Please read, "Disclaimer" if you haven't already. It helps explain my process with, "The Leftovers" from idea to concept, from writing to publishing. Thank you.
This is a detour from the series, An Open Letter to "The Right". However, it does involve conservative ideologies.
Edited: 02-26-2018; Grammatically
Edited: 04-21-2018; Visually
_________________________________________________________________________________
If you're unfamiliar with the case, feel free to read any of the following links.
Wikipedia.org - Politico - The New York Times - NPR
I had heard about this case but, had no idea it was already headed to the Supreme Court. The events leading up to the creation of this case happened 5 years ago.
The case has been discussed all over the internet and one article even made it into my Facebook news feed.
I identify as being on, "The Left", for better or worse. I've said many times before how political internet quizzes and polls consistently label me as a "bleeding heart liberal" and even though I don't know what this means exactly, I'm okay with it.
However, I also live in Alabama and a lot of my family and friends are a part of, "The Right", so I expect these kinds of stories to pass by every once in a while.
For maximum effect, here is the complete online/social media tally from the perspective of an openly gay, atheist, Democrat living in Alabama on the date of December 6, 2017.
I first visited Reddit and saw a few early reports about the GOP's 390 billion dollar miscalculation on their new tax plan, then I traveled to Facebook, which, brought me the article about the case, I then responded to a post made by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby to inform him the word "bipartisan" means "both parties" (he misused the word entirely), and then I went on to Twitter where I saw more reports and a confirmation of the GOP's tax plan's miscalculations, followed by new reports of Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Natalia Kislyak, a bunch of updates to the scoreboard of "The Right" versus "The Left" in regards to sexual assault/abuse/harassment, and wrapped it all up with a smattering of "The Left" supports "killing babies", FUN!
I'm just, LIVING THE DREAM!
If you're one of those people who ever wonders why I don't focus more time on writing something funny, or happy, or positive, now you have an idea as to why.
Back to the article in question.
Let's start with the title, as one should;
Get a grip.
The writer provides a link and then chastises those who are "too lazy" to click on it, classy...
Here is the actual scenario, from Wikipedia.org;
Mr. Phillips can make cakes, he just has to offer them to all patrons. Mr. Phillips chose not to do this based on his religious beliefs. This is identical to the situation with the bakery in Oregon not too long ago, (Sweet Cakes by Melissa).
The state of Colorado is one of the twenty-one states with anti-discrimination laws which include sexual orientation. Again, one of the twenty-one states.
Mr. Phillips offered other baked goods for the couple to purchase. This response brings up so many questions. Could Mr. Phillips make a cake out of other baked goods? A cookie cake? A cupcake-cake? A donut cake?
What about drawing genitalia with frosting on cookies for them? Has Mr. Phillips ever created a cake for a Bachelor or Bachelorette party? Has he ever made a cake modeled to look like breasts or a penis?
There are so many questions I would ask Mr. Phillips, I just don't have the time.
Long story short, he could still make cakes under the anti-discrimination public accommodations and with sensitivity training for his employees, Mr. Phillips chose not to do these things.
Is this going to be a ruling made over the language Mr. Phillips used? What if he had simply said, "Sorry, I cannot create this cake.", and never mentioned a same-sex ceremony or gay wedding at all? When exactly did Mr. Phillips decline to make the cake? Prior to having knowledge of the plaintiffs' sexual orientation? Prior to detailing the event they had planned?
This is where the absurdity reaches its peak. First, the couple had a portfolio with them. Inside the portfolio were ideas for their wedding cake. The portfolio was never opened. This article makes some leaps about this part. Second, gay theme? What does this even mean? Throw them two Groom toppers instead of one Bride and one Groom. Done, finished, problem solved.
This topper cost 29 dollars. "Religious Freedom" has a price tag, a paltry 29 dollars. I wonder if Mr. Phillips sold wedding cake toppers at his shop as well.
Would he have made a plain wedding cake for the couple and let them put the topper on? Where exactly is Mr. Phillips drawing his line?
Yes, because the argument, "Well no one complained.", always turns out well.
I would also like to point out the fact, the same article engaging in debate over gay wedding cakes, has on the opposite side, divorce cakes. A reminder of how many years homosexuals were lawfully restricted from getting married, whilst, heterosexual couples were busy throwing divorce parties.
Two men walk into a bakery... They are NOT empathetic, decent, civilized human beings!
Which brings up a great learning opportunity for those interested in the American judicial system. The initial case was filed in 2015. It went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Commission found in favor of the plaintiffs. Mr. Phillips appealed the decision. The original decision was then upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. Mr. Phillips filed another appeal with the Supreme Court of Colorado and they declined to hear the appeal. Then it landed at the Supreme Court's doorstep. Two years added to the due process, over a decision already made.
First, no one says decreed anymore. Second, we've already discussed the issue of the Colorado Civil Right Commission, they did not "decree" this. Third, don't use the word re-education in relation to the LGBTQ community, your true colors are showing.
Mr. Phillips' decisions lead to a 40% decrease in business resulting in laying off over half of his workforce. Fixed.
Why is everything on a slippery slope with, "The Right"? This statement is old hat.
I just said... Never mind. Matt Walsh, the writer of this article, then proceeds to use another favorite tactic of "The Right", fear-mongering. He writes churches are next to fall and this will establish gays are a special and superior class of human beings.
I can assure you, all of the arguments for and against LGBTQ rights are being heard. Some of us, just don't care about others input because it's almost always classified under one of the following categories; discriminatory, incendiary, hateful, incorrect, or just plain ignorant.
Sexual proclivities should have zero bearing but, we all should know by now, this is not the case. Yes, we should all have the same rights. I'm glad you agree with the plaintiffs. Why was it so hard to say this in the first place, or did you mean to say this at all?
I've dissected the majority of this article, I've heard one podcast featuring Mr. Phillips himself, in which, he made no mention of any kind of uncivil behavior, and have yet to find or hear anything claiming otherwise.
Okay, I can see where this is going. I honestly chuckled out loud on this part of the ramble.
Impending gay wedding, as in impending doom, which is the only other time I've ever heard anyone use the word impending.
Yes, this is definitely a conspiracy cooked right from the diabolical kitchen of The Clinton Foundation, I'm sure. "The Left" is coming for you and all of your delicious baked goods, you better run and hide, Dorothy, and YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!
The first thing I'd like to mention is, "The Right" regularly talks about smaller government and giving power back to the individual states and the people to make legislative decisions. What has happened is, the state of Colorado has made their decision, through their Civil Rights Commission and one Court of Appeals and still yet, "The Right" does not agree with the outcome. The question is now, what will make "The Right" happy?
I honestly don't know the answer, because they've complained about both routes of judicial formalities, as far as I can tell.
Second, the results are going to be ugly, no matter who "wins". I'll say it like this;
If Mr. Phillips loses, everything stays the way it has for both the defendant and plaintiffs for the past two years and the state of Colorado. I have no idea what effect it would have on other states.
If Mr. Phillips wins, he goes back to Colorado only to find even more people have decided to stop purchasing any goods from his store as a result of his unbridled homophobia and/or illogical business practices. He'll be the next, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa", forced to close his shop down due to financial losses.
Either way, the question of what it means for all business on a national scale will have to be "tested" on a case by case basis to see how far the decision affects the LGBTQ community and probably many others.
Last, I offer a personal anecdote to Mr. Phillips. When I first moved to Alabama, I worked at a well known national fast food restaurant chain. I was constantly bullied and harassed, for many different reasons, not just because of my homosexuality. After several years of working with the public and dealing with the kind of discrimination you exhibited towards these men, face to face, at many different jobs, I am now riddled with anxiety and fear of others. Every time I ever asked any of my superiors, co-workers, family, or friends for advice or help in solving these kinds of issues, I've always been given the same answer. I still haven't been able to do it yet but, I'm sure it'll help if you can accomplish it.
Move.
This is a detour from the series, An Open Letter to "The Right". However, it does involve conservative ideologies.
Edited: 02-26-2018; Grammatically
Edited: 04-21-2018; Visually
_________________________________________________________________________________
The title is kind of a lie because this post is definitely about cakes. Specifically, gay cakes or cakes made for gay couples anyway.
On the docket for the Supreme Court, this week is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. An almost comical case to be heard at this judiciary level but, ain't that America?
If you're unfamiliar with the case, feel free to read any of the following links.
Wikipedia.org - Politico - The New York Times - NPR
I had heard about this case but, had no idea it was already headed to the Supreme Court. The events leading up to the creation of this case happened 5 years ago.
The case has been discussed all over the internet and one article even made it into my Facebook news feed.
I identify as being on, "The Left", for better or worse. I've said many times before how political internet quizzes and polls consistently label me as a "bleeding heart liberal" and even though I don't know what this means exactly, I'm okay with it.
However, I also live in Alabama and a lot of my family and friends are a part of, "The Right", so I expect these kinds of stories to pass by every once in a while.
Humor me for just a moment...
For maximum effect, here is the complete online/social media tally from the perspective of an openly gay, atheist, Democrat living in Alabama on the date of December 6, 2017.
I first visited Reddit and saw a few early reports about the GOP's 390 billion dollar miscalculation on their new tax plan, then I traveled to Facebook, which, brought me the article about the case, I then responded to a post made by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby to inform him the word "bipartisan" means "both parties" (he misused the word entirely), and then I went on to Twitter where I saw more reports and a confirmation of the GOP's tax plan's miscalculations, followed by new reports of Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Natalia Kislyak, a bunch of updates to the scoreboard of "The Right" versus "The Left" in regards to sexual assault/abuse/harassment, and wrapped it all up with a smattering of "The Left" supports "killing babies", FUN!
I'm just, LIVING THE DREAM!
If you're one of those people who ever wonders why I don't focus more time on writing something funny, or happy, or positive, now you have an idea as to why.
Back to the article in question.
Let's start with the title, as one should;
"The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims."
Vindictive?
Seems odd there are no reports of vindictive activity from the defendant's side. I've heard from the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop and he hasn't mentioned anything I would consider vindictive, yet.Bullies?
You have got to be joking. In a country where anyone who identifies as LGBTQ is opening themselves for being subjected to bullying, these two gay men have gotten married, and therefore, they've had a taste for power and subjugation, and they... Want... MORE!Get a grip.
The writer provides a link and then chastises those who are "too lazy" to click on it, classy...
"Mr. Phillips used to make beautiful cakes, but is no longer permitted to do so."
Incorrect.
Mr. Phillips chose not to follow through with the Colorado State Commission's ruling as to not cause conflict with future patrons or disregard his religious beliefs.Here is the actual scenario, from Wikipedia.org;
The cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex couples but, change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.
Mr. Phillips can make cakes, he just has to offer them to all patrons. Mr. Phillips chose not to do this based on his religious beliefs. This is identical to the situation with the bakery in Oregon not too long ago, (Sweet Cakes by Melissa).
The state of Colorado is one of the twenty-one states with anti-discrimination laws which include sexual orientation. Again, one of the twenty-one states.
Mr. Phillips offered other baked goods for the couple to purchase. This response brings up so many questions. Could Mr. Phillips make a cake out of other baked goods? A cookie cake? A cupcake-cake? A donut cake?
What about drawing genitalia with frosting on cookies for them? Has Mr. Phillips ever created a cake for a Bachelor or Bachelorette party? Has he ever made a cake modeled to look like breasts or a penis?
There are so many questions I would ask Mr. Phillips, I just don't have the time.
Long story short, he could still make cakes under the anti-discrimination public accommodations and with sensitivity training for his employees, Mr. Phillips chose not to do these things.
If I was a member of this Commission, I would feel inclined to revoke and/or remove Mr. Phillips' business license altogether for skirting around and back-dooring a ruling made by a court of law.
He declined to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.
Is this going to be a ruling made over the language Mr. Phillips used? What if he had simply said, "Sorry, I cannot create this cake.", and never mentioned a same-sex ceremony or gay wedding at all? When exactly did Mr. Phillips decline to make the cake? Prior to having knowledge of the plaintiffs' sexual orientation? Prior to detailing the event they had planned?
I say "decorate a cake" not "make", because he (Mr. Phillips) was perfectly willing to sell the gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a cake. He was willing to sell them any pastry they wanted. But, due to his religious beliefs, he couldn't decorate it with a gay wedding theme.
This is where the absurdity reaches its peak. First, the couple had a portfolio with them. Inside the portfolio were ideas for their wedding cake. The portfolio was never opened. This article makes some leaps about this part. Second, gay theme? What does this even mean? Throw them two Groom toppers instead of one Bride and one Groom. Done, finished, problem solved.
This topper cost 29 dollars. "Religious Freedom" has a price tag, a paltry 29 dollars. I wonder if Mr. Phillips sold wedding cake toppers at his shop as well.
Would he have made a plain wedding cake for the couple and let them put the topper on? Where exactly is Mr. Phillips drawing his line?
(Mr.) Phillips had also in the past refused to decorate Halloween cakes and divorce party cakes. Nobody ever complained about that.
Yes, because the argument, "Well no one complained.", always turns out well.
I would also like to point out the fact, the same article engaging in debate over gay wedding cakes, has on the opposite side, divorce cakes. A reminder of how many years homosexuals were lawfully restricted from getting married, whilst, heterosexual couples were busy throwing divorce parties.
Rather than respond like empathetic, decent, civilized human beings, (Mr.) Mullins and (Mr.) Craig decided to embark on a five-year campaign to ruin (Mr.) Phillips and destroy his business.
This wasn't intended to be a five-year campaign. It could've ended in 2015 after the case's initial ruling. There are a lot of personal jabs taken at liberty as well.
Two men walk into a bakery... They are NOT empathetic, decent, civilized human beings!
Which brings up a great learning opportunity for those interested in the American judicial system. The initial case was filed in 2015. It went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Commission found in favor of the plaintiffs. Mr. Phillips appealed the decision. The original decision was then upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. Mr. Phillips filed another appeal with the Supreme Court of Colorado and they declined to hear the appeal. Then it landed at the Supreme Court's doorstep. Two years added to the due process, over a decision already made.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decreed that (Mr.) Phillips can no longer make any cakes for anyone, and he must provide gay-friendly "reeducation" to his employees.
First, no one says decreed anymore. Second, we've already discussed the issue of the Colorado Civil Right Commission, they did not "decree" this. Third, don't use the word re-education in relation to the LGBTQ community, your true colors are showing.
(Mr.) Phillips lost 40% of his business and had to fire half of his work force.
Mr. Phillips' decisions lead to a 40% decrease in business resulting in laying off over half of his workforce. Fixed.
...Free speech is effectively finished in this country.
Why is everything on a slippery slope with, "The Right"? This statement is old hat.
If gays have a mystical right to force their fellow citizens to participate in their gay weddings, where does that right end? I'll tell you: it doesn't.
I just said... Never mind. Matt Walsh, the writer of this article, then proceeds to use another favorite tactic of "The Right", fear-mongering. He writes churches are next to fall and this will establish gays are a special and superior class of human beings.
Look, there is a reason the Civil Rights movement is still happening in the LGBTQ community. It's because the rights of the community do not exist and have not existed for a very long time. They're in the process of being created, written, and legislated. If you don't want to be a part of the process, by all means, check out. The process will continue on, with or without you.
I can assure you, all of the arguments for and against LGBTQ rights are being heard. Some of us, just don't care about others input because it's almost always classified under one of the following categories; discriminatory, incendiary, hateful, incorrect, or just plain ignorant.
When First Amendment rights are pitted against LGBT rights, First Amendment rights should always win.
Incorrect.
Here is this piece about Majority Rule in relation to Minority Rights. Its principles are on display through several sections of the Constitution as well.Your sexual proclivities have no bearing on anything. We all have the same rights, or we should. That's what "equal protection" means.
Sexual proclivities should have zero bearing but, we all should know by now, this is not the case. Yes, we should all have the same rights. I'm glad you agree with the plaintiffs. Why was it so hard to say this in the first place, or did you mean to say this at all?
The behavior of the gay couple in this case has been truly despicable.
I've dissected the majority of this article, I've heard one podcast featuring Mr. Phillips himself, in which, he made no mention of any kind of uncivil behavior, and have yet to find or hear anything claiming otherwise.
There were many bakeries they could have chosen. They just so happened to walk into the one bakery run by an openly devout Christian, asking for a flamboyantly decorated cake for their impending gay wedding.
Okay, I can see where this is going. I honestly chuckled out loud on this part of the ramble.
Impending gay wedding, as in impending doom, which is the only other time I've ever heard anyone use the word impending.
Yes, this is definitely a conspiracy cooked right from the diabolical kitchen of The Clinton Foundation, I'm sure. "The Left" is coming for you and all of your delicious baked goods, you better run and hide, Dorothy, and YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!
Let's wrap up this nonsense.
The first thing I'd like to mention is, "The Right" regularly talks about smaller government and giving power back to the individual states and the people to make legislative decisions. What has happened is, the state of Colorado has made their decision, through their Civil Rights Commission and one Court of Appeals and still yet, "The Right" does not agree with the outcome. The question is now, what will make "The Right" happy?
I honestly don't know the answer, because they've complained about both routes of judicial formalities, as far as I can tell.
Second, the results are going to be ugly, no matter who "wins". I'll say it like this;
If Mr. Phillips loses, everything stays the way it has for both the defendant and plaintiffs for the past two years and the state of Colorado. I have no idea what effect it would have on other states.
If Mr. Phillips wins, he goes back to Colorado only to find even more people have decided to stop purchasing any goods from his store as a result of his unbridled homophobia and/or illogical business practices. He'll be the next, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa", forced to close his shop down due to financial losses.
Either way, the question of what it means for all business on a national scale will have to be "tested" on a case by case basis to see how far the decision affects the LGBTQ community and probably many others.
Last, I offer a personal anecdote to Mr. Phillips. When I first moved to Alabama, I worked at a well known national fast food restaurant chain. I was constantly bullied and harassed, for many different reasons, not just because of my homosexuality. After several years of working with the public and dealing with the kind of discrimination you exhibited towards these men, face to face, at many different jobs, I am now riddled with anxiety and fear of others. Every time I ever asked any of my superiors, co-workers, family, or friends for advice or help in solving these kinds of issues, I've always been given the same answer. I still haven't been able to do it yet but, I'm sure it'll help if you can accomplish it.
Move.
Comments
Post a Comment