ADDENDUM::GOP state lawmakers vote to withhold funding for commission at center of Colorado baker case before U.S. Supreme Court – The Denver Post

Republican members of a powerful budget committee in the legislature on Thursday voted to withhold funding for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a move that could be revisited but which quickly stoked political outcry from Democrats and the LGBT community.

The commission is at the center of the pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving the refusal of Lakewood baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012.
,,,
State Sen. Kevin Lundberg, a Berthoud Republican who sits on the Joint Budget Committee, which held up the funding, said he voted to withhold money for the commission — which operates under the the Colorado Civil Rights Division — because he is waiting to see if lawmakers vote to renew the law to authorize the commission’s existence (which is coming this session).

“This is the commission who ruled against Masterpiece Cake, and now the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing that decision,” Lundberg said in a Facebook post. “My argument against approving their funding today is we need to wait and see what the legislature does with the renewal of the law authorizing the commission, which is up for sunset review in this session.”

GOP state lawmakers vote to withhold funding for commission at center of Colorado baker case before U.S. Supreme Court – The Denver Post

Pro-LGBT Colorado baker slapped with religious discrimination complaint - Out FrontOut Front

So why was my post concerning Theodore Shoebat important? Because some ass-wipe decided to test the waters and is now suing according to OutFront:

It was an hour into her shift when Lindsay Jones, a pastry chef at Denver’s Azucar Bakery, turned her attention from the full lobby to the “older, professional-looking” gentleman who’d just walked in. [Said gentleman has since been identified as Bill Jack, a founder of WorldView Academy].

There was nothing strange in his demeanor as he sidled up to the counter to place an order. In fact, he was friendly and his request for a Bible-shaped cake seemed simple enough. Azucar’s owner, Marjorie Silva, tells Out Front that her employees are no strangers to Christian-themed requests and regularly fill them.

“We make [Christian-themed] cakes all the time,” she says. “No problem at all.”
,,,
It was only when he produced a leaf of paper from his pocket — careful not to release it to any of the attending employees, but simply brandishing it for them to read before returning it to his pocket — that the order “got a little uncomfortable,” says Lindsay.

“He wanted us to write God hates …” she trails. “Just really radical stuff against gays.”

“He wouldn’t allow me to make a copy of the message, but it was really hateful,” Marjorie adds. “I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners.”
,,,
Marjorie offered to bake him the cake and sell him the appropriate tools to complete the task himself.
,,,
The third time the gentleman entered the store that day, Marjorie called for backup, asking her brother to excuse him.
,,,
"I would like to make it clear that we never refused service. We only refused to write and draw what we felt was discriminatory against gays. In the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."

Keep those last few lines in mind as that is what this incident boils down to and what separates this case from all the others. If DORA does their job properly, the only way they can rule is in favor of Silva.

That aside for the moment, there are some very interesting talking points concerning said incident.

1] Was Jack influenced by or aware of the Shoebat video or does he have any connection to Shoebat?

2] Same vane of thought, is Jack connected to Alliance Defending Freedom in any way? Maybe a crackpot supporter who thought this would advance their cause?

3] What about the First Amendment?

What one has to understand, no matter how despicable Jack's request was - "God Hates Fags" - it is protected by the First Amendment. "We" may call it hate speech, but the courts look at it more as "speech that is hateful" so long as it DOES NOT promote imminent violence, or as the court termed "fighting words" (cf. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 1942). More recent, in Synder v Phelps (2011), "Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

So in this incident, if we were focus only on what Jack wanted printed, we have a balancing act between yelling "fire in a theatre and causing a panic" (Schenck v. United States, 1919) versus "speech that is hateful" but not causing imminent harm.

4] Doesn't the First Amendment also protect Silva?

This is a hard one to answer and I couldn't find a definitive answer either way. In other words, I couldn't find a law that says point blank "you don't have to disseminate hateful speech." The closest analogous situation I can think of is the recent ruling of CHARLIE CRAIG and DAVID MULLINS v. MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, INC. and,,,JACK C. PHILLIPS (2013), where Craig and Mullins where refused service by Phillips because of their sexual orientation. Masterpiece Cakeshop is a place of public accommodation and is therefore required to follow Colorado's Civil Rights Law which was revised in 2008 to include sexual orientation.

