Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

 

The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion.

 

So the Supreme Court was willing to throw out the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision because they were hostile to the baker's religion (Christianity). Yet they are totally willing to ignore all of the things Trump has said that have been hostile to a religion (Islam) and let his EO stand. LOL.

 

In part, this is because of the deference traditionally afforded the executive with respect to international relations and enforcement.  In part, this is also because the applicable statute gives the president considerable latitude.

 

The result would almost certainly be very different in a Korematsu-type context that involved U.S. citizens.  There is no constitutional right to a visa.  There is a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a public defender it would be nice if I could choose my clients.  Because I can't, I'm often required to make moral arguments in favor of people and ideas that I oppose.  It's awkward but that's the system we use to separate ourselves from tyranny.  So don't tell me you can't bake a cake because morals.

 

Okay. Go ahead. Make your racist customer a cake that says "white power." Damn your morals.

 

If we're arguing morals then we might as well address who's being hateful and who isn't.  In your scenario the baker isn't supplying the hate-- his customers are.  In the real scenario, the baker treated a gay couple as if they wanted a "white power" cake.  Unless an aversion to gays is assumed by the listener, his stance doesn't sound the slightest bit moral.

 

We will always have people disagreeing on what is moral. Or what is hate. Even if you and I agree on what is moral - and in both cases I think we do - we cannot have government enforcing this standard on such a personal level.

 

So we allow bakers to decide for everyone else which weddings are OK?  Forget the government, I'm concerned about all this power we're giving the cake industry.  Soon they'll be questioning how I drive.

 

Nobody wants the government to be in charge, it really sucks, but it's better than having random bullies in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Roberts say Korematsu is "morally repugnant" and "gravely wrong" while....authoring the next Korematsu?

 

Authoring the next Korematsu?  If referring to Trump v Hawaii, how is this so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that m y analysis is dound.  Thank you.  I posed the question in hopes for political analysis.  Since you can't poke holes in my reasoning, I feel it's a good argument.

 

You're legal reasoning is misplaced.  You didn't mention the default ''political analysis'' until your legal analysis failed.  Despite you flipping the conversation to ''political analysis'', legal reasoning and precedent will Trump it. 

 

Why didn't you just state you wanted political analysis?  So how does your political analysis have precedence over legal analysis?

 

While it's no conservative's favorite, "policy" is actually a legal analysis. Policy and politics are essentially the same.

 

There are five different types of legal arguments (based on text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy), and through myriad examples this book teaches law students, lawyers, and judges how to identify, create, attack, and evaluate each type of argument.

 

For the tenth time I'm going to recommend this book to lawyers and non-lawyers to better understand how Supreme Court Justices finesse their way toward arriving at a desired decision.

 

https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781611635881/The-Five-Types-of-Legal-Argument-Third-Edition

 

Of course policy and politics are the same. Everyone should know that first there is a plain reading of the text, and as needed, legislative intent, precedent, tradition, and policy. 

 

Not all Justices have the same agenda. The strong pull to legislate from the bench starts from a desired result, then works backwards toward justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

 

The lunch counters should be allowed to decide for themselves.  The government is being a bully by making them serve these black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a public defender it would be nice if I could choose my clients.  Because I can't, I'm often required to make moral arguments in favor of people and ideas that I oppose.  It's awkward but that's the system we use to separate ourselves from tyranny.  So don't tell me you can't bake a cake because morals.

 

Okay. Go ahead. Make your racist customer a cake that says "white power." Damn your morals.

 

If we're arguing morals then we might as well address who's being hateful and who isn't.  In your scenario the baker isn't supplying the hate-- his customers are.  In the real scenario, the baker treated a gay couple as if they wanted a "white power" cake.  Unless an aversion to gays is assumed by the listener, his stance doesn't sound the slightest bit moral.

 

We will always have people disagreeing on what is moral. Or what is hate. Even if you and I agree on what is moral - and in both cases I think we do - we cannot have government enforcing this standard on such a personal level.

 

So we allow bakers to decide for everyone else which weddings are OK?  Forget the government, I'm concerned about all this power we're giving the cake industry.  Soon they'll be questioning how I drive.

 

Nobody wants the government to be in change, it really sucks, but it's better than having random bullies in charge.

 

The Bakers have been the major power broker behind the scenes for years! Yes that is Richard Nixon in the goofiest secret society ever. Perhaps a good topic for another thread lol

nixon.JPG.2efd4dd1c4a9085721fadafda413c4d6.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.

 

-John Roberts

 

So...as long as bigots don't self-report their bigotry in legal documents, bigotry is legal in this country.  "Neutral on its face" is utterly laughable.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

 

The lunch counters should be allowed to decide for themselves.  The government is being a bully by making them serve these black people.

 

I think we're back to that personal/artistic vs. normal commerce discussion again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

 

The lunch counters should be allowed to decide for themselves.  The government is being a bully by making them serve these black people.

 

I think we're back to that personal vs. normal commerce discussion again.

 

So if the lunch counters were making personalized artistic meals then they shouldn't be bullied into serving black if thy have a moral objection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

 

The lunch counters should be allowed to decide for themselves.  The government is being a bully by making them serve these black people.

 

What First Amendment concern was implicated at the lunch counters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lunch counter owner's freedom to practice their religion.  The owner has a deeply held religious belief that races should be segregated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So...as long as bigots don't self-report their bigotry in legal documents, bigotry is legal in this country.  "Neutral on its face" is utterly laughable.

 

In fairness, that was also the decision of Masterpiece Cakeshop.  As long as the bigots on the Colorado CRC hid their anti-Christian animus better, they'd probably have gotten away with making that baker's life a living Hell.  (They did, of course, for many years.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

 

Bully:  These people want to get married, with all the trimmings.  It is our understanding that you arrange such trimmings.

 

Non-bully:  Screw that and screw them, I think they're gross and I will stop at nothing to make sure my disapproval controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

 

The lunch counters should be allowed to decide for themselves.  The government is being a bully by making them serve these black people.

 

I think we're back to that personal vs. normal commerce discussion again.

 

So if the lunch counters were making personalized artistic meals then they shouldn't be bullied into serving black if thy have a moral objection?

 

You can't force a racist chef to make his best meatloaf. You just can't. Not without government surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...as long as bigots don't self-report their bigotry in legal documents, bigotry is legal in this country.  "Neutral on its face" is utterly laughable.

 

In fairness, that was also the decision of Masterpiece Cakeshop.  As long as the bigots on the Colorado CRC hid their anti-Christian animus better, they'd probably have gotten away with making that baker's life a living Hell.  (They did, of course, for many years.)

 

Fair point.  Although, can;t courts make a judgment against a business or person based on a pattern of behavior.  Example, business kicks out customers because they don't like them but someone keeps track and realizes that every customer ever kicked out is a white male. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...as long as bigots don't self-report their bigotry in legal documents, bigotry is legal in this country.  "Neutral on its face" is utterly laughable.

 

In fairness, that was also the decision of Masterpiece Cakeshop.  As long as the bigots on the Colorado CRC hid their anti-Christian animus better, they'd probably have gotten away with making that baker's life a living Hell.  (They did, of course, for many years.)

 

Yes, they've legalized bigotry in several cases recently.  Racial gerrymandering is ok because the gerrymanders didn't say they were racist.  Statements opposing bigotry (from a regulator) in Masterpiece is more problematic than actual practiced bigotry.

 

The legacy of Roberts is looking worse every day.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

I agree with Gramarye here. To me it's easy to reconcile. You can support the right of association or free speech even when that speech may be reprehensible. That doesn't mean you're "okay with" it.

 

 

 

Bingo.

 

I butted out of this argument today. Constitutional interpretation should not be results oriented. That's why the Judiciary is independent.

 

Incorrect results are the responsibility of legislators.

 

I think you're both missing my point. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that there's a difference between denying a gay couple vs denying an interracial couple. Unless I misinterpreted Gramarye, it seemed like he was saying that denying a gay couple a cake was different from denying the interracial couple a cake since (in the case of the gay couple) it's not about "them as people" but rather about the wedding itself. Which is pretty ridiculous since a baker (as I was pointing out) could use the same exact logic by saying that he opposes the  wedding ceremony of an interracial couple. So both situations are entirely comparable, and I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who think they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lunch counter owner's freedom to practice their religion.  The owner has a deeply held religious belief that races should be segregated. 

 

I think that there are many ways to distinguish that scenario.  Also, I think there would be an opening there for an inquiry into the actual sincerity of the belief, similar to challenges to claims of conscientious-objector status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lunch counter owner's freedom to practice their religion.  The owner has a deeply held religious belief that races should be segregated. 

 

I think that there are many ways to distinguish that scenario.  Also, I think there would be an opening there for an inquiry into the actual sincerity of the belief, similar to challenges to claims of conscientious-objector status.

 

I think they had very sincere beliefs of this at the time just like the baker's beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the bakers shouldn't be allowed to decide for everyone else.  They should only be allowed to decide for themselves.  Government, not the baker, played the role of the bully.

 

Bully:  These people want to get married, with all the trimmings.  It is our understanding that you arrange such trimmings.

 

Non-bully:  Screw that and screw them, I think they're gross and I will stop at nothing to make sure my disapproval controls ask them to go to one of dozens of other bakers in the area.

 

FTFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree that m y analysis is dound.  Thank you.  I posed the question in hopes for political analysis.  Since you can't poke holes in my reasoning, I feel it's a good argument.

 

You're legal reasoning is misplaced.  You didn't mention the default ''political analysis'' until your legal analysis failed.  Despite you flipping the conversation to ''political analysis'', legal reasoning and precedent will Trump it. 

 

Why didn't you just state you wanted political analysis?  So how does your political analysis have precedence over legal analysis?

 

While it's no conservative's favorite, "policy" is actually a legal analysis. Policy and politics are essentially the same.

 

There are five different types of legal arguments (based on text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy), and through myriad examples this book teaches law students, lawyers, and judges how to identify, create, attack, and evaluate each type of argument.

 

For the tenth time I'm going to recommend this book to lawyers and non-lawyers to better understand how Supreme Court Justices finesse their way toward arriving at a desired decision.

 

https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781611635881/The-Five-Types-of-Legal-Argument-Third-Edition

 

Of course policy and politics are the same. Everyone should know that first there is a plain reading of the text, and as needed, legislative intent, precedent, tradition, and policy. 

 

Not all Justices have the same agenda. The strong pull to legislate from the bench starts from a desired result, then works backwards toward justification.

 

That was the general outline of how to determine a legal outcome related to laws.  Judges are not supposed to do what you state, but they do.

 

Is anyone surprised, for example, how the 5-4 SCOTUS Trump v Hawaii turned out, and which judges were part of the 5-4?  Yet, the Masterpiece Cake case was 7-2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

I agree with Gramarye here. To me it's easy to reconcile. You can support the right of association or free speech even when that speech may be reprehensible. That doesn't mean you're "okay with" it.

 

 

 

Bingo.

 

I butted out of this argument today. Constitutional interpretation should not be results oriented. That's why the Judiciary is independent.

 

Incorrect results are the responsibility of legislators.

 

I think you're both missing my point. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that there's a difference between denying a gay couple vs denying an interracial couple. Unless I misinterpreted Gramarye, it seemed like he was saying that denying a gay couple a cake was different from denying the interracial couple a cake since (in the case of the gay couple) it's not about "them as people" but rather about the wedding itself. Which is pretty ridiculous since a baker (as I was pointing out) could use the same exact logic by saying that he opposes the  wedding ceremony of an interracial couple. So both situations are entirely comparable, and I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who think they aren't.

 

And I was saying that you did misinterpret me.  My quote:

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

 

In other words, I would consider it at least possible that the First Amendment would protect someone's rights to refuse to bake my wife and me a cake celebrating our marriage, notwithstanding any anti-discrimination law to the contrary.  I don't say so categorically because there are other potential factors involved, and I might not trust myself to think of all of them writing off the cuff on the Internet.  But I would take the possibility that someone would have that Constitutional right very seriously.  And what I would expect in return is a similarly strong First Amendment protection for myself and the people I care about to return the favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go?

 

The line should be the First Amendment.  Is that so much to ask?

 

This is completely different than a business telling a black person that all of their business is unwelcome.  The baker expressly said that he would sell them anything ready-made in his store, and no one challenged him on that.  In fact, though I'm sure you don't care and you might even see this as even more evidence of his "hatred" or "bigotry" or whatever, the baker would be happy to bake either of them a wedding cake if they were marrying a woman, despite their same-sex attractions.  Because it was never about who they were as persons, it was about the purpose for which they wanted the cake.

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

 

 

1.  Gramarye -- I cannot find any articles that say that the baker offered to sell "any" ready-made products to the gay couple.  Rather, it seems he offered to sell "birthday cakes, cookies, etc." -- but not a "wedding cake."  He refused to sell them the cake even before they had discussed a cake topper or any messages on the cake.  So why not buy "birthday" cake and use it for their wedding?  The baker also admitted that he had withdrawn an order for cupcakes that a lesbian couple wanted for their commitment ceremony once he learned what the cupcakes were for.  If you can you find an article that says that he offered to sell them a standard off-the-shelf wedding cake, I'd like to read it.

 

You're right that the baker is concerned about how his cake is going to be used and not the person doing the buying -- he would have objected to a groom's mother buying the cake for her son's wedding to another guy.  The baker disagrees with gay marriage and wants to control how his products are used -- even though he's in the business of selling cakes, he would not sell a cake to a gay couple that wanted to use it for their wedding because of his disagreement with gay marriage, not any personal animosity toward people who are born gay. 

 

This case is very unusual -- once you sell a product you normally can't control how it is used.  Lots of product warranties are void if the product is used improperly, and sometimes an improper use violates a law or government regulation, but you can't prevent the improper use.

 

The baker is in the business of selling cakes, there is consumer demand for cakes, but he is turning it down based on a subsequent use -- once it is out of his hands.  He can refuse to apply a pair of grooms as a topper, he can refuse to write a congratulatory message to a gay couple on the cake -- that's speech. But he shouldn't be able to refuse to sell you cakes because you want to have a cake fight or use it in any other way that he disagrees with. 

 

That would seem to be a core capitalist position, by the way.  You have supply, there is demand, why the hell would you turn down a sale?  Anti-capitalist?

 

 

2.  If religious views can be used to control how products can be used, where do we draw the line?

 

Can a seller refuse to sell a one-bedroom house to a gay couple who is planning to live in it? 

 

Can a house-painter refuse to paint a house that a gay couple is living in?

 

You suggested that the objection was to a voluntary act -- getting married -- and not to the fact that the couple was gay.  What about a non-sexually-active gay couple who are members of the same religion as the seller who are choosing to live together, celibately, and sleep separately in a bunk bed? 

 

What if the seller doesn't believe them?

 

Can a winemaker refuse to sell wine to a Catholic priest unless he promises not to use it for communion?  What if she doesn't believe him?  What if he lies?

 

What about the cook who agrees to sell take-out food to anyone, but has a religious belief that racial integration is wrong and so refuses to sell food to eat at the counter if there are people of other races already eating at the counter?

 

Where do you draw that line?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The baker told Today that he also refuses to make Halloween cakes because of his religious beliefs. He said he would refuse to bake anti-American cakes and even cakes that would be “disparaging to the LGBTQ community.”

 

In this case, he said he offered to make Mullins and Craig other desserts for their wedding, but refused design a wedding cake due to his religious beliefs.

 

http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cake/

 

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone surprised, for example, how the 5-4 SCOTUS Trump v Hawaii turned out, and which judges were part of the 5-4?  Yet, the Masterpiece Cake case was 7-2.

 

Right, but Masterpiece was 7-2 because the justices essentially agree to punt and throw it out on procedural grounds (even though the idea that one Colorado CRC member's comments were evidence of bias against Christians is BS). If they had actually decided to take up a harder issue, like whether a wedding cake baker is an artist, it would've been a lot more complicated and probably ended in a 5-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The baker told Today that he also refuses to make Halloween cakes because of his religious beliefs. He said he would refuse to bake anti-American cakes and even cakes that would be “disparaging to the LGBTQ community.”

 

In this case, he said he offered to make Mullins and Craig other desserts for their wedding, but refused design a wedding cake due to his religious beliefs.

 

http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cake/

 

Interesting.

 

Okay- No one gets Halloween cakes.

Okay, it's cool he won't make cakes with negative messaging.

It's not okay he won't make cakes for the same sex couple when he will for the opposite sex couple. Both sets of people have the same rights as each other. They have the same legal license as each other. Yet one can't get cake, but the other can?

The baker is attaching religious significance to a cake. There is none. The cake is not used during the actual sacrament. He is not like a ring, or even an article of clothing that's being used during the actual ceremony.

 

 

Posted after you moved them to scotus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the house instance. You could not refuse to sell your house to a gay couple, you could not refuse to rent your house to a gay couple, you could refuse to rent a room in the house you live in to a gay couple.

 

A house painter could not refuse to paint a gay persons house, but could refuse to paint a mural on a wall inside the house for the gay couple on religious grounds.

 

The winemaker would not be able to place a restriction on the sale of wine because of the commerce clause. Same with the short order cook.

 

So in regards to your hypotheticals, the vast majority of them have already been settled under the law already.

 

 

 

2.  If religious views can be used to control how products can be used, where do we draw the line?

 

Can a seller refuse to sell a one-bedroom house to a gay couple who is planning to live in it? 

 

Can a house-painter refuse to paint a house that a gay couple is living in?

 

You suggested that the objection was to a voluntary act -- getting married -- and not to the fact that the couple was gay.  What about a non-sexually-active gay couple who are members of the same religion as the seller who are choosing to live together, celibately, and sleep separately in a bunk bed? 

 

What if the seller doesn't believe them?

 

Can a winemaker refuse to sell wine to a Catholic priest unless he promises not to use it for communion?  What if she doesn't believe him?  What if he lies?

 

What about the cook who agrees to sell take-out food to anyone, but has a religious belief that racial integration is wrong and so refuses to sell food to eat at the counter if there are people of other races already eating at the counter?

 

Where do you draw that line?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The baker told Today that he also refuses to make Halloween cakes because of his religious beliefs. He said he would refuse to bake anti-American cakes and even cakes that would be “disparaging to the LGBTQ community.”

 

In this case, he said he offered to make Mullins and Craig other desserts for their wedding, but refused design a wedding cake due to his religious beliefs.

 

http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cake/

 

Interesting.

 

Okay- No one gets Halloween cakes.

Okay, it's cool he won't make cakes with negative messaging.

It's not okay he won't make cakes for the same sex couple when he will for the opposite sex couple. Both sets of people have the same rights as each other. They have the same legal license as each other. Yet one can't get cake, but the other can?

The baker is attaching religious significance to a cake. There is none. The cake is not used during the actual sacrament. He is not like a ring, or even an article of clothing that's being used during the actual ceremony.

 

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ask them to go to one of dozens of other bakers in the area

 

I wish some of the people defending the baker would just admit that they would be okay with all private businesses being allowed to discriminate against anyone that they want. Like, it would be within a restauranteur's rights to say, "sorry black people, you can't eat at our restaurant, go to one of the other dozens of restaurants nearby that will serve you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ask them to go to one of dozens of other bakers in the area

 

I wish some of the people defending the baker would just admit that they would be okay with all private businesses being allowed to discriminate against anyone that they want. Like, it would be within a restauranteur's rights to say, "sorry black people, you can't eat at our restaurant, go to one of the other dozens of restaurants nearby that will serve you."

 

"okay with...."

 

There's that phrase again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The baker told Today that he also refuses to make Halloween cakes because of his religious beliefs. He said he would refuse to bake anti-American cakes and even cakes that would be “disparaging to the LGBTQ community.”

 

In this case, he said he offered to make Mullins and Craig other desserts for their wedding, but refused design a wedding cake due to his religious beliefs.

 

http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cake/

 

Interesting.

 

Okay- No one gets Halloween cakes.

Okay, it's cool he won't make cakes with negative messaging.

It's not okay he won't make cakes for the same sex couple when he will for the opposite sex couple. Both sets of people have the same rights as each other. They have the same legal license as each other. Yet one can't get cake, but the other can?

The baker is attaching religious significance to a cake. There is none. The cake is not used during the actual sacrament. He is not like a ring, or even an article of clothing that's being used during the actual ceremony.

 

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

We don't all subscribe to the same religious beliefs and symbolisms. It's exactly why the baker is wrong if he is projecting that belief onto a cake that is used at a party. 

 

Have you been to a wedding, in a church, where a cake is used during the ceremony?

 

Aren't there tens of thousands of non- religious weddings?

 

Cake, in this instance is not a religious symbol. If the baker thinks it is in this instance, he is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

 

so you're saying that one's religious beliefs should be expressed only during the time spent inside a church? Martin Luther King's movement was based on his Christian beliefs, as was abolitionist John Brown's a century before King. So based on your reasoning they should have stayed silent, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

 

so you're saying that one's religious beliefs should be expressed only during the time spent inside a church? Martin Luther King's movement was based on his Christian beliefs, as was abolitionist John Brown's a century before King. So based on your reasoning they should have stayed silent, right?

 

we are talking about baking cake.  Cake is not based on any religious belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

 

so you're saying that one's religious beliefs should be expressed only during the time spent inside a church? Martin Luther King's movement was based on his Christian beliefs, as was abolitionist John Brown's a century before King. So based on your reasoning they should have stayed silent, right?

 

I didn't say express, I said govern.  John Brown's opponents quoted scripture too.  It's pretty tough to determine what God wants.  For example, God always supports both teams in the Super Bowl.  At least the teams think so... but one of them is always wrong, aren't they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that we're even debating whether a public business should be allowed to actively discriminate- based on the choice of religion- against gay people- not a choice at all- in 2018 says a lot about the state of the country right now.  I really don't see this being any different than a business telling a black person that they can't patronize it.  Where should the line go?

 

The line should be the First Amendment.  Is that so much to ask?

 

This is completely different than a business telling a black person that all of their business is unwelcome.  The baker expressly said that he would sell them anything ready-made in his store, and no one challenged him on that.  In fact, though I'm sure you don't care and you might even see this as even more evidence of his "hatred" or "bigotry" or whatever, the baker would be happy to bake either of them a wedding cake if they were marrying a woman, despite their same-sex attractions.  Because it was never about who they were as persons, it was about the purpose for which they wanted the cake.

 

At most, you could analogize this to a baker refusing to make a custom wedding cake for an interracial marriage.  I'd hold off on judging that until actually confronted with it.  But I wouldn't necessarily write off the possibility that the First Amendment would protect such a refusal--and I say that as someone in an interracial marriage myself.

 

Yes, the ignorant suggestion that the baker would make a cake for them if they weren't gay is not surprising- isn't that the entire point of their discrimination?

 

And you're full of it.  Not about them as people?  You support discrimination based on immutable characteristics, as if something you're born with can be inherently immoral.

 

I think we've been down this road of you deliberately misunderstanding me in the past.  He did not discriminate based on their immutable characteristics.  He discriminated based on their choice to engage in conduct--a wedding between two people that his faith does not recognize as capable of being married--that is sinful according to his religion.  And yes, there are still people who deal with same-sex attraction and yet choose to marry partners of the opposite sex--as he would see it, who choose to do the right thing according to God's plan for men and women, a plan that the law can recognize or not but is beyond the capacity of any government to alter.

 

It's nonsensical.  And when you and your spouse inevitably are turned away from businesses based on your interracial relationship, I can't wait for you to come here and pontificate on how that discrimination is a good thing for American rights.  As we've seen, nothing gets a conservative to change their views faster than when their own policies are used against them.

 

I don't believe that's inevitable.  But if a putative vendor for my 10th anniversary party turns me away, I'll commit to you now that I won't make a federal case of it.  Obviously, things are different if we're talking about a hospital or hotel or AAA when I'm stuck (especially considering I have a contract with them for which I've already paid), or Wal-Mart, but there is no colorable First Amendment claim in those circumstances.

 

I think you're being intentionally dishonest here.  Being gay is an immutable characteristic.  Therefore, who they end up in relationships with is determined by an inherent, immutable characteristic, exactly the same as a heterosexual person ending up with someone of the opposite sex is.  What you're ridiculously suggesting here is that the gay couple are at fault for entering into a homosexual relationship- which again, was inevitably determined by an inherent characteristic- rather than the baker being at fault for discriminating against them for it.  That's crazy.  It would be like discriminating against left-handed people for favoring their left hands, because of course that's going to happen.  It's there in the definition.  You can't realistically or honestly separate a homosexual from a homosexual relationship.

 

In what way could this exact structure of argument not be equally applied to pedophilia?  Or even to non-sexual mental states such as psychopathy?  Are those somehow less biologically innate than homosexual attraction?

 

It's inevitable if things keep progressing down the path that you support.  I enjoy the irony in which you arbitrarily apply the standards to which you would have a problem.  What's the difference between a small business discriminating against you and Wal-Mart?

 

Potentially a great many things.  Are you really arguing that there is no qualitative difference between a company with one owner-employee refusing to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding and a Wal-Mart refusing to sell laundry detergent?  That's the Sarah Huckabee Sanders treatment ("we don't serve your kind"), not the Masterpiece treatment ("we don't serve those occasions").

 

Nice of you to fall back on the standard gays=pedophiles. 

And you're once again confused.  I never once stated that what is biological must automatically be protected.  I see pretty clear distinctions. We can classify things into 4 easy categories:

1. Biological and not harmful-  This would include things like race, sexual orientation, being right or left-handed, etc.

2. Biological and harmful- This would include things like predisposition to cancer, diabetes, schizophrenia, Parkinson's.. and yes, pedophilia.

3. Not biological and harmful- Something like say, racism.

4. Not biological and not harmful- Everything else.

If a gay person enters into a homosexual relationship, there is no societal harm, nor any specific harm to the couple related directly to being homosexual.  The same can absolutely not be said about the latter.  And no, this isn't really subjective.  No treatment or behavioral control is needed for #1, but it is for #2.  Arguing that #3- something that religion-based discrimination falls under- should get to dictate #1 with the expectation that gay people stop being in gay relationships is dumb and illogical. 

 

I don't make those arbitrary distinctions. If a Wal-Mart employee or owner discriminated against me, I see no difference with that than if an employee or owner of a small business did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

I agree with Gramarye here. To me it's easy to reconcile. You can support the right of association or free speech even when that speech may be reprehensible. That doesn't mean you're "okay with" it.

 

Yes, actually it does.  The de-facto position is still in support of legal discrimination of immutable characteristics based on subjective personal views.  It's the basis of segregation, slavery, Native genocide, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

 

so you're saying that one's religious beliefs should be expressed only during the time spent inside a church? Martin Luther King's movement was based on his Christian beliefs, as was abolitionist John Brown's a century before King. So based on your reasoning they should have stayed silent, right?

 

I didn't say express, I said govern.  John Brown's opponents quoted scripture too.  It's pretty tough to determine what God wants.  For example, God always supports both teams in the Super Bowl.  At least the teams think so... but one of them is always wrong, aren't they? 

 

John Brown's and MLK's political movements--which were based in their religious beliefs--led to the enactment of laws that now govern the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a public defender it would be nice if I could choose my clients.  Because I can't, I'm often required to make moral arguments in favor of people and ideas that I oppose.  It's awkward but that's the system we use to separate ourselves from tyranny.  So don't tell me you can't bake a cake because morals.

 

Okay. Go ahead. Make your racist customer a cake that says "white power." Damn your morals.

 

If we're arguing morals then we might as well address who's being hateful and who isn't.  In your scenario the baker isn't supplying the hate-- his customers are.  In the real scenario, the baker treated a gay couple as if they wanted a "white power" cake.  Unless an aversion to gays is assumed by the listener, his stance doesn't sound the slightest bit moral.

 

We will always have people disagreeing on what is moral. Or what is hate. Even if you and I agree on what is moral - and in both cases I think we do - we cannot have government enforcing this standard on such a personal level.

 

Yet they did exactly that many times over.  With Civil Rights, gay rights, women voting, etc.  The only people who seem to have a problem with the country moving forward on these issues are those who would love for us to go back to the time when they could put black people in the back of the bus again... or off the bus altogether.  But now those people are in power and we're no longer a nation that moves forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

 

so you're saying that one's religious beliefs should be expressed only during the time spent inside a church? Martin Luther King's movement was based on his Christian beliefs, as was abolitionist John Brown's a century before King. So based on your reasoning they should have stayed silent, right?

 

I didn't say express, I said govern.  John Brown's opponents quoted scripture too.  It's pretty tough to determine what God wants.  For example, God always supports both teams in the Super Bowl.  At least the teams think so... but one of them is always wrong, aren't they? 

 

John Brown's and MLK's political movements--which were based in their religious beliefs--led to the enactment of laws that now govern the country.

 

And that's fine, because those beliefs were filtered through the Pee Wee Herman breakfast machine that we call legislative process.  It's different, in fact it's the polar opposite, when someone claims their personal beliefs should supersede the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

 

so you're saying that one's religious beliefs should be expressed only during the time spent inside a church? Martin Luther King's movement was based on his Christian beliefs, as was abolitionist John Brown's a century before King. So based on your reasoning they should have stayed silent, right?

 

I didn't say express, I said govern.  John Brown's opponents quoted scripture too.  It's pretty tough to determine what God wants.  For example, God always supports both teams in the Super Bowl.  At least the teams think so... but one of them is always wrong, aren't they? 

 

John Brown's and MLK's political movements--which were based in their religious beliefs--led to the enactment of laws that now govern the country.

 

And that's fine, because those beliefs were filtered through the Pee Wee Herman breakfast machine that we call legislative process.  It's different, in fact it's the polar opposite, when someone claims their personal beliefs should supersede the law.

 

No one said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs and symbolism?

 

That would make governance so easy.

 

It is easy, as long as we accept that religious beliefs can't govern.  Nobody walked into anyone's church and demanded the worship of homosexuality.  Only then would religious freedom be at stake.

 

so you're saying that one's religious beliefs should be expressed only during the time spent inside a church? Martin Luther King's movement was based on his Christian beliefs, as was abolitionist John Brown's a century before King. So based on your reasoning they should have stayed silent, right?

 

we are talking about baking cake.  Cake is not based on any religious belief.

wrong!

42308999294_136db15ba5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gramarye sure does have some interesting cognitive dissonance on this issue.

 

Let me break this down into two scenarios: 

 

1) A gay couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your sexual orientation, but because I can't personally endorse a same-sex marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is okay with this.

 

2) An interracial couple approaches a baker and requests a wedding cake. The baker says "I won't bake you this cake. Not because of your respective races, but because I can't personally endorse an interracial marriage since it is against my personal morals." Gramarye is NOT okay with this, despite the fact that I simply copied and pasted the above scenario and changed the details about the couples.

 

I agree with Gramarye here. To me it's easy to reconcile. You can support the right of association or free speech even when that speech may be reprehensible. That doesn't mean you're "okay with" it.

 

Yes, actually it does.  The de-facto position is still in support of legal discrimination of immutable characteristics based on subjective personal views.  It's the basis of segregation, slavery, Native genocide, etc. 

 

For crying out loud.

 

If I just told a right-winger that the Constitution shouldn't be amended to prohibit flag burning he'd say "So you want to burn the flag? You hate freedom!"

 

That's you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't these same arguments made during the Civil Rights era?

 

Arguments related to SCOTUS decisions or arguments opposing Civil Rights Legislation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't these same arguments made during the Civil Rights era?

 

Arguments related to SCOTUS decisions or arguments opposing Civil Rights Legislation?

 

I don't know anymore and I don't feel like scrolling back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Roberts say Korematsu is "morally repugnant" and "gravely wrong" while....authoring the next Korematsu?

 

Authoring the next Korematsu?  If referring to Trump v Hawaii, how is this so?

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trump-v-hawaii-the-travel-ban-ruling-will-be-the-roberts-courts-shameful-legacy.html

 

The justices had asked in oral arguments whether the travel ban’s waiver program—the existence of which the DOJ relied on to argue that the ban was a fair and standard presidential directive—was merely “window dressing.” Statistics and individual cases of denials had already suggested that the waiver process may be a sham. As Jeremy Stahl has reported, a former consular officer said in a sworn affidavit that he had no discretion to actually grant waivers. Another consular officer said “the waiver process is fraud” and has “no rational basis.” It’s fair to ask whether Francisco misrepresented the waiver process.

 

Remember...the travel ban originally was supposed to be for four months so the government could "investigate" visas, refugees, etc. etc.  Where are the results of this "investigation?"


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...