so long as they’re refusing the message and not the customer.

  43. I don’t know which version of the story (if either) is true, but if what Scardina is claiming is accurate, that means the shop didn’t even see the cake itself as expressing a “message” until Scardina revealed it.

    I fail to see the importance of the distinction. If I asked you to bake me a yellow cake with red frosting, you’d have no reason to refuse. If I asked for that cake because it represented the colors on the Soviet flag and it was for a CPUSA meeting, you might refuse on ideological grounds. If I got you to agree to make the cake and only THEN revealed my reasoning and the message in the cake colors, the rationale for refusing would be the same.

    And, of course, Scardina only revealed the reasoning/message (before or after) because she didn’t actually want the cake, she wanted to compel the bake shop’s speech or — barring that — provide a pretext for a complaint and lawsuit. But if Phillips were a little brighter, he’d have said, “Yes, I’ll bake you that cake, and here’s what it will really mean. It’ll mean that however much how you try to cover yourself with pink frosting, you’ll always be male beneath the surface. Think about that while you’re eating it.”

    1. Let me help you out with understanding the distinction. If it is a cake the baker would otherwise make, then how that customer plans to use the cake is a matter of the customer’s expression, not the baker’s. The baker should only be protected from being forced to make a deliberate expression himself, he should not be allowed to dictate how others use his product to express themselves. Consider how you would enforce this “right” to prevent others from expressing themselves from his product. What if the “transgender” person – I am actually not a fan of the whole transgender movement, I think it’s an illness, not an “identity”, but I am a fan of equal accommodation laws being enforced uniformly – what if the “transgender” person hadn’t told the baker he/she/it was using the cake to celebrate his/her/its “transition”, and he found out later. Should he be able to sue the transgender person for “tricking” him into unintentionally “expressing” support for transgender? Of course not, there were no damages, he didn’t actually “express” anything, the transgender person did, so his right to expression/dissent was not harmed.

      1. “Should he be able to sue the transgender person for “tricking” him into unintentionally “expressing” support for transgender? ”

        No. But in choosing to share the purpose of the cake when ordering it, the customer has invited the baker into sharing the meaning of it and at least tacit accepting it.

        Suppose I own an office supplies store. A random person walks in from the street and wants to buy materials to make posters for a march in favor of a cause I strongly oppose. Should I be able to refuse to make the sale? I say, yes. What do you say?

        1. Human beings are not simple creatures, thus human society and interactions are complicated, are informed by historical and psychological and sociological inputs. So measures to address Civil Rights issues can’t be simple broad brush “one size fits all” standards applied the same to every situation. [Aside: I’m saying this not to condescend to you, but to front load why my answer is going to be longish and take a little time to answer your question] Civil rights laws often have to balance out competing sets of interests and harms, namely, the harm to a class that is discriminated against if the discrimination is allowed to continue, vs the harm to the right of opinion and expression and even action of the people who would be doing the discrimination.

          In the bakery issue, on the one hand, you have tangible harm to a person if they are denied access to public accommodation, or put in peril of being denied access to public accommodation is they do not scrupulous hide who they are or their intents. On the other hand, you have a business that we both agree suffers no tangible harm (which is why there is no grounds for a lawsuit) if he is required to sell a product to a person who uses it to express a personal identity he doesn’t agree with.

          Along with balancing harm, civil rights measures also have to take into account the recipient of the discrimination. Not all discrimination is wrong, a fine dining restaurant can discriminate against patrons whose manner of dress they find too casual, for instance, even if those patrons claim their dress is a form of expression (businesses have no obligation to provide others a venue of free expression). What civil rights measures have to take into account is whether the discrimination is based on something the target of the discrimination can choose/control, vs something the person was born with/as, and/or has no control over. Once that question is answered, the civil rights measure also takes into account whether people who share that uncontrollable characteristic have been historically discriminated against because of it.

          So, to get to your office supplies store scenario, generally a social or political position is a choice someone makes, like maybe you’re pro-life and this customer intends to use those posters for a pro-choice march, if you refuse to sell him those posters, you’d be in the clear. But if the issue he intends to march for is centered on support for rights for people like him with an uncontrollable characteristic, the issue is going to be murkier and the question will be raised on whether you are refusing to sell to him because of him having that uncontrollable characteristic. And that’s why there are OCR review processes and federal courts to adjudicate these issues.

  44. You shouldn’t be able to force business owners to depict something they find objectionable, but if a business owner would make the exact same cake for a straight person, but refuses to do so for a gay person, its discrimination, and we have public accomodation laws against that. Since the scope of Phillips’ last legal victory was so narrow, and he only won because the state had shown bias against his religion, the court didn’t rule on whether refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding was a protection of his 1st Amendment rights, he probably won’t be so lucky in this private civil suit (private plaintiffs have no obligation to be unbiased toward the defendant). And this whole idea of a cake as “expression” and protected by the First Amendment. He’s not painting Guernica, he’s making cakes that will be purchased, eaten and then crapped out by people in a couple of days. He’s a businessman, not an artiste. As long as people aren’t trying to make him depict gay couples or gay pride flags on their cakes, and only asking him to make the exact same cakes he’d make for a straight person, he needs to stop being so precious about “his” cakes.

    1. The whole point to custom cakes is that no two are ever the same, which blows a hole at the waterline in your argument.

      1. In neither of the cases that this guy was sued over did the customers ask the baker to make a cake that explicitly expresses support for any viewpoint or agenda. They specified flavor, color, and decorations from the baker’s range of options just like every other customer did, so yes, by any reasonable standard of judgement, they were just cakes, the same product the baker sold other customers. He only had a problem with selling them the cakes once he found out the customers’ sexual orientation.

      2. The first couple, in fact, never even got a chance to discuss the details of what they wanted on their cake before Phillips told them he did not make wedding cakes for same sex couples. That statement made it clear that even if they had said “we want you to make us the exact same cake you did for Bill and Margaret’s wedding” he would have said no. Customization has NOTHING to do with his discrimination.

        1. The context and the usage is what can give otherwise innocuous things meaning. A black, white, and red cake has no meaning… Until the person says it is for a Nazi party meeting.

          How hard is it to understand? A person might be fine making that cake for a sports team that uses those colors, but not for a Nazi. I see nothing wrong in being able to refuse service for any reason at any time. That is freedom.

  45. Hey, Reason, stop collectivizing gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders as a single class or interest group.

    As a gay man I have about as much in common with a transgender person as I do with an Islamist.

    1. I don’t think Reason is the group that invented “LGBT” as an associated title.

      1. No, but Reason keeps using term, and either they don’t know any better or they don’t care.

  46. Kevin Williamson at National Review Online wrote this today.

    “Some time around the sixth season of Will & Grace, a funny thing happened: The love that dare not speak its name became the love that could not shut up for a second and maybe talk about something else for a while.”

    Militant gays can be so annoying.

    1. “Some time around the sixth season of Will & Grace, a funny thing happened: The love that dare not speak its name became the love that could not shut up for a second and maybe talk about something else for a while.”

      By the 6th season of Will & Grace fans had told Ellen “You’re gay. We get it. Enough already!” twice.

      1. I always thought Ellen was just asexual. Creepy as crap.

  47. Seems that the claimant’s version of events is more hurtful than helpful. Under that scenario, once the baker found out the message behind the cake, he declined to make it, meaning it was the message to be conveyed by the cake and not the status/identity of the customer that mattered most.

    Also, clearly the customer truly didn’t want a cake, but rather intended the entire thing to generate a lawsuit and used the cake ordering as a pretext. On that basis alone, the case should be tossed.

    1. And an investigation by the state bar association.

  48. Yes, this is total bullshit. The customer does not have the right to force the baker to make a specific type of cake. No customer of any business has that right.

    As others point out, this is why we need legal reform such as loser pays. This is an abusive lawsuit which attacks our basic individual liberties.

    Personally, I am accepting of all sexuality and would bake the fucking cake but that’s not the point here. It’s about basic individual rights. There our cakes I might not wish to bake and that’s for me to decide not some fucking legal system.

  49. If anything, the timing of Scardina’s lawsuit highlights how much an outlier this bakery actually is, and that there are easy and simple marketplace solutions to the problem that perhaps do not require court interventions at all.

    The “problem” this transgender individual is trying to solve is not where to get a cake. It is, and was previously, only about punishing someone who had the temerity to hold beliefs that offended them.

    This is about punishing wrongthink, not about baked goods.

Please to post comments