ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 09, 2018

Freedom of association lives

For the time being, anyhow:
A California trial court has upheld a Christian baker's right to refuse to create a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, but the decision comes as a similar case is already pending in the nation's highest court.

Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller's freedom of speech "outweighs" the state of California's interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace, Judge David R. Lampe said in his decision in the Superior Court of California in Kern County, one of the state's 58 trial courts.

Standing to set a legal precedent is the case of Colorado baker and Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, deliberated before the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2017. A ruling is expected within months in Phillips' fight to limit his creativity as a wedding cake baker to marriages between a man and a woman.
No one should ever have to bake a damn cake for anyone. It's absurd that this is even an issue at all.

Labels:

63 Comments:

Blogger James Dixon February 09, 2018 1:03 PM  

They want me to "create" a cake for them? Yeah, I could have lot of fun with that, but somehow I don't think they would like the result. There are so many ways it could be done.

Blogger Richard Holmes February 09, 2018 1:04 PM  

Like you said, gays are different. Someone told them no and they won't be having none of that. Seeing they think they have the power of law to push their will on someone that told them no.

Blogger Constantin February 09, 2018 1:05 PM  

It may be short-lived, but I'll take it.

Blogger Deckard February 09, 2018 1:13 PM  

So sorry, we accidentally added salt instead of sugar. Everyone makes mistakes!

Blogger James Dixon February 09, 2018 1:18 PM  

> So sorry, we accidentally added salt instead of sugar.

Chocolate Ex-lax. And I doubt they would like the decoration either.

Blogger S1AL February 09, 2018 1:18 PM  

"So sorry, we accidentally added salt instead of sugar. Everyone makes mistakes!"

Bake cake.

Leave out half of ingredients.

'We believe it's fitting for the ceremony.'

Blogger Jehu February 09, 2018 1:19 PM  

A wedding cake is propaganda. At least, a good one is.
Honestly I don't believe in the whole common carrier line of reasoning that the courts do these days. The only case where I can see it is when a carrier has been granted a legal monopoly on service in an area. For instance, if only one cake vendor was legally allowed to sell wedding cakes, there might be a justification for forcing them to make cakes towards any 'wedding'.
On the positive side, I understand the Bermuda is repealing their homogamy laws, being the first anywhere to 'turn back the clock'.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 09, 2018 1:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger lowercaseb February 09, 2018 1:24 PM  

S1AL wrote:Bake cake.

Leave out half of ingredients.

'We believe it's fitting for the ceremony.'


Brilliant. Absolutely BRILLIANT!

Blogger Fifty Seven February 09, 2018 1:31 PM  

Twice as much of half the ingredients and none of the rest.

Enjoy your five pounds of flour, salt, baking powder and butter.

Blogger The Chortling February 09, 2018 1:34 PM  

>>No one should ever have to bake a damn cake for anyone.<<

what about a sandwich?

Blogger FP February 09, 2018 1:36 PM  

My preferred argument to the cake baking deal is to compare it to forcing a Green Bay baker to bake a cake celebrating the awesomeness that is the Chicago Bears. Make the reference as silly and crude as desired or needed to drive the point home.

Blogger Silly but True February 09, 2018 1:43 PM  

California has the positive consent law so lesbian couples can't just force themselves on a cake baker. #NoMeansNo

Blogger Daniel Bendele February 09, 2018 1:52 PM  

It was never about cakes. It's about destroying the lives and businesses of those who oppose leftist ideology.

Blogger James Dixon February 09, 2018 1:55 PM  

> It's about destroying the lives and businesses of those who oppose leftist ideology.

While in the more general case that's true, in this case they're specifically targeting Christians.

Blogger boubin2 February 09, 2018 2:05 PM  

When I was in the USN we had a harbor pilot we had to take out to ships entering the harbor. H e was a totaal dick and would order us on the tug crew to go get him a cup of coffee.

I soon became familair with a new term "dirty dick". As in "I am going to dirty dick his coffee cup." I will let your imagination take it from here.

Making someone prepare food items for you that does not want to make food items for you is at your risk.

Blogger Craig Cousins February 09, 2018 2:09 PM  

Making someone prepare food items for you that does not want to make food items for you is at your risk.
This is also why you should always remain cordial with waitstaff until after you've received your meal.

Blogger Junius Stone February 09, 2018 2:12 PM  

Ultimately, this is spiritual warfare manifesting.

Blogger Danby February 09, 2018 2:17 PM  

Craig Cousins wrote:This is also why you should always remain cordial with waitstaff until after you've received your meal.
You should always remain cordial to your wait staff.
ALWAYS
Unless they evince hostility, there's no excuse for abusing the help. Noblesse Oblige and all that.

Blogger Jon Mollison February 09, 2018 2:29 PM  

"Phillips' fight to limit his creativity as a wedding cake baker"

That's some might hard word twisting to force what's going on here into the proper narrative. Is it getting harder for them to justify this stuff, or are they just getting worse at it?

Blogger seeingsights February 09, 2018 2:39 PM  

FB,
If I was a Supreme Court justice I would pose that hypothetical to the lawyers in the case.
On a related note I think that SCOTUS will rule in favor of the bakers. I know that Justice Kennedy is has ruled for gays, however he has a wide view of freedom of speech.

Blogger OGRE February 09, 2018 2:40 PM  

I'd consider it unlikely to stand on appeal. Unfortunately the way the laws have been put in place it becomes an issue of free speech vs public accommodation. Normally free speech should win out, being a fundamental right such that the state needs to prove the offending law is 'narrowly tailored to achieve a substantial government interest,' which is a very high standard. But the lefties on the courts are quite adept at twisting logic and the plain meaning of words to suit their desires.

It shouldn't even need to be framed in this way to begin with. As Vox says, nobody should ever have to bake a cake for anybody. Period. But it goes back to the absurd anti-discrimination laws, and these public accomodation laws that were intended to combat racism are simply a little farther down the slippy slide. Once its established that a vendor must provide their goods and services to protected classes of people, its all a matter of cramming yourself into a protected class, or creating a new class that needs protecting. But no matter how its dressed up, its compelled action--using government force to compel a person to do a certain thing against their will. That should be a total anathema to a free society in all but the most necessary of circumstances. But the leftists inched their way in with the anti-discrimination laws and now they are being used to normalize perversion and blasphemy. The same laws will soon be used to compel churches to marry gays, because thats the end game for the left in these matters.

Blogger pyrrhus February 09, 2018 2:43 PM  

The Bar Association regulations and code of ethics governing attorneys specifically state that an attorney should not represent people that he would have a conflict or discomfort with representing, or feels that he could not represent at the highest level. So attorneys only represent people that they want to represent, and there is no recourse against me if I turn you down as a client....So it's 100% hypocritical when a Judge rules that someone has to bake a cake, or perform any other service, for any reason....

Blogger tublecane February 09, 2018 2:49 PM  

"Cathy Miller's freedom of speech 'outweighs' the state of California's interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace"

Free speech? Even when they get it right, they get it wrong.

Freely accessible marketplace? Say there's no such thing as free speech. I walk into a sports accessory store and ask them to bake me a gay wedding cake. They say, "Sorry, we don't sell cakes here. Try the bakery down the street."

Does the fact that I have feet and can walk make the bakery freely accessible, or should the state of California demand the first store I stop at gimme my dang cake?

Blogger tublecane February 09, 2018 2:55 PM  

@2-I saw a description of a movie recently that had a couple of gay guys being turned away from a bed and breakfast, so they get revenge. It wasn't a screwball comedy or a horror movie where they're the villains, I don't think. That was just the jumping-off point, and it was treated as the most normal thing on the world.

I don't know about you, but if I get personally offended by service or lackthereof, I don't get all self-righteous about it. "How dare they do this to *me*! Don't they know who I am? I'm me!"

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener February 09, 2018 3:00 PM  

And what if the baker charges too much for the cake? Now we need price controls too.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 09, 2018 3:06 PM  

@21 "The same laws will soon be used to compel churches to marry gays, because thats the end game for the left in these matters."

Silly Ogre! That's just the next way station for the left!! End game?! Why, it's not even the end of the first quarter!

Blogger Brad Matthews February 09, 2018 3:12 PM  

Ha

Blogger Valtandor Nought February 09, 2018 3:13 PM  

tublecane,

I think the precedent they're trying to establish here is that a business that is willing to supply good or service A to Alice must, in the name of "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination", be willing to supply similar or related good or service A' to Bob.*

For what it's worth, I think that even apart from objections in principle, the idea is horrendous. Unless you're in a particular sector that is specifically regulated (liquor outlets, for instance), normally by an accessible statute, how are you, the business owner, to know how that legal principle applies to you? That is, given any specific A and A', and any specific Alice and Bob, how are you to know whether, having previously served Alice, you can lawfully refuse service to Bob? The only way is if Bob litigates, and I understand that very rarely does any defendant win (in a business sense) when dragged into court.

