Colorado Baker Wins

[TahoeHorn 107]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objections.

The ruling was 6-2.

[Mo Horn 8840]

How is a 6-2 ruling a narrow ruling?

[TahoeHorn 107]

7 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

How is a 6-2 ruling a narrow ruling?

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.

Edited June 4, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[VRHorn 718]

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Because it favored the baker.  Had it favored the state it would have been an overwhelming ruling.

Nope - try again. In your response, please mention "case-specific animus."

[David Dennison 18860]

Ahhh, bigotry alive and well in the USA.

[TahoeHorn 107]

4 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

Nope - try again. In your response, please mention "case-specific animus."

I was joking.

[EMAWesome 101]

14 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

How is a 6-2 ruling a narrow ruling?

Because there is no such thing as liberal bias in the media.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Because there is no such thing as liberal bias in the media.

 

13 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

How is a 6-2 ruling a narrow ruling?

lolol

['stache 21815]

I guess you can’t have your cake and have gay sex with it too.

[David Dennison 18860]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Because there is no such thing as liberal bias in the media.

Do you need a cry room, snowflake? Are you triggered?

[TahoeHorn 107]

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.  

Edited June 4, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Dr Fear 1268]

At a quick glance the SCOTUS took the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to task for their hostility to the baker's 1st Amendment religious rights.  They did not make a general test saying in what circumstances people can deny service on religious grounds.  

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

4 minutes ago, Dr Fear said:

At a quick glance the SCOTUS took the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to task for their hostility to the baker's 1st Amendment religious rights.  They did not make a general test saying in what circumstances people can deny service on religious grounds.  

This is my take too. Nothing in this opinion resolves the question of whether the baker's actions were okay. It simply states that when reviewing claims like this, civil rights commissions must not be openly hostile to a person's religious beliefs. 

Quote

In view of these factors the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips’ religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating Phillips’ religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it. Id., at 537. It hardly requires restating that government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ consciencebased objection is legitimate or illegitimate. On these facts, the Court must draw the inference that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Seasick Sailor

[RomaVicta 29907]

Is it evil that I never could work up much concern over this?

We all should be able to expect tolerance and display towards all. I think the bakery is run by bigots and they triggered the lawsuit, but denial of a cake is a long way from being forced to the back of the bus or poll tests.

From my very limited knowledge of the case, it appears the Supreme Court saw this individual case similarly. Okay, they're assholes that don't want to bake a cake due to their own intolerance of homosexuals; maybe there's room for tolerance of idiocy in specific cases.

Edit: I see some wiser persons have pre-empted my own quaint take on this. Thanks to them for illumination.

Edited June 4, 2018 by RomaVicta

[Ghost of LL 15531]

5 minutes ago, Seasick Sailor said:

This is my take too. Nothing in this opinion resolves the question of whether the baker's actions were okay. It simply states that when reviewing claims like this, civil rights commissions must not be openly hostile to person's religious beliefs. 

 

 

I think it indicates that the state cannot require cake-baking that conflicts with a bona fide religious belief.  I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to have to argue that going forward.  But you're right that it's a very narrow opinion that leaves open some options for promulgating and enforcing a neutral statute.

Is it evil that I never could work up much concern over this?

We all should be able to expect tolerance and display towards all. I think the bakery is run by bigots and they triggered the lawsuit, but denial of a cake is a long way from being forced to the back of the bus or poll tests.

From my very limited knowledge of the case, it appears the Supreme Court saw this individual case similarly. Okay, they're assholes that don't want to bake a cake due to their own intolerance of homosexuals; maybe there's room for tolerance of idiocy in specific cases.

 

If it is evil, then I join you in your wickedness.  Frankly, this case has always struck me as unnecessary triumphalism on the part of gay-rights activists who now find themselves largely without any more rights for which to fight.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Ghost of LL

[Chad Fuck 17681]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Is it evil that I never could work up much concern over this?

We all should be able to expect tolerance and display towards all. I think the bakery is run by bigots and they triggered the lawsuit, but denial of a cake is a long way from being forced to the back of the bus or poll tests.

From my very limited knowledge of the case, it appears the Supreme Court saw this individual case similarly. Okay, they're assholes that don't want to bake a cake due to their own intolerance of homosexuals; maybe there's room for tolerance of idiocy in specific cases.

New whatever CR is called now motto?

[TahoeHorn 107]

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.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Here's the opinion.  I'd hate to be the CO Civil Rights Commission guy that Kennedy lays waste to (page 12 and on).  At least his actual name doesn't appear in there.  That would suck to be called out as a jackass by SCOTUS to be memorialized for all time.

 

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/04/16-111_j4el.pdf

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

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.

That reads like Genesis 5. 

[David Dennison 18860]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

If it is evil, then I join you in your wickedness.  Frankly, this case has always struck me as unnecessary triumphalism on the part of gay-rights activists who now find themselves largely without any more rights for which to fight.

Here's the issue from the gay rights perspective: What if the couple had been black and the baker refused to serve them on religious grounds? Is sexual orientation not as important as race? What if the couple had been Muslim?

[Brisketexan 105139]

4 minutes ago, Dr Fear said:

At a quick glance the SCOTUS took the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to task for their hostility to the baker's 1st Amendment religious rights.  They did not make a general test saying in what circumstances people can deny service on religious grounds.  

Correct.  Two other interesting points, one as it relates back to the Obergefell (gay marriage) SCOTUS decision, and another as it relates to president Trump and some of his executive actions:

1 -- Kennedy wrote Obergefell, which did acknowledge that sincerely-held religious beliefs could hold that gay marriage was sinful, and such beliefs are generally entitled to some protection (without giving us any real specific guidance how to do so - I've voiced my opinion that, while I agree with the result, I think it was a poorly-written opinion; it's more of a "love poem" than a SCOTUS decision, and does a shitty job stating the legal reasoning in a way that gives us guidance for further decisions).

2 -- it look s like the KEY basis for the SCOTUS opinion here were statements by some of the Co. commissioners that "religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips' faith as despicable or characterized it as merely rehetorical," and similar statements of the same tone.  They conclude that "The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission's adjudication of Phillips' case."

This is consistent with several recent court rulings that have taken into account statements made by Trump as to the basis for some of his executive orders ("MUSLIM BAN!")  There is some distinction, as some (but not all) of Trump's statements pre-dated his election to the office, but as they were statements made about the exact policy at issue, that distinction doesn't have much weight.  There's a lesson there for all public officials: if you publicly state a constitutionally impermissible basis for a policy decision, don't expect to get the benefit of the doubt.

The court also found troubling the difference in treatment between bakers who refused to decorate cakes with ANTI-GAY statements, and this baker.  But by not issuing a broad ruling, we don't get much guidance on that (I do need to read the remainder of the case to see what they say in-depth on that point -- I'm not there yet, maybe tonight).

[TahoeHorn 107]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think it indicates that the state cannot require cake-baking that conflicts with a bona fide religious belief.  I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to have to argue that going forward.  But you're right that it's a very narrow opinion that leaves open some options for promulgating and enforcing a neutral statute.

 

If it is evil, then I join you in your wickedness.  Frankly, this case has always struck me as unnecessary triumphalism on the part of gay-rights activists who now find themselves largely without any more rights for which to fight.

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.

[Brisketexan 105139]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

If it is evil, then I join you in your wickedness.  Frankly, this case has always struck me as unnecessary triumphalism on the part of gay-rights activists who now find themselves largely without any more rights for which to fight.

Interestingly, my wife and I were just talking about this in the context of a certain denomination.  Now that the issues of homosexual ordination and marriage have been put to bed....there aren't really any more fights to be had, yet the folks who built their entire identity around "the struggle" have no other identity or playbook to go to.  So, they get angry if a congregation doesn't purposefully seek and call a gay pastor, etc.  It's not an uncommon phenomenon with such issues; the crusaders have a tough time figuring out what to do with their time when (1) the crusade is over and won, and (2) all they know how to do is crusade.

[David Dennison 18860]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

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.

That's easy to say when you aren't the one who believes his civil rights are being violated. It's like saying black people who were refused service for most of this nation's history should have just gone elsewhere. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by David Dennison

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

Looks like the Court may have a chance to answer the big questions it avoided here next term if it so chooses:

Opinion from the Washington Supreme Court: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/17-108-opinion-below.pdf

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That's easy to say when you aren't the one who believes his civil rights are being violated. It's like saying black people who were refused service for most of this nation's history should have just gone elsewhere. 

Racial issues are not the same as religious issues, stop trying to make them so.  I respect peoples religious rights, whether I agree with them or not.

The color of a persons skin is not a religious issue.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Brian Fantana 6687]

I wanna pay a gay person to walk up and touch Tahoe and see if he melts

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Racial issues are not the same as religious issues, stop trying to make them so.  I repsect peoples religious rights, whether I agree with them or not.

The color of a persons skin is not a religious issue.

Sexual orientation is not a religious issue. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's easy to say when you aren't the one who believes their civil rights are being violated. It's like saying black people who were refused service for most of this nation's history should have just gone elsewhere. 

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.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

It's a good thing that some people are willing to take principled stands on matters of constitional significance.   On both sides of this issue (and others).   Only an ass consistently favors expediency over principle on such matters

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

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.

What if the couple had been black and Masterpiece refused to serve them on religious grounds? Is that OK?

Edited June 4, 2018 by David Dennison

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's easy to say when you aren't the one who believes his civil rights are being violated. It's like saying black people who were refused service for most of this nation's history should have just gone elsewhere. 

if that were true, the result would have probably been different.  A restaurant is not artistic/verbal expression, is not a one-off non-essential event, and the discriminating restaurant was surrounded by similarly discriminating restaurants.

