Amy Goodwin and Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! speak with Ria Tabacco Mar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project and counsel of record for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Ria explains why this ruling is not likely to set a precedent.
Since our platform is about expressing ideas and ideals instead of cash flow, clicks, or fundraising, we have the freedom to include a wide range of topics and formats that might not work elsewhere. We don’t need or want paid content, promotional materials, or story lines designed to please donors.
So the idea here is to present videos one or more of the editors feel speaks to them. Sometimes it will be news. Sometimes it will be history. And a lot of the time it will be culture. You can not and should not separate these things: it is diversity and intersectionality that makes our movement strong.
Feel free to suggest videos at contact@sandiegofreepress.org
Rich Kacmar
Latest posts by Rich Kacmar (see all)
- Movin’ on with style and grace … | Video Worth Watching - December 14, 2018
- Paul Ryan’s Cowardly Act On Yemen | Video Worth Watching - December 13, 2018
- Don’t Believe Trump Is an Idiot? Don’t Take Our Word For It. Ask Google Images … | Video Worth Watching - December 12, 2018
This is one I have trouble with. It always gets me in trouble with whoever I have a conversation with. Oh well. I DO NOT support this baker’s stance and if I lived in his area I WOULD NOT support his business and would encourage others not to. The problem is, wasn’t this a bit of overreach before? This baker refused to do a custom made cake that was specifically themed for a gay wedding. He did not refuse service simply because the potential customers were gay. If a gay person or couple would have gone in there to order a cake for let’s say a winning little league team victory, and the business owner knew they were gay and refused service for that very reason, that would be blatant discrimination. In this case he refused to make a specific themed cake because it goes against his religious beliefs. Ok that’s still discrimination but in this situation he isn’t out and out refusing service to the customers because of their sexual preference but rather he is refusing a very specific service due to the theme of what the customers want. The previous ruling (was it under the state of Colorado? I’m not sure) would have held, it seems that could have been a slippery slope. What if the business owner is a diehard Broncos fan and hates the Patriots? Should he/she /they be forced to make a Patriots themed cake? What if they are utter non-sports fans and refuse to make any sports themed item? And here’s question that beats a dead horse. What if a member of the Proud Boys waltzed in and wants to order a cake with the theme of winning a legal victory in an assault case against counter protestors? (That would make a great SNL skit). So to me this whole issue is a bit uneasy. Thoughts?