Colorado Baker Wins

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

1) the baker wasnt shielded from anything

2) the Supreme Court made no substantive ruling. Rather, this is a procedural ruling that the inquiry has to be neutral. 

1) No he wasn't, his business was ruined.

2) The courts ruling of 6-2 means what exactly ?

[Neonmoon 38127]

14 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Yawn.

I’ve seen plenty of gay people online that are fine with this. 

I know tons of black people who will just walk to the next restaurant if the first one won't serve them. What's the big deal?

We have gay bakeries and straight bakeries. They gays can go to the gay bakers and non-religious bakers, and the straights can go to the straight bakeries and the religious bakeries. Simple solution. 

Free markets everyone. 

[Dahobbs 17437]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

1) No he wasn't, his business was ruined.

2) The courts ruling of 6-2 means what exactly ?

That the Colorado commission didnt neutrally evaluate the religious assertion. The Court didnt say what the substantive outcome should be, just that the adjudicating body has to be neutral. Read the case. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Dahobbs

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

1) No he wasn't, his business was ruined.

2) The courts ruling of 6-2 means what exactly ?

He ruined his own business. He decided not to sell wedding cakes at all anymore. He could have followed the ruling and sold cakes to gay people while waiting for appeal (0 gays would have sought his business anyway), or sought a stay from the ruling (or even ignored the ruling) while the appeal was in process. 

As far as boycotts, that's the free market in action. He probably shouldn't have been a dick to gay people when he's trying to operate a local business in a liberal metro area. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That the Colorado commission didnt neutrally evaluate the religious assertion. The Court didnt say what the substantive outcome should be, just that the adjudicating body has to be neutral. Read the case. 

I heard that on NPR. I take it to mean religious freedom has to be considered.  It seems it was completely discounted in that case.

[JBJ 3648]

 

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I heard that on NPR. I take it to mean religious freedom has to be considered.  It seems it was completely discounted in that case.

The oral arguments leaned strongly towards this being the outcome.  Kennedy tore them a new asshole there as well. 

It is not even that religious freedom has to be considered.  It is that the CRC targeted the baker because of his religion.

Edited June 4, 2018 by JBJ

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, JBJ said:

 

The oral arguments leaned strongly towards this being the outcome.  Kennedy tore them a new asshole there as well. 

It is not even that religuous freedom has to be considered.  It is that the CRC was specifically targetting religion.

THAT is exactly what I took from the ruling.

[hayden_horn 11360]

so, uh, exactly what did he win? that the commission was unfair to him? okay. i take from the ruling that the state laws in 2012, and prior to obergefell, presented a very different situation from today, and that at that time, his treatment was unfair. nowhere in this ruling does it talk about whether or not he discriminated against the gay couple unfairly, or that he was righteous in his refusal to bake the fucking cake. i'm no legal eagle, but that's my takeaway. congrats on your martyrdom, dude, but you probably still have to make the gays their cakes.

[DixonHur 11171]

20 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I know tons of black people who will just walk to the next restaurant if the first one won't serve them. What's the big deal?

We have gay bakeries and straight bakeries. They gays can go to the gay bakers and non-religious bakers, and the straights can go to the straight bakeries and the religious bakeries. Simple solution. 

Free markets everyone. 

I assume you're being facetious, but I actually believe the free markets would sort this stuff out more efficiently than the government. 

I think all private companies should retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. 

Of course, I also know that in the eyes of many on this board that is tantamount to being a bigot.  And I'm sure some "free market" proponents are bigots, but for me it's really the opposite.  It exposes the bigots and allows me, as a consumer, to make a more informed decision as to where I spend my money.

[GringoSalado 1651]

3 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

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

 Diann Rice

[po elvis 2070]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I assume you're being facetious, but I actually believe the free markets would sort this stuff out more efficiently than the government. 

I think all private companies should retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. 

Of course, I also know that in the eyes of many on this board that is tantamount to being a bigot.  And I'm sure some "free market" proponents are bigots, but for me it's really the opposite.  It exposes the bigots and allows me, as a consumer, to make a more informed decision as to where I spend my money.

That is how I have always been. Why would people want to give their money to bigots, when if they are outed, you can know that and take your money elsewhere. But as someone on here pointed out to me, what about rural areas where there are no choices for the consumer?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, po elvis said:

That is how I have always been. Why would people want to give their money to bigots, when if they are outed, you can know that and take your money elsewhere. But as someone on here pointed out to me, what about rural areas where there are no choices for the consumer?

or real estate agents selling you houses or not if they don't want your kind in their area.  The free market concept is a horrible horrible idea.  Violence would Rampo top a good bit as well.  You think people, get pissed 'cause they can't substitute French fries at the local diner ?  Try adding yeah, we don't serve (fill in the blank ) here.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Has anybody read the opinions and developed a view on how SCOTUS would address broader issues?

