Not just religious oppression but Maoist "reeducation"

[Seth]

Baker Who Refused to Make Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple Willing to Go to Jail for His Beliefs
Jun. 5, 2014 7:21pm Erica Ritz
391
Shares

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips created a national controversy after refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying it violates his religious beliefs.

After Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission upheld a judge’s ruling that he must serve gay couples, Phillips calmly told Glenn Beck on Thursday that he is willing to go to jail for his beliefs.

“If that’s what it took,” he said. “I’m not giving up my faith for anything. It’s too high a price to pay.”
In this March 10, 2014 photo, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips decorates a cake inside his store, in Lakewood, Colo. Phillips is appealing a recent ruling against him in a legal complaint filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission by a gay couple he refused to make a wedding cake for, based on his religious beliefs. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley) AP Photo/Brennan Linsley

In this March 10, 2014 photo, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips decorates a cake inside his store, in Lakewood, Colo. Phillips is appealing a recent ruling against him in a legal complaint filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission by a gay couple he refused to make a wedding cake for, based on his religious beliefs. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley) AP Photo/Brennan Linsley

Phillips is happy to provide birthday cakes and any other baked goods to the gay community, but says he does not want to be a part of a gay wedding.

“How is this not the same as me being a Quaker, saying it is against my religion to fight?” Beck asked.

“It’s not different,” Phillips’ attorney Nicolle Martin responded. “The state of Colorado has no business forcing Jack to abandon his religious beliefs, his First Amendment beliefs, so that … the government-approved message will be carried forward. It’s truly frightening. It’s Orwellian. And it’s against everything America stands for.”

Martin also confirmed that Phillips and his employees have been ordered to undergo sensitivity training, adding that if he declines to follow the order, “the state can go to a district court to have the order enforced.”

Beck told Phillips: “This is your art. This is your passion. And now you’re being told exactly what you can and can’t do. This is not America. This is fascism.

[cronus]

Communism to turn down business based on the social consequences for people who the cake maker doesn't even want to know.

[Seth]

Communism to turn down business based on the social consequences for people who the cake maker doesn't even want to know.

No, I said Maoist reeducation, as in government mandated "sensitivity training" enforced by court order, which is utterly violative of his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.

He has an unassailable right to hold religious or indeed secular moral objections to gay weddings, gays, hippies, Marxists, Republicans, Democrats, KKK members, Black Panthers, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, women, children, men, dogs, cats, and any other group, collective, species, or individual he pleases and no one has even the smallest right or authority to use government force to punish or "train" him or his employees into acceptance or "sensitivity" towards anyone.

He can be as insensitive as he wants to be, whenever he chooses to be, wherever he chooses to be and no one can tell him not to so express himself in a public venue or on his own property.

Only if he violates a law can a judge punish him, but not reeducate him as to his personal morals or beliefs.

And as we see from the article, his case has yet to be heard by an actual judge in county, state or federal court. All the "judgments" so far have been administrative actions which have not addressed his valid underlying federal civil rights claim.

[cronus]

Communism to turn down business based on the social consequences for people who the cake maker doesn't even want to know.

No, I said Maoist reeducation, as in government mandated "sensitivity training" enforced by court order, which is utterly violative of his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.

He has an unassailable right to hold religious or indeed secular moral objections to gay weddings, gays, hippies, Marxists, Republicans, Democrats, KKK members, Black Panthers, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, women, children, men, dogs, cats, and any other group, collective, species, or individual he pleases and no one has even the smallest right or authority to use government force to punish or "train" him or his employees into acceptance or "sensitivity" towards anyone.

He can be as insensitive as he wants to be, whenever he chooses to be, wherever he chooses to be and no one can tell him not to so express himself in a public venue or on his own property.

Only if he violates a law can a judge punish him, but not reeducate him as to his personal morals or beliefs.

And as we see from the article, his case has yet to be heard by an actual judge in county, state or federal court. All the "judgments" so far have been administrative actions which have not addressed his valid underlying federal civil rights claim.

It might be so. Once the Marxists have a foot in the door then they'll push. Once they have folks compliant over some matters then they'll pass and push for more. Until they own the shop. Ayn Rand is the answer. Market capitalism, and give the customer what they want with a quick boot out the door to go with it, all I'm saying. Showing a stand on issues like gay rights isn't about losing customers and inviting in the thought police. All I'm saying, Seth. Culture wars have some strategy, that are to be won.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

He has an unassailable right to hold religious or indeed secular moral objections to gay weddings, gays, hippies, Marxists, Republicans, Democrats, KKK members, Black Panthers, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, women, children, men, dogs, cats, and any other group, collective, species, or individual he pleases and no one has even the smallest right or authority to use government force to punish or "train" him or his employees into acceptance or "sensitivity" towards anyone.

I agree, Seth, that he has such a right to hold moral objections of that nature. Of course, I also have a right to consider him to be a narrow-minded bigot...

I also agree that "sensitivity training" seems to be politically correct bullshit.

However, his was an action, not just holding a belief, in refusing to serve someone because of aspects of their lifestyle. If such an action is against state law, then he should accept that he has contravened it. If he or others feel it is a bad law, then they should start a political campaign against it.

It is an interesting debate, in terms of refusing to serve someone because of your personal views of them (I did take from the article that he would serve gays for ordinary purchases, he simply objected to providing a wedding cake because of his objections to gay marriage. This is a somewhat lower level of prejudice, I concur...)

There is a spectrum, obviously. Anyone other than a KKK member would object, I presume, to an ambulance man refusing to treat an injured person because they are black. Presumably, the same should apply to refusal to treat someone because they are gay...

At the other extreme, (this occurred recently, from memory), a wedding photographer refusing to take a commission to photograph a gay wedding, should not, in my opinion, be subject to legal sanction, although I reserve my right to call him a bigoted plonker...

[Robert_S]

IMO, it should come down to whether the job is an inherently artistic expression or not.

A black guy shouldn't be forced to design a poster for a KKK meeting, but shouldn't be able to refuse to deliver them a big sausage pizza as long as they remain civil and keep certain opinions to themselves during the transaction.

But on the other hand, I don't really give a rats ass about racist or anti-gay bigots. It is only out of the necessity for the consistency that I think they should have any rights at all. When I step back, and look at it from a perspective outside of US society, it makes me laugh to think of them sent off to re-education camps.

[cronus]

Society moves two steps forward and a step back. There's been two steps forward in the liberal approach to life and now must come the one step back where albeit ground appears to be lost as bigots claim their rights, so also there is consolidation on some gains for the long term. That is how it works. There is no pathway directly to nirvana. Things are tested in times of social regress. The good is some good will come through. The bad is some ground may be lost, or appear that way. Until the next great spasm of social evolutionary progress, or whatever.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

He has an unassailable right to hold religious or indeed secular moral objections to gay weddings, gays, hippies, Marxists, Republicans, Democrats, KKK members, Black Panthers, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, women, children, men, dogs, cats, and any other group, collective, species, or individual he pleases and no one has even the smallest right or authority to use government force to punish or "train" him or his employees into acceptance or "sensitivity" towards anyone.

I agree, Seth, that he has such a right to hold moral objections of that nature. Of course, I also have a right to consider him to be a narrow-minded bigot...

I also agree that "sensitivity training" seems to be politically correct bullshit.

However, his was an action, not just holding a belief, in refusing to serve someone because of aspects of their lifestyle. If such an action is against state law, then he should accept that he has contravened it. If he or others feel it is a bad law, then they should start a political campaign against it.

The state law violates his federal constitutional First Amendment rights, and therefore it is no law at all and may not be enforced. That's the claim being made here, and it's a good one.

