I know this is old news, but it's still important. Below is a copy of my facebook thesis I posted on August 29, 2015 about how the Colorado Court of Appeals tortured reason and justice in upholding punishment against the baker man who conscientiously refused to bake a cake that celebrated someone else's gay marriage (case filed August 13, 2015). As in the original facebook post, the below blog post is only the introduction; the specific points - the meat of the discussion - take place in the Comments below it. So be sure to check out the Comments. Enjoy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have spent over two weeks trying to make sense of the reasoning behind the Colorado Court of Appeals’ recent upholding judgment against the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. for discrimination against patrons based on their sexual orientation. The entire court decision can be read at: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceAppealsDecision.pdf, as well as in Comments below.
This court decision involves many topics, like religious liberty, the right to refrain from speaking other people’s messages, motion to dismiss, etc. However, the only topic concerning me presently is the court’s decision to equate the baker’s actions with orientation-based discrimination. This topic is covered in paragraphs 25-39 of the decision. Here is my quick summary of these paragraphs:
Discrimination because of patron orientation is prohibited (para. 27). The baker insists that his discrimination was because of his moral refusal to get materially involved in a celebration of other people’s controversial behavior (para. 25, 30). Yet the court calls this a distinction without a difference, because “but for” patron orientation, the baker’s discrimination would never have happened and the patron was part of a “protected class” (para. 28, 34). The court asserts that same-sex marriage and same-sex orientation are “inextricably tied” (para. 35) and “cannot be divorced” because the act of same-sex marriage is “engaged in exclusively or predominantly” by gays (para. 34). When the baker’s defense cited a previous court case actually requiring plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits to prove that defendants have some “class-based…discriminatory animus,” the Colorado Court disregarded this precedent, insisting that CADA (Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act) “requires no such showing of animus” (para. 36, 37), and added that even if CADA did require such “intent to discriminate” (animus), the previous judge could have simply “inferred” it from the baker’s conduct - that he intended to discriminate because of sexual orientation (para. 38). The court even likened the act of same-sex marrying by gays to the act of yarmulke-wearing by Jews, intimating that gays are expected to pursue same-sex marriage just as Jews are expected to wear yarmulkes on their heads at all times (para. 39).
But don’t take my word for it. Please read paragraphs 25-39 for yourself, either at the link above or in Comments below (which omit footnotes for space). Each Comment quotes one paragraph and includes my response to it. You are welcome to Reply to either of these or just add general Comments at the bottom. I’m not looking for fan support and don’t need inquisitions. If you want to discuss personal matters, please send a private message or post a new discussion on your own page with my name tagged in it.
You may now proceed to Comments. Make sure you start at paragraph 25. You may need to click "View more comments" or something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have spent over two weeks trying to make sense of the reasoning behind the Colorado Court of Appeals’ recent upholding judgment against the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. for discrimination against patrons based on their sexual orientation. The entire court decision can be read at: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceAppealsDecision.pdf, as well as in Comments below.
This court decision involves many topics, like religious liberty, the right to refrain from speaking other people’s messages, motion to dismiss, etc. However, the only topic concerning me presently is the court’s decision to equate the baker’s actions with orientation-based discrimination. This topic is covered in paragraphs 25-39 of the decision. Here is my quick summary of these paragraphs:
Discrimination because of patron orientation is prohibited (para. 27). The baker insists that his discrimination was because of his moral refusal to get materially involved in a celebration of other people’s controversial behavior (para. 25, 30). Yet the court calls this a distinction without a difference, because “but for” patron orientation, the baker’s discrimination would never have happened and the patron was part of a “protected class” (para. 28, 34). The court asserts that same-sex marriage and same-sex orientation are “inextricably tied” (para. 35) and “cannot be divorced” because the act of same-sex marriage is “engaged in exclusively or predominantly” by gays (para. 34). When the baker’s defense cited a previous court case actually requiring plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits to prove that defendants have some “class-based…discriminatory animus,” the Colorado Court disregarded this precedent, insisting that CADA (Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act) “requires no such showing of animus” (para. 36, 37), and added that even if CADA did require such “intent to discriminate” (animus), the previous judge could have simply “inferred” it from the baker’s conduct - that he intended to discriminate because of sexual orientation (para. 38). The court even likened the act of same-sex marrying by gays to the act of yarmulke-wearing by Jews, intimating that gays are expected to pursue same-sex marriage just as Jews are expected to wear yarmulkes on their heads at all times (para. 39).
But don’t take my word for it. Please read paragraphs 25-39 for yourself, either at the link above or in Comments below (which omit footnotes for space). Each Comment quotes one paragraph and includes my response to it. You are welcome to Reply to either of these or just add general Comments at the bottom. I’m not looking for fan support and don’t need inquisitions. If you want to discuss personal matters, please send a private message or post a new discussion on your own page with my name tagged in it.
You may now proceed to Comments. Make sure you start at paragraph 25. You may need to click "View more comments" or something.
