LGBT and the Masterpiece Cakeshop — The Anatomy of the Case (UPDATED!)

UPDATE: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop! It’s a 7-2 ruling! More later.

The gay duo who wanted Jack Phillips to make them a same-sax wedding cake has resulted in a struggle for Mr. Phillips to practice his religious beliefs while bothering no one. I say this because Phillips never refused to sell a cake to a gay people. He offered them several cakes they could decorate any way they wanted to. He would have sold them the items necessary to decorate their cake as a same sex wedding cake. He just wouldn’t do it for them.

They weren’t happy with that. They could have gone to any number of other cake shops that would have gladly made them a same-sex cake. They weren’t content to do that either. They wanted to get Jack Phillips, to make him heel to their demands.

They may have known, probably did, that the Masterpiece Cakeshop would not make them a same-sex cake because of its owner’s religious beliefs. So why did they choose that shop? Because it was not a cake they were interested in. They were not seeking a cake when they entered the Jack Philips’ Bakeshop. They were looking for a law suit. They wanted to put Jack Phillips in they think is his place. Beneath them.

They were out to destroy him.  They’ve pretty much done that. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately decides in his favor, I imagine Jack Phillips’ life will never be the same.

Why? Not because he hurt anyone. Not because he ever intended to hurt anyone. No, only because he refused to knuckle under to the social tyranny this gay couple sought to impose on him. What they are doing is not dissimilar from the false sense of honor of an inner-city youth gang or the Hell’s Angel Motorcycle gang or the Mafia or Jihadist terrorists or any other such groups who have an inflated sense of themselves to the point they will attack anyone who “disrespects” them.

They will take extreme umbrage at the slightest hesitancy of others to celebrate the pageantry of their lives.

There’s a name for what this looks like. It’s called “collective narcissism.” Psychologist Agnieszka Golec de Zavala explains what it is and how it works:

Research from my PrejudiceLab at Goldsmiths, University of London shows that people who score high on the collective narcissism scale are particularly sensitive to even the smallest offences to their group’s image. As opposed to individuals with narcissistic personality, who maintain inflated views of themselves, collective narcissists exaggerate offences to their group’s image, and respond to them aggressively. Collective narcissists believe that their group’s importance and worth are not sufficiently recognised by others. They feel that their group merits special treatment, and insist that it gets the recognition and respect it deserves. In other words, collective narcissism amounts to a belief in the exaggerated greatness of one’s group, and demands external validation.

Collective narcissists are not simply content to be members of a valuable group. They don’t devote their energy to contributing to the group’s betterment and value. Rather, they engage in monitoring whether everybody around, particularly other groups, recognise and acknowledge the great value and special worth of their group. To be sure, collective narcissists demand privileged treatment, not equal rights. And the need for continuous external validation of the group’s inflated image (a negative attribute) is what differentiates collective narcissists from those who simply hold positive feelings about their group.

Will the gay couple who want to destroy a man for refusing to celebrate them in the manner they insist be indulged in their narcissism by the rest of society? They already have been so treated by the courts in Colorado. It’s said they have a strong following of support in America. I guess we’ll find out in a few months if the U.S. Supreme Court has signed on to this madness when it issues its ruling. We’ll see then if religious freedom is dead or still alive in America.

[Some people think the case is about free speech. It’s not. It’s about freedom of religion. No one can think for a minute this case would have been brought against a Muslim cakeshop]

[Collective Narcissism could describe large parts of the Democrat party]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • vreed lak72

    Commit false witness much. It’s the record that this gay couple didn’t “target” him personally. Their event planner sent all of her clients to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. It’s also in the record that he did not personally make all of his corporation’s wedding cakes. He could have resolved his dilemma by assigning the task to employees, 6 of whom he fired when he ELECTED to remove wedding cakes from his corporation’s menu as his way of complying with the law during his appeals. He also could’ve just subcontracted the job out to a different bakery.

    They were interested in cake – not out to destroy him. They publicized their negative experience on social media. The ACLU learned of it and offered to help them file a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission (essentially reporting a crime to the government) – apparently this bakery had refused gay customers previously (including a cupcake order). CCRC offered to issue him a warning so long as he promised not to do it again. The bakery elected to to fight and appeal and appeal and appeal with the help of his free attorneys, an anti-gay hate group. That was his choice.

    If it was me, I would just asked my employees if they had any problems with making wedding cakes for gay couples. If some said no – I would just assign those tasks to those employees. Problem solved.

    • This comment is full of false claims. Unlike the left, we conservatives don’t try to make our adversaries shut up. We allow them to have their say. Hence I have approved your comment, veered lak72.

      It is an opinion that this gay couple entered Mr. Phillips cake shop looking for a lawsuit, not a cake. It might be fact if they’ve admitted it or if there is other evidence to substantiate it. As far as I know now, it’s an opinion. But it’s not just any opinion. It’s a well-informed opinion based on what we’ve have seen from the LGBT community in the past.

      This is a group, in my opinion, that is willing to do anything to bring hardship on anyone who disagrees with their agenda. I believe that makes them a hate group. And not just any hate group. They are one of the most vile hate groups on the planet. My opinion, and one shared by many.

      I profoundly hope and believe that this behavior will ultimately lead to their downfall in the eyes of the American people. At least in the minds of all right-thinking people. All people who love liberty and civility and despise tyranny and gratuitous discord.

      Anyone interested in verifying or impeaching the facts I have set forth can easily find much by searching the internet and other sources. Here would be a good place to begin: Masterpiece Cakeshop Case: Stop Misrepresenting It

      • vreed lak72

        I don’t usually rely on media articles – particularly from biased news sites such the National Review. I relied on the facts of the case, which are presented in the Joint Appendix sent to the US Supreme Court. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/craig-and-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop-joint-appendix

        According to the answers provided by the gay customers in their interrogatory (which are very verifiable and, unless the baker’s attorneys, the Alliance Defending Freedom, are completely incompetent boobs, would have verified). This comes from p. 183:

        Interrogatory No. 6: State when and under what circumstances you first became aware of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

        Response to Interrogatory No. 6: We selected the restaurant 240 Union for our wedding reception. Their event planner, Sheri Casey, told us they usually suggested people having receptions there use Masterpiece Cakeshop for their cakes.

        Interrogatory; No. 12: State whether you have ever made any discrimination claim(s) against any other person. If so, please provide the name of that party, jurisdiction in which the claim was filed or the administrative agency that processed your claim, the basis for your claim, and the outcome of your claim.

        Response to Interrogatory No. 12: No other claims have been made.

        ALSO INCLUDED IN THE JOINT APPENDIX IS THE BAKER’S AFFIDAVIT. This is par. 34 (found on the bottom of p. 160 of the Joint Appendix):

        34. I design and create the majority of wedding cakes sold by Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

        A “majority” is not all. As I stated, he could’ve resolved his issue by simply assigning the task to employees. He fired 6 of those employees upon electing to remove wedding cakes from his corporation’s menu.

        (1) Colorado did not force him to remove wedding cakes from the menu. His punishment in Colorado’s agency’s order is to cease and desist from breaking the law only. How he does so is his affair. The order is here: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceFinalAgencyOrder.pdf

        (2) His attorneys stated in its brief to the US Supreme Court that he fired employees. I got the 6 out of 10 number from a USA Today article. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/26/gay-couple-devout-baker-take-cake-fight-high-court/875305001/

      • vreed lak72

        What happened to my post – that linked to the specific facts of this case? You said I made false claims and I provided evidence for the record to the contrary.

      • vreed lak72

        Yes, and I read the National Review article you linked. And here are some points:

        (A) It states: “As a Christian, he finds same-sex unions to be unbiblical and immoral, and he wasn’t willing to use his artistic talents to advance a message he holds to be wrong.

        (1) IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE “HIS” ARTISTIC TALENTS. As I’ve proven – he most certain did not have to use HIS artistic talents. He could’ve resolved the issue by assigning the task to employees. He could subcontract the job out to a different bakery. The gay couple approached the business – they have no right to tell the business owner that he must personally bake his cake. The law burdens the business – not the owner personally.

        (2) The law governs commercial conduct – not speech. If the customers had been given a chance to describe what kind of cake they wanted (and it contained a specific design or message he disagreed with), he’d be within his rights to refuse. No one looking at a fairly standard wedding cake thinks that the owner of the bakery that made the cake personally approves of anyone’s marriage. The only message is that a commercial transaction had transpired.

        (B) The article makes this statement: “But he never, ever — not once — discriminated against any customers on the basis of their identity. He baked cakes for people of all races, creeds, colors, and sexual orientations.” and

        “It’s by Barnard College professor and Times contributor Jennifer Finney Boylan. How does she distort the case? Let us count the ways. She begins of course by comparing Phillips to the owner of a restaurant who claimed a religious justification for denying service to African Americans.

        ANSWER: That doesn’t matter if he serves gay people other items off the menu, he’s not discriminating against gay people by refusing one item that he voluntarily put on its menu (customized wedding cakes).

        These anti-discrimination laws require “FULL AND EQUAL” service. Those restaurants refusing to serve black people are fully apt. The Supreme Court case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) involved a business owner who had anti-integration Baptist religious so he refused to let black people eat in his restaurant – he was willing to sell them food, however, they couldn’t eat on the premises (they could eat it in their car, off-premises). That was not “full and equal” service.

        This bakery voluntarily put wedding cakes on this menu. It’s not in the record that he specified “heterosexual wedding cakes” as the item on the menu. And, if he did, that would be just marketing, a gay customer could walk in and ask for one of those “heterosexual wedding cakes” and couldn’t be denied service due to his sexual orientation.

        • He could subcontract the job out to a different bakery

          They could have been good sports and just gone to that different bakery. I think you’ve given evidence that they didn’t want a cake; they wanted a fight.

%d bloggers like this: