Monday, April 6, 2015

Doofus Of The Day #828

Today's award goes to the Colorado Civil Rights Division for this intellectual monstrosity.

Colorado's legal battles between religious freedom and gay rights continue to play out in the not-so-sweet arena of bakery cake requests.

Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver's Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.

. . .

Last year, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that another bakery, Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, could not refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, calling it discriminatory.

There's more at the link.

One wonders whether the Colorado Civil Rights Division has ever heard of a concept called 'Equality before the law'.  It says that all persons must be treated equally in terms of the application of laws.  If the first instance cited above is not discriminatory, then neither was the second.  If the second was discriminatory, then so is the first.

If I lived in Colorado, I'd now be publicly declaring from every available platform that henceforth I would disregard every single decision, ruling, regulation or decree coming out of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, on the grounds that it had terminally compromised its integrity and standing.  Just who do those cretins bureaucrats think they are???

Verily, the mind doth boggle . . .



Stretch said...

"Some animal's are more equal than others."

Some consider 1984 a training manual.

I'm buying stock in rope and tar stock. Gonna make a fortune.

Divemedic said...

Not to out too fine a point on it, there is a large difference between making a wedding cake for a gay couple, and making a cake that disparages gay people.
This would be akin to saying that making a wedding cake for a black couple, and a cake saying "lynch the ni**ers" is the same thing.
I don't think that any business should be forced to provide a service to anyone, but to make these two equivalent is a bit disingenuous.

Peter said...

@Divemedic: In terms of one's social conscience, one could argue that point. However, the law isn't about a 'social conscience'. It's all about an objective standard of legal behavior, not what's politically or socially or emotionally acceptable. From that perspective, the decision is ludicrous, contradictory and plainly not equal before the law.

Will McKeon said...


From a logic standpoint, I think that you could say that they are the same thing in your example. Either bakers are artist who can exercise some discretion (Free Speech) about the message the cake sends (either on it or by its existence) or they are not artist and can have no say over the cake's message.

I believe that service should not be refused due to class, race, religion, etc., but owners should be able to refuse specific events. To use the situation this article was based off of: if the homosexuals wanted a normal\birthday\etc cake then they should be served, however, the baker should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding for either freedom or expression or religious freedom.

C. S. P. Schofield said...

Who do they think they are? They think they are our masters. Our "betters".

They err. They are just another puffed up political clique of would-be aristocrats. The kind of people the guillotine is so good at trimming.

Inconsiderate Bastard said...

Divemedic, I'm inclined to let the marketplace decide, for both reward and punishment.

A baker - or plumber, or caterer, or whomever - offers services to the community for compensation. As such, that person is beholden to the community for business transactions which generate said compensation. Should the quantity of that business's transactions decline sufficiently it will produce some degree of economic hardship, and may result in that business failing.

If, for example, if a baker elects to pursue a market segment - in the same manner as Ford rarely advertises 4-wheel drive pickups in women's magazines - seeking business from that segment through advertising, even if only in the baker's refrigerated display case, he or she is so entitled.

Were I to enter a bakery to order a cake and observed cakes on display in the case featuring themes I find objectionable, or even if only not in compliance with my values or beliefs, I'd likely elect to support a different establishment with my money.

If enough members of the community do so that bakery will suffer economically, perhaps to the point of failure. Other bakers will get the message that such proclivities are not welcome in that community. Conversely, certain segments of the community will learn that a particular bakery is happy to decorate cakes with particular themes, generating more business, and compensation, from that segment of the community.

There are myriad communities across our country in which a short distance produces great, and often very great, differences in local attitudes. New York City and Miami come to mind, but it's also true in Wichita.

It's been said that a consumer is an idiot, but a million consumers are geniuses. I'll place my trust in them rather in the heavy-handed actions of a brain dead government agency.

Well Seasoned Fool said...

Don't expect anything requiring principal from Colorado government so long as Gov Wishywashy is in office.

Ritchie said...

Colorado Civil Rights Division? First I've heard of them. We usually blame this sort of thing on the altitude.

Mark Matis said...

Do you understand how long they could do this without the FULL cooperation of "Law Enforcement"???

Do you know where they live in your neighborhood? And have you made plans to deal with them appropriately under their very own Rules of Engagement?