Myself, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that apart from specifically regulated trades or professions** and maybe other narrow circumstances (e.g. monopolies or cartels supplying truly necessary goods or services), the individual businessman should be free to serve, or refuse service to, whomever he pleases.

* I can imagine there being exceptions, such as a genuine and well-founded doubt as to the ability and willingness of Bob to pay, but it would be up to the business owner to prove that these exceptions are applicable in the particular case.
** Even there, wise lawmakers and courts would only regulate the trade or profession in the case that, and to the extent that, there is a clear public interest in doing so, and "public interest" does not extend to "making some random Joe Bloggs feel good about himself".

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 09, 2018 3:14 PM  

Day of the ceremony call them and tell them you are running a bit late, if there had been no deposit I would not have even measured out the ingredients.

Too bad we have to settle for being a jerk society, but hey they want tribalism we will give it to them.

Blogger Ingot9455 February 09, 2018 3:22 PM  

To repeat myself, there's never been any danger of the gays in question getting a spit-cake.

They go to 500 bakers with their script, find out the one who denies them, and that's the one they sue. In fact, if they find three who won't bake the cake, they investigate them to find out which one of them would make the weakest case, so they can set precedent in the courts.

These cases rely on, as was said before in different terms, 'places of public accomodation' laws. Only for specific things like food and transportation, certain states/municipalities have laws that 'places of public accomodation' can't discriminate - so a grocery store can't refuse food to starving blacks or a train can't make them sit in a special car.

This is an attempt to leverage those laws to destroy free association rights and free speech rights.

Blogger Crew February 09, 2018 3:48 PM  

The obvious response in the case of something your principles will not let you do is to demur with the response that you already have more orders than you can handle on that day.

Of course, you must find out from them which day the want the cake before giving that response.

The point here is to give an excuse that cannot be used in court to limit freedom of association.

Blogger Valtandor Nought February 09, 2018 3:53 PM  

Or decide that the day in question would be an excellent time to go on vacation.

Blogger Latigo3 February 09, 2018 3:54 PM  

If a judge was going to rule in this manner, then Bakersfield is the place.

I love the 99 Highway and Bakersfield is at the southern end of it. Bakersfield is a lot like the Midwest, lots of people came over during the Dust Bowl and settled in Central California.

Every once in a while I get gays that come to my church and i know they are checking it out to see what I preach, inevitably they do not come back after one service, sometimes it takes a little while but they begin to realize that we believe and preach what the Bible preaches. Soon thereafter they are gone.
We are in the process of altering our Church By-Laws, because I know the day is coming that some gay couple is going to come in and want me to officiate their marriage.
#freedomofassociation

Blogger tublecane February 09, 2018 3:55 PM  

@28-That may be what they'll get around to eventually, but right now it's not an Alice/Bob matter. It's a matter of not being able to "discriminate" on the basis of certain methods for getting rocks off. If Bob gets his rocks off one way, and society recognizes his identity as wrapped up in that way, then he's a protected class and you have to serve him.

So there not yet the confusion to which you refer. They are, or were, making it very clear that you don't cross homos. You serve them however you want.

It really shouldn't be any different than demanding cakes be served in bicycle shops. But our legal system is outside of this case busy trying to destroy civilization, so what do I expect?

Blogger Jon Mollison February 09, 2018 3:56 PM  

@28: They don't even believe that. They've been tying themselves in knots trying to explain why cakes should be required by law to serve everyone, but social media companies should be required by law to ban anyone to the right of Che.

This is a power play, plain and simple. It's an effort to shove Christianity into a dark hole and bury it, because they know Christendom is the single greatest threat to their utopian hegemonic plans.

Blogger Ken Prescott February 09, 2018 4:01 PM  

"It's an effort to shove Christianity into a dark hole and bury it, because they know Christendom is the single greatest threat to their utopian hegemonic plans."

Actually, their own utopian hegemonic plans are the single greatest threat to their utopian hegemonic plans. Christendom is their one hope for avoiding the Wrath of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.

Blogger Doug Cranmer February 09, 2018 4:07 PM  

However this ends, and in my gut I feel it's going to be killing fields and rivers of blood, but when we rebuild, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION must be one of the defining principles of our new society.

Trained and armed should be in the first two as well.

Blogger Ryan McConnell February 09, 2018 4:07 PM  

I don't understand why a well-funded philanthropist hasn't bankrolled an effort to turn the tables. Send out a conservative, Bible-believing couple to 100 bakeries owned by gay people (they wouldn't be hard to find in major metro areas like DC, NY, LA, etc.). Tell them you want a cake that reads, "Men who have sex with men will not inherit the Kingdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 6

Then ask them to bake the cake. At least one, if not more, will refuse. Then sue them under public accommodation laws for refusing service based on religion/creed of the customer, which is a protected class. Make them live by their own rules.

Blogger Jon Mollison February 09, 2018 4:15 PM  

@38: They have tried. The judiciary is broken.

I've heard of people trying to get Jewish bakeries to make Nazi cakes and other trying to get Muslim-owned bakeries to bake cakes with pictures of Mohammed on them. Conveniently enough, the courts won't touch those because "Hate Speech".

They don't understand that if the only recourse allowed involves blood in the streets, they're going to get blood in the streets. Hope he can reign in the courts and preventing that outcome is one of many reasons I stand behind the God Emperor.

Blogger Starboard February 09, 2018 4:37 PM  


“Go ahead, eat the cake. I’m sure it’s fine”

Off topic old news about being able to trust those who make your food/drinks:

https://veteranaf.com/starbucks-employee-puts-blood-feces-customers-food-drinks/

Blogger DonReynolds February 09, 2018 4:43 PM  

Anyone who has been in business knows there is business, maybe not every day, but certainly every week, that you refuse. The reasons may be many, at the same time, but in the end...you always have the right and the ability and occasionally even an obligation to refuse. No reason is required, just say no thanks anyway.

But by arguing that business does not have the ability to refuse business, they are saying that a business must accept whatever trade walks through the door. That may mean selling at a loss or accepting an offer they cannot perform. By making that argument, they are saying that every boycott that ever existed is also illegal and that customers have an obligation to trade with the closest retailer, or certainly locally.

The case of homosexuals and wedding cakes is particularly bewildering. Very many of the cake bakers are themselves homosexual and would probably be happy to bake the cake for free! So I suspect either a conspiracy to drive out Christian competition or simply a way to shake the money tree with a frivolous lawsuit. Both of which would either be a tort or a crime, depending on the state.

Blogger Thucydides February 09, 2018 5:01 PM  

Slightly OT, but the Government of Canada is now demanding that Facebook police "Fake News" better.

No this does not mean CNN can no longer be posted or linked on Facebook, but rather the Government of Canada gets to decide what is Fake or not. Given the rather enthusiastic response of Facebook and other Social Media to censorship demands in other countries, you Americans may be the last light of freedom.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/02/08/trudeau-to-facebook-fix-your-fake-news-problem-or-else.html

We really need those alt-tech social media and other sites.....

Blogger James Dixon February 09, 2018 5:03 PM  

> You should always remain cordial to your wait staff.

Yes. That doesn't mean they should get a tip.

> These cases rely on, as was said before in different terms, 'places of public accomodation' laws.

And if they were only asking for a baked cake, already made or of a preset design, they might have a case. They were asking for a custom made cake. They're not in the same category.

> Or decide that the day in question would be an excellent time to go on vacation.

Or simply take the day off sick. A 24 hour bug, don't you know.

> It's an effort to shove Christianity into a dark hole and bury it, because they know Christendom is the single greatest threat to their utopian hegemonic plans.

Exactly.

Blogger DonReynolds February 09, 2018 5:05 PM  

Jehu wrote:A wedding cake is propaganda. At least, a good one is.

Honestly I don't believe in the whole common carrier line of reasoning that the courts do these days. The only case where I can see it is when a carrier has been granted a legal monopoly on service in an area. For instance, if only one cake vendor was legally allowed to sell wedding cakes, there might be a justification for forcing them to make cakes towards any 'wedding'.

On the positive side, I understand the Bermuda is repealing their homogamy laws, being the first anywhere to 'turn back the clock'.


Excellent comment and summary.
Common carrier is granted a government issued monopoly and thus the same government has an obligation to protect the public from monopoly abuses. Where no monopoly exists, there is no requirement to protect the public.

I feel the same way about extraordinary abuses visited around the nonsense of "interstate commerce", which lately has been expanded wildly by the courts to make virtually everything a Federal matter. This also needs guidance by the Supreme Court.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2018 5:22 PM  

"The same laws will soon be used to compel churches to marry gays"

This is as much a result of overreach of said churches as it is of leftism. It's the equivalent of a thieving child having the results of their theft stolen by a bully.

