Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. But what about the set of instructions to put it together? Will they go for that?
  2. This is the point, and no one has provided insight. I'm hoping one of our bright Constitutional lawyers will read the 59 pages (or whatever) and tell us what the Justices think about the broader issues. I would think that if you read all the opinions you could venture a good guess.
  3. Three more Judges are about to be confirmed.
  4. They support the notion that customers discriminate against vendors on a whole long list of reasons. I do not address vendors discriminating against customers in this anecdote. And I have argued specifically against that elsewhere. I'll reiterate. The anecdote is about customer v. vendor discrimination, not vendor v. customer discrimination. Big difference.
  5. I don't think the Dem Coroners' practices were corrupt. That's too strong a word. And the funeral homes didn't do anything wrong. But everybody had a different idea of how the process should work. If you were Coroner and there were no directions for where to send the body, how would you decide where to send it, knowing that many families would just do business with the funeral home which had the body when the family first learned of the death? Would you for example send a body in a Hazel Green traffic accident to the funeral home in Hazel Green? Would you send the body of a Black person to a Black funeral home or to the nearest funeral home? The Dem Coroners used "custom" with a preference for their own funeral home if the custom wasn't obvious. Black people went to Black funeral homes on a rotating basis. Every funeral home wanted every body they could get. But they all knew when customers left the funeral home as is, and when they decided to pick a new one. Back to JBJ's point, I'll bet most of the gay population wants a gay baker. There are certain demographics in our society which are especially inclined to do business with "their own". I personally am oblivious to that sort of thing when I choose, say, an insurance agent. But I can tell you that I know a bunch of people, and all gays I've known are in this group, who are acutely aware of these things when picking a vendor. There are certain religious denominations here in Alabama where people seem fanatical about doing business with their own - everything from insurance agent and car dealer to Little League coach and ballet teacher. It's creepy. I can understand Blacks and gays being this way. I kind of understand Church of Christ. What's absolutely nutty is when the car dealer or banker has to be a fan of the Crimson Tide, or at least not an Auburn fan.
  6. Yes. The subject is how the marketplace actually forms around some of these areas (e.g. race), and how many actually want that when the government is trying to prevent it. I bolded JBJ's point. That should have been a big hint.
  7. I'm nominally pro-choice, and have been since I understood the issue. (Prior to Roe v. Wade Which came when I was in college I had never thought about it.) You assume my positions incorrectly quite a bit. Why?
  8. When the GOP took over the Coroner's office here in 2010 the new Coroner had a meeting I attended to discuss his new policy to end the good ol' boy practices of sending the bodies without instructions to various funeral homes. The Black funeral homes protested vigorously. They wanted Black bodies sent to Black funeral homes and White bodies sent to White funeral homes. The argument was that they'd end up there anyway and the Coroner was just adding to the cost of relocating the bodies once the families of the deceased showed up and specified what they wanted. The corner was advocating a "blind" process" which did not give any funeral home an economic advantage (as was the case when Dem Coroners ran things). (Our Coroner gets $10K per year, and gets his livelihood from a funeral home. It is a lot of work, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. You do the math.)
  9. No. Young women have much higher health care costs, mostly due to maternity costs.
  10. It may not be his argument but ... I have argued that a business providing a standard product should not be able to discriminate but a business supplying a custom product should. The discrimination is for the product, not the person. I have argued against any discrimination based on the type of person if it's a standard product. After thinking about it, I'm not totally comfortable with that though. For example a barber might decide that he didn't want to cut kids hair. Or a hair place might charge women more for a perm than a man. A night club might decide that hot ladies could get in free while guys had to pay a cover. (They'd let ugly girls in free too.) I think those practices are ok even though they violate my rules. But basically I back my rules and I'd be ok to just say those are the rules. Insurance companies can charge young men more for driving insurance but can't charge young women more for health insurance. What's with that?
  11. I'll buy that.
  12. Has anybody read the opinions and developed a view on how SCOTUS would address broader issues?
  13. Society has gone nutty with the way we treat various offenses. Guy A embezzles from the company, Guy B cheats on his expense account, Guy C bangs a co-worker's wife, Guy D is an alcoholic, Guy E gets into a fist fight with a coworker, Guy F fabricates his divisions sales numbers, and Guy G makes an ethnic slur. And who gets fired? It's nuts. I can think of a lot of good reasons to fire Joy Reid but her blog posts of yesteryear aren't on my list.
  14. I'm having trouble imagining a gay wedding in Lufkin with a fancy wedding cake. If the entire town blackballs the baker who comes to the wedding? Does everybody drive in from Montrose?
  15. And they'll lose. I don't think the concept is that tough.
  16. It's not a perfect definition, or as a mathematician would say " a well defined set". But roughly speaking I'd ask whether two different people would provide a fundamentally different products at fundamentally different prices. I think two master bakers would provide different $2,000 wedding cakes, two different patent lawyers would provide two different defenses, and two different artists would provide two different portraits. But two different girls in the WalMart bake shop would provide essentially the same "custom" $30 birthday cake, two different kids at Burger King would provide the essentially same burger done your way, and two different rooms at the Holiday Inn Express are essentially the same. But an artist doing $5 cartoons of you at the fair would fall under rule #1 even though two different cartoonists would provide a different product. They're all five minutes work for five bucks. I see that as a standard product. I have a pretty high bar for "custom". I haven't thought it through but I think I have a pretty clear sense of whether the product is "custom". The $2,000 wedding cake isn't a standard product at a standard price. It's got a lot of art and a lot of variable pricing. And the skill and vision of the baker is important. The $30 birthday cake at WalMart is $30 and it doesn't matter much if Sue or Jill does the icing. I think we should demand that the guy providing the assembly line service provide it to all but the guy doing art gets to do what he wants.
  17. My "rules" apply to anyone. It applies to any type of business and any type of customer: 1.If the business is supplying a standard product to the general public it must supply it to all, unless there is some overriding government dictate (e.g. national security concern for selling supercomputers). 2. If the business is providing a custom product (e.g. defending a business in a patent lawsuit) then they are totally free to decide to whom they provide their service. A $2000 cake to a gay wedding is governed by rule #2. Flowers to a gay wedding is governed by rule #1. The "gay wedding part doesn't have shit to do with deciding which rule applies. Nor does race, religion, national origin or favored football team.
  18. You didn't understand my argument. But you don't understand much so ...
  19. You clearly don't understand me. I'd rule against the guy who doesn't want to provide flowers to a gay wedding. I have some huge prejudices. The gay thing isn't one of them. My prejudices are about the nature of capitalism. I'm a hard core capitalist who has strong ideas about the right way to make capitalism work properly - how to balance the needs of the buyer with the needs of the seller. My arguments transcend any description of the buyer or seller.
  20. No it isn't. There is a big difference between situations where you have good options and situations where you don't. And there is a big difference between "standard" services and "custom" services. Everyone should have a right to standard services and services with no options. But providers of custom services with other options (e.g. a lawyer) should be able to decide to whom they provide that custom service. There is a big difference in my mind between access to a cake at WalMart and access to a baker's time for a custom cake.
  21. I have no sympathy for either side. I think the gay couple should have gone elsewhere. I think the bakery should have said "I'd love to but I'm busy that Saturday." Only an ass wants this in court.
  22. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 4, 2018. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
  23. It looks like it was 7-2 with one Justice not joining the majority opinion but ruling in favor of the baker. But I'm guessing from articles which aren't clear to me. P.S. I guessed wrong about why early reports were 6-2.
  24. I was joking.
  25. Because it favored the baker. Had it favored the state it would have been an overwhelming ruling. P.S. I'm joking. Narrow refers to the breadth of the ruling. It didn't mahke broad statements about religious freedom.
×
×
  • Create New...