Business, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Masterpiece Cakeshop

14 Comments

Thoughts from Mark Randazza:

Ultimately, in this case, nobody really “won.” The baker “wins” because technically he “won.” But, all he “won” was the right to have the charges brought against him without the administrative panel making snarky comments about his religious beliefs.

The cause of gay rights was not advanced at all. And, the real issue here — the First Amendment issue, is not being addressed at all — except in a pretty damn good concurrence by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch. (Starts on Page 38 of 59) His concurrence is, of course, foreshadowing either the majority or the minority when this case finally comes to a head. Thomas (I believe correctly) says that designing a wedding cake is no mere act of throwing eggs and flour into a bowl – but is full of artistic creativity. Harnessing (or enslaving) an artist to create that which he does not wish to create is a travesty against the First Amendment.

Yes, that is the argument, despite the continuing nonsense about how it was “discriminating against gays” (I got into a Twitter discussion with an idiot about this yesterday). And SCOTUS punted on the underlying issue. It’s not just a travesty against the First Amendment, but tyrannical.

[Thursday-afternoon update]

One of the legal team who defended Phillips explains why it’s not as much of a nothingburger as some are saying.

[Bumped]

14 thoughts on “Masterpiece Cakeshop”

  1. Dunno. I wish they had ruled on the main issue. But I think it’s good that we have a clear ruling that a judge actively hostile to religion is not doing his job and will be reversed. Good to have that in the bank.

  2. “Hi, nice to meet you Mr. Spielberg. I want to hire you to direct a gay porn film.”
    “No thanks.”
    “You’re discriminating against me. See you in court.”

  3. I agree with Rush’s assessment; can you imagine had bad it would be if the ruling went the other way. As the first commenter to Randazza notes; it doesn’t seem like the Justices were into a broad ruling.

  4. What happens if you force a craftsman to do something they don’t want to?
    In the series Tank Overhaul: Panther there is a brief mention that the Nazi regime had forced foreign skilled labor to work in the war industry with predictable results: “screws broken off in machines, cigarette butts in oil lines, etc…”
    So, do you want a eat something from a server that really doesn’t like you?

    1. 1. They didn’t want a cake, they wanted a court case. Eating it was irrelevant.

      2. They know Christians wouldn’t crap in a wedding cake, unlike ‘Progressives’.

      1. The second point is the key here– Progressives use the civility of the people they hate as a weapon against those people. Being a bully is okay if you have the bending arc of history on your side.

      2. “1. They didn’t want a cake, they wanted a court case. Eating it was irrelevant.”

        Could very well be true. However there’s also the factor that, these days, large numbers of people WANT to be part of an oppressed group. Gives them a sort of meaning that they haven’t got otherwise. The very words “MeToo” indicates that. Just look at people like Dolezal and the people who have faked racial or sexual outrages.

        1. people WANT to be part of an oppressed group.

          Like having yourself SWATted? Asking for a non-friend.

  5. If a Neo-Nazi couple walked into that same bakery and demanded a cake with a swastika and the words “Arbeit Macht Frei” on the cake and the baker said no – death camps and mass slaughter is against my religion – NO ONE would object (except maybe the Neo_Nazi’s). Certainly the Lefty, Virtue Signaling, I-don’t-have-to-suffer-from-my-demands, chardonnay drinkers wouldn’t complain.

    Situational ethics are the Keystone of the Left.

    1. If someone went into a Jewish bakery and demanded a Nazi cake, no one would complain about them refusing. If someone went into a Muslim-owned bakery and wanted a Jewish or Christian themed cake, few would dare complain if the baker refused the order. This was an in-your-face attempt at cohesion of a Christian baker to violate his religious beliefs. I’m pleasantly surprised the supreme court sided with him.

  6. ” If someone went into a Muslim-owned bakery and wanted a Jewish or Christian themed cake, few would dare complain if the baker refused the order. ”

    Too true. No one would have the stones to do that.

    Even if members from NOW demanded a feminist-themed cake from a Muslim bakery, they would say nothing if they were refused.

    1. Actually, Steven Crowder (I think?) released a video a while back where he went into several Muslim bakeries and asked them to make a gay marriage cake.

Comments are closed.