In one portion of the administrative hearing, Phillips' attorney argued that requiring him (Phillips) to prepare a gay marriage cake would be akin to forcing a black baker to prepare a cake with a white supremacist message. To which Judge Robert N. Spencer disagreed, stating:

Finally, Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech. (pp.8-9)

"In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers' free speech right to refuse," This is why Silva should be on the winning side of this complaint.

5] Remember I said to keep this in mind, "I would like to make it clear that we never refused service. We only refused to write and draw what we felt was discriminatory against gays. In the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."

The trolls are having a field day with this incident, twisting Silva's "refusal" to disseminate hateful speech into an outright refusal of service. I found this insightful comment helpful:

To be completely analogous to the anti-gay wedding bakery, the anti-gay wedding bakery would have offered to bake and decorate the cake minus the dolls on top and offered two same sex dolls for the customer to place on their own, which would have been reasonable. Instead, that bakery refused to provide their basic service completely. If this bakery had simply told the guy to "take a hike" then there might actually be a case. However, they offered to provide the service that they provide to all their customers.

Another way the analogy between the situations breaks down is the distinction between production and intended use of purchased commodity. The scope of interest for a business is the selling and/or manufacture of goods. The intent of the purchaser is immaterial to that process (unless legally mandated-ie. pharmaceuticals, etc.). In the first case, that anti-gay baker refused to provide their publicly available services based on perceived intent of the purchaser without legal authority. In the second case, The baker refused to create a new service that they do not provide as a business, offered a compromise service where they perform their normal publicly available service plus providing the materials necessary for the customer to meet their own request. The customer's intended use of the product never factored in.

Where Phillips went wrong is that he out-right refused a service/product (providing a wedding cake) that he normally provides to any other customer. Where Silva went right, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."

Where Jack went wrong, he assumed Silva would cow-tow to his wishes because he is a Christian and his beliefs are sacrosanct and should never be questioned. Where Silva went right, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."

A very simple and reasonable policy.

Pro-LGBT Colorado baker slapped with religious discrimination complaint - Out FrontOut Front

Christian Baker Ordered to Bake Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Files Appeal | Christian News Network

Remember this post where Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera were gloating about what Hobby Lobby was really about? Well it appears that Jack Phillips or should I say Alliance Defending Freedom is ready to argue that state laws do not apply to Christians when Christians disagree with said state law, "[i]n May, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law."

It is just this issue that Barry Lynne of Americans United for Separation of Church and State was concerned about in regards to the Hobby Lobby case. Lynn stated that the primary concern is contraceptive coverage under the ACA; but the agenda of the Religious Right is the right to opt out of ANY federal or state law(s) they do not like because of actual or alleged violation of THEIR religious principles.

As with Elane Photography (also represented by ADF), Phillips is going to argue that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's ruling violates his First Amendment rights by compelling him to engage in "speech" he doesn't believe in. This is the tactic ADF hopes to use, a "conservative social agenda in terms of protecting religious freedom instead of enforcing “family values — a subtle but profound shift in the culture war that deliberately moves the religious right from offense to defense for the first time in decades."

With that said, all the legal mumbo jumbo aside, Phillips and the ADF are still blatantly asking to be allowed to break a law because they are special. They are asking for a special privilege because they are religionists. Even if one where to take religion out of it, they are still wanting to break the law.

"The anti-gay, anti-freedom to marry crowd, having largely lost the argument on gay people and on marriage, are resorting to a distraction argument that is aimed at tearing a hole in the longstanding protections we have in this country against public accommodation discrimination,” said Evan Wolfson, head of the pro-LGBT rights group Freedom to Marry. “Their quarrel is not really just with marriage, it’s with the whole idea of non-discrimination law that we’ve fought hard for over decades through many difficult chapters of American history.”

Entering the commercial marketplace means having to abide by its rules against discrimination. In other words, you can not offer a "limited menu" based on your preference(s). If you open a business, ALL services must be available to ALL consumers. It falls under the general purview of the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Adam Serwer, in his piece cited above, sums up quite well the precedent opened by the Hobby Lobby case and the agenda behind it, "Cases like these aren’t just about legal precedents, they’re about shaping how society decides which freedom it wants to protect with the force of the law—the right not to be discriminated against, or the right of individual entities to decide whom they want to serve and how."

Christian Baker Ordered to Bake Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Files Appeal | Christian News Network