]It is an interesting debate, in terms of refusing to serve someone because of your personal views of them (I did take from the article that he would serve gays for ordinary purchases, he simply objected to providing a wedding cake because of his objections to gay marriage. This is a somewhat lower level of prejudice, I concur...)

There is a spectrum, obviously. Anyone other than a KKK member would object, I presume, to an ambulance man refusing to treat an injured person because they are black. Presumably, the same should apply to refusal to treat someone because they are gay...

At the other extreme, (this occurred recently, from memory), a wedding photographer refusing to take a commission to photograph a gay wedding, should not, in my opinion, be subject to legal sanction, although I reserve my right to call him a bigoted plonker...

The important point here is not simply that someone doesn't like someone else because of their class status, which precludes the ambulance example you cite, the issue here is the conflict between First Amendment religious and free speech rights and forced participation or facilitation of religiously objectionable acts by the customer. I keep pointing out the neo-Nazi/Holocaust survivor example and everyone just ignores it.

Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs by mandating that they participate or facilitate in an abhorrent religiously-proscribed act is morally and legally wrong.

Requiring a KKK member to serve a black customer in the same manner as he serves white customers is not because the objection is not legitimately a matter of religious conscience, as the Court has examined and ruled in the past.

The Supreme Court, and in fact no Colorado court has considered this particular issue, and that needs to happen. This is a perfect case ripe for adjudication.

You can call him anything you want and refuse to do business with him and even picket his business, but the government cannot sanction him for obeying his deeply held religious beliefs. That's flatly unconstitutional, even when the individual is engaged in commerce. The government cannot compel a Kosher or Halal butcher to slaughter and butcher pigs, no matter how much someone might want bacon.

[MrJonno]

Requiring a KKK member to serve a black customer in the same manner as he serves white customers is not because the objection is not legitimately a matter of religious conscience, as the Court has examined and ruled in the past.

Well I follow the great God Marx creator of the universe ,socialism and unfunny black and white tv. To be loyal to my faith I may not service libertarians who are Satan's work. What gives you the right to force me break my faith.

Religion and political belief are the same thing, any political belief can be a religion and any religion a political belief

[piscator]

If Phillips goes to jail, it will be because he broke the law. His Phelpsian faith has nothing to do with it; his illegal actions have everything to do with it.
If Glenn Beck really believes in Phillips' cause, he should refuse to broadcast to everyone his religion is against, as a matter of principle. For what is faith without acts?

[MrJonno]

I thought the US Supreme court had made it perfectly clear that freedom of religion is not the same as freedom of religious practice and is certainly not a get out of jail card for any behaviour that breaks other laws. ( why can't I sacrifice christian babies to ensure the sun rises)

[macdoc]

Yup - and what the lunacy of Maoist re-education is about is beyond me...just another braindead rant from the manufactured paranoia section of the chattering class.

[piscator]

The original Colorado Administrative Court decision for Summary Judgement in favor of the plaintif: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceDecision.pdf

[klr]

IMO, it should come down to whether the job is an inherently artistic expression or not.

A black guy shouldn't be forced to design a poster for a KKK meeting, but shouldn't be able to refuse to deliver them a big sausage pizza as long as they remain civil and keep certain opinions to themselves during the transaction.

But on the other hand, I don't really give a rats ass about racist or anti-gay bigots. It is only out of the necessity for the consistency that I think they should have any rights at all. When I step back, and look at it from a perspective outside of US society, it makes me laugh to think of them sent off to re-education camps.

I don't think anyone should be forced to design a KKK poster, but I know what you're saying.

[piscator]

In the decision, the Colorado court considered the issue of artistic expression (Free Speech) at length before it rendered its summary judgement against the presumptive cake artists. The cake "artists" who, BTW, completely refused to do business with the plaintiff before they had any idea how the plaintiff might want the cake decorated.


Moreover, the decision was based on explicit Colorado Law:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of . . . sexual orientation. . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

from Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S.