"I think the precedent they're trying to establish here is that a business that is willing to supply good or service A to Alice must, in the name of "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination", be willing to supply similar or related good or service A' to Bob.*

For what it's worth, I think that even apart from objections in principle, the idea is horrendous."


It's not even as complicated as you're stating it. Under this principle it would be impossible to refuse to sell weapons to felons, bomb components to known jihadis, or for a pharmacy to sell drugs to addicts.

"FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION"

It's not even that complicated. This whole hullabaloo falls cleanly and firmly under U.S. Code for Forced Labor, href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1589">18 U.S. Code § 1589.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2018 5:24 PM  

Hmmn, link failure.

Blogger Zaklog the Great February 09, 2018 6:25 PM  

Christendom is their one hope for avoiding the Wrath of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.

Did someone say “copybook headings”?

https://youtu.be/-c0ZvPhEumk

Anonymous Anonymous February 09, 2018 6:32 PM  

My only concern with these cases is the attorneys arguing for our freedom to choose are not belaboring the 13th and 14th amendments enough.

If someone can force servitude from another person, it's a violation of the 13th amendment.
If someone can force servitude based on identity group, it's a violation of the equal protection clause.

I'm also not seeing leverage of "disparate impact" to put egg on the supremes' faces:

I'd love to see child support brought to the courts under the above 3 in combination and see how they squirm.

Blogger Robert What? February 09, 2018 6:39 PM  

Remember the old days when homosexual activists said they just wanted to be left alone to live their own lives? Fast forward to today: they don't want your tolerance. They don't even want your acceptance. Only enthusiastic celebration will be permitted.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 09, 2018 6:47 PM  

"I'd love to see child support brought to the courts under the above 3 in combination and see how they squirm."

Couldn't agree more. There need to be consequences, and right now the woman does not receive them.

Blogger wreckage February 09, 2018 11:05 PM  

It's amazing how fervently the left humps the leg of market utility when it suits them, only to decry the market as a very devil moments thereafter.

Blogger Dire Badger February 10, 2018 1:04 AM  

It makes perfect sense... after all, without wrecking the first amendment, how is the government supposed to start struggle sessions?

Blogger Dire Badger February 10, 2018 1:16 AM  

Next up- Nambla members sue bakers for refusing to bake a cake designed to look like a teen's butt.

Blogger Ryan G February 10, 2018 5:36 AM  

Remember back when all this started and all the activists said they weren't trying to force their views on anyone?

Remember when it was pointed out by objectors that acceptance for these people would never be enough and that, sooner or later, they would start making demands? Remember how they were ridiculed and told they were being reactionary and absurd?

Blogger Akulkis February 10, 2018 7:31 AM  

Teen? That's way too old.

Blogger James Dixon February 10, 2018 10:02 AM  

I guess it goes without saying that if there were long term repercussions on those bringing these suits, the powers that be would soon find their source of volunteers drying up. I suspect that will start happening eventually, just as it has at other times and places where the legal system was turned against the people.

Blogger Dire Badger February 10, 2018 11:01 AM  

Akulkis- I was having a hard time forcing myself to write 8 year old

Blogger Daniel February 10, 2018 12:32 PM  

I have read a smart aproach. Just tell the fags their money will be donated to a conservative cause. They cann't tell you what to dobwith your money. They will fuck off

Blogger Daniel February 10, 2018 12:36 PM  

You will not see it in the gaystream media though. Will have no impact

Blogger Daniel February 10, 2018 12:39 PM  

This

Blogger FP February 10, 2018 1:16 PM  

"If someone can force servitude from another person, it's a violation of the 13th amendment."

Well, see technically since there is a law against hate speech/bigoty/discrimination etc., you have committed a crime and now the government can indeed force you to perform labor against your will. The 13th bans slavery for everyone but government.

Blogger OneWingedShark February 11, 2018 8:21 PM  

aew51183 wrote:My only concern with these cases is the attorneys arguing for our freedom to choose are not belaboring the 13th and 14th amendments enough.

If someone can force servitude from another person, it's a violation of the 13th amendment.

If someone can force servitude based on identity group, it's a violation of the equal protection clause.


I think this is by design: by holding the issue as "freedom of speech" they avoid things like involuntary servitude or equal protection. In fact, I think it quite telling that this is considered a 1st Amendment issue at all: the first amendment is quite explicit in that it prohibits Congress from enacting certain laws, it simply doesn't apply to States or cities because neither has a Congress. (And there's the real issue: the courts deciding to simply make crap up instead of follow the Constitution.)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts