Colorado Baker Targeted Again
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:22 am
The NY Times informed me this morning that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado has been targeted again, this time by a customer wanting a cake created in a particular way that would celebrate her seventh anniversary of gender transition.
His lawyers say that he has been targeted by potential customers eager to test the limits of the law.
This raises, for me, a number of difficult questions. While I think Jack Phillips ought to bake that cake, the fact that he sells his cakes as artistic creations and is being asked to make particular types of cake requiring creative input suggest to me that those "eager to test the limits of the law" are going to get the limits put more narrowly than they would like.
As a strategic matter, therefore, I would plead with such customers to cool their heels. I can make a reasonable case that we would have Hillary Clinton for President right now if LGBTQ people had been willing to wait a decade after Obergefell to "test the limits of the law."
This in turn raises the question whether I have any business publicly criticizing oppressed minorities for their strategic decisions. I am on their side - does that mean I should just shut up and support them, rather than trying to direct the efforts of the cause? Probably. But of course that raises further strategic questions about whether they should alienate people who are also sympathetic but much less willing to shut up about the public strategy.
I could always make my points privately and then whatever irate response they make would not count against them with moderates.
One thing I realized, turning this over in my mind this morning (it's Friday morning, here) is that by pushing America to show its "true" colors (truth here depending on whether you think the Electoral College is the right way to elect a President) they have managed to give me and other privileged people a taste of the obnoxious treatment to which they are normally subjected. In that sense, I am more able to sympathize.
Unfortunately I keep thinking that was entirely unnecessary. I know it is unfair to blame the 2016 debacle on Bakergate and the clash with religious freedom. Any of 16 other things could just as easily have gone differently and turned that oh-so-narrow election the other way. But if they had asked me before the election I would have said (did, in fact, on the internet) that it is better to persuade people on matters of conscience than to overrule them.
We are not talking about making people go an hour out of the way to use a public restroom. We are talking about getting a celebration of a cherished occasion made by someone who things that occasion is an abomination.
His lawyers say that he has been targeted by potential customers eager to test the limits of the law.
This raises, for me, a number of difficult questions. While I think Jack Phillips ought to bake that cake, the fact that he sells his cakes as artistic creations and is being asked to make particular types of cake requiring creative input suggest to me that those "eager to test the limits of the law" are going to get the limits put more narrowly than they would like.
As a strategic matter, therefore, I would plead with such customers to cool their heels. I can make a reasonable case that we would have Hillary Clinton for President right now if LGBTQ people had been willing to wait a decade after Obergefell to "test the limits of the law."
This in turn raises the question whether I have any business publicly criticizing oppressed minorities for their strategic decisions. I am on their side - does that mean I should just shut up and support them, rather than trying to direct the efforts of the cause? Probably. But of course that raises further strategic questions about whether they should alienate people who are also sympathetic but much less willing to shut up about the public strategy.
I could always make my points privately and then whatever irate response they make would not count against them with moderates.
One thing I realized, turning this over in my mind this morning (it's Friday morning, here) is that by pushing America to show its "true" colors (truth here depending on whether you think the Electoral College is the right way to elect a President) they have managed to give me and other privileged people a taste of the obnoxious treatment to which they are normally subjected. In that sense, I am more able to sympathize.
Unfortunately I keep thinking that was entirely unnecessary. I know it is unfair to blame the 2016 debacle on Bakergate and the clash with religious freedom. Any of 16 other things could just as easily have gone differently and turned that oh-so-narrow election the other way. But if they had asked me before the election I would have said (did, in fact, on the internet) that it is better to persuade people on matters of conscience than to overrule them.
We are not talking about making people go an hour out of the way to use a public restroom. We are talking about getting a celebration of a cherished occasion made by someone who things that occasion is an abomination.