[Brian Fantana 6687]

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I wanna pay a gay person to walk up and touch Tahoe and see if he melts

Strike that, replace Tahoe with Onboard

[Ghost of LL 15531]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's easy to say when you aren't the one who believes his civil rights are being violated. It's like saying black people who were refused service for most of this nation's history should have just gone elsewhere. 

I'm sorry, but this isn't Heart of Atlanta Motel.  On the scale of civil-rights abuses, this is pretty minuscule.  You're just never going to convince me that making a gay couple go to one of a hundred other bakeries in Denver is in any way equivalent to forcing black people to travel with the Green Book in the car to avoid getting stranded.  

[phdhorn 6224]

I wonder if this is going to hurt my monthly order of vagina shaped tarts?

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Racial issues are not the same as religious issues, stop trying to make them so.  I repsect peoples religious rights, whether I agree with them or not.

The color of a persons skin is not a religious issue.

Well, you're WAY overstating that point.

Racism has been justified on religious grounds for hundreds of years:

Quote

As early as 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregated railway cars on the grounds that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.”

. . . . . . 

For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”

Ross Barnett won Mississippi’s governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor.

Seriously, we can go to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and see citations to biblical authority in support of segregation and discrimination.

I think it's a thorny-as-hell issue, because we can't question the legitimacy or sincerity of someone's religious beliefs.  And while TODAY, most decent Christian theologians do not believe in any theological basis for racism.....that wasn't always the case, and among SOME people, that is STILL not the case.  In short, there ARE people, today, who believe that black people are lesser people, and that was ordained by God.

How do we handle that belief?

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I'm sorry, but this isn't Heart of Atlanta Motel.  On the scale of civil-rights abuses, this is pretty minuscule.  You're just never going to convince me that making a gay couple go to one of a hundred other bakeries in Denver is in any way equivalent to forcing black people to travel with the Green Book in the car to avoid getting stranded.  

But it is a civil rights abuse, however minuscule it may seem.

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I wanna pay a gay person to walk up and touch Tahoe and see if he melts

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.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

1 minute ago, phdhorn said:

I wonder if this is going to hurt my monthly order of vagina shaped tarts?

I prefer my vagina-shaped pastries to be eclairs.  

[Brisketexan 105139]

2 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I wonder if this is going to hurt my monthly order of vagina shaped tarts?

I dunno.  I just know that Mike Pence won't allow the grocer to pack those in the same bag as a bunch of bananas.

[Brian Fantana 6687]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

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.

Also black people. You admitted that openly on shaggy, don't forget.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

But it is a civil rights abuse, however minuscule it may seem.

But so too would be compelling a person to act contrary to his bona fide religious beliefs.  And since we're abusing somebody's rights, I'm going to abuse in the direction that causes the least harm.

[phdhorn 6224]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno.  I just know that Mike Pence won't allow the grocer to pack those in the same bag as a bunch of bananas.

Tap your foot in the stall next to a guy I've got.  He'll handle it.

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Also black people. You admitted that openly on shaggy, don't forget.

You didn't understand my argument.  But you don't understand much so ...

[tantric superman 4667]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Sexual orientation is not a religious issue. 

And yet I worships the ladies.

[tantric superman 4667]

10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

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. 

There is no "balance".  Capitalism and the ideas of capitalism are not going to be affected in any way shape or form in telling a business it needs to not treat gays any differently than others. 

You aren't balancing anything.

I think there are plenty of times to take absolutist type positions, but don't pretend you are balancing.

[Art Vandelay 1712]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Sexual orientation is not a religious issue. 

 

Millions of Muslims and fundamentalist Christians (I am neither) would disagree with you.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Art Vandelay

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Sexual orientation is not a religious issue. 

 Gay marriage is a. religious taboo in the eyes of many religions.  Where are are you getting it's not ?  Or are you just playing obtuse for the fans ?

[Dahobbs 17534]

7 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You didn't understand my argument.  But you don't understand much so ...

I'd say he understood it fairly well...

 

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

But so too would be compelling a person to act contrary to his bona fide religious beliefs.  And since we're abusing somebody's rights, I'm going to abuse in the direction that causes the least harm.

I sort of understand this. I agree that the overall impact to the couple is minor given the presence of other choices. But I don't think that is a sound basis for a constitutional ruling. I also think it is premature to conclude that the baker's rights were being abused in anyway. The baker isn't being asked to be gay, to recognize the validity of gayness, or anything like that. Rather, the baker is being asked to provide the exact same service that has been made available to general public, baking and decorating a cake. I see only one clear violation of rights, that of the gay couple looking utilize a public accommodation. To me, a thornier issue would be if a religious officiant were being asked to preside over a gay wedding. That more clearly implicates two sets of rights. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

12 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

There is no "balance".  Capitalism and the ideas of capitalism are not going to be affected in any way shape or form in telling a business it needs to not treat gays any differently than others. 

You aren't balancing anything.

I think there are plenty of times to take absolutist type positions, but don't pretend you are balancing.

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.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by TahoeHorn