[troph 24562]

3 hours 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.

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

having to ask yourself before you walk in the door of an establishment - is this a place I can go and purchase goods or services if they know who I am or who I love is a shitty way to have to walk through life.  being refused service because you're gay or trans or queer or whatever has to be humiliating and infuriating.  until hobby lobby, it was well settled law that "because I think they are sinners" wasn't a vaild legal reason to refuse service to someone when you are otherwise open to the public.  I know all the straight white men on here think this is no big deal.  but damn, I think about it all the time, especially on bathrooms, but same goes for buying goods and services.  it's both not a big deal and it's also a really big deal all at the same time.  but then so is sitting in the back of the bus versus the front.  so yeah, it's the same thing to those of us on the wrong side of these sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by troph

[phdhorn 6224]

56 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That the Colorado commission didnt neutrally evaluate the religious assertion. The Court didnt say what the substantive outcome should be, just that the adjudicating body has to be neutral. Read the case. 

 

3 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

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

Yep, good calls.
I remember at the time that that guy was outright hostile.  Kennedy slapped his arrogant ass down.  That dipship and the CO CRC fucked up royally.

And that cost them this decision.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Has anybody read the opinions and developed a view on how SCOTUS would address broader issues?

we have people literally directing posters to parts of the opinion and citing to its page numbers on this thread.  condescension fail.

[Dahobbs 17437]

27 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I heard that on NPR. I take it to mean religious freedom has to be considered.  It seems it was completely discounted in that case.

I don't know what you think that means. Yes, it has be considered because there is a constitutional issue involved. Yes, the adjudicating body has to to consider the issue in a fair and neutral way. That was not the case here, as the Court said:

 The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.

The procedure was tainted here due to that hostility. But, the substantive outcome, whether the baker really is protected from state action, is still very much in debate.  

[DixonHur 11171]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

or real estate agents selling you houses or not if they don't want your kind in their area.  The free market concept is a horrible horrible idea.  Violence would Rampo top a good bit as well.  You think people, get pissed 'cause they can't substitute French fries at the local diner ?  Try adding yeah, we don't serve (fill in the blank ) here.

Sorry to break it to you, but this already happens...a lot...it's just more subtle.

Some of you guys act like 90% of the country are racists and/or homophobs.  As for small towns, yeah, some suck, but I find most to be much more racially inclusive than cities.  People seem less scary if you actually know them. 

Plus, for purely economic reasons, many who are racists/homophobs would continue to suck it up, so they can make a profit.  Pretty hard to make a living selling cake, etc. to only evangelical, straight, white males.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

 

Plus, for purely economic reasons, many who are racists/homophobs would continue to suck it up, so they can make a profit.  Pretty hard to make a living selling cake, etc. to only evangelical, straight, white males.

 

that was the way of the world for the first half of last century.  people lived their entire lives in  discriminatory economies, and the discriminating parties fared just fine financially.  

 

as you say, 'people seem less scary if you know them.'  it is totally true.  but there is something in us that keeps us from naturally wanting to know people different from us.

[staboner 4957]

8 minutes ago, troph said:

having to ask yourself before you walk in the door of an establishment - is this a place I can go and purchase goods or services if they know who I am or who I love is a shitty way to have to walk through life.  being refused service because you're gay or trans or queer or whatever has to be humiliating and infuriating.  until hobby lobby, it was well settled law that "because I think they are sinners" wasn't a vaild legal reason to refuse service to someone when you are otherwise open to the public.  I know all the straight white men on here think this is no big deal.  but damn, I think about it all the time, especially on bathrooms, but same goes for buying goods and services.  it's both not a big deal and it's also a really big deal all at the same time.  but then so is sitting in the back of the bus versus the front.  so yeah, it's the same thing to those of us on the wrong side of these sincerely held religious beliefs. 

yeah i find the religious freedom angle here to be really frightening. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, staboner said:

yeah i find the religious freedom angle here to be really frightening. 

No shit.  Giving people protected reasons why they can discrimate is fucked up, and has no place in a society that promotes free enterprise and equality of all under the law.

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

that was the way of the world for the first half of last century.  people lived their entire lives in  discriminatory economies, and the discriminating parties fared just fine financially.  

 

as you say, 'people seem less scary if you know them.'  it is totally true.  but there is something in us that keeps us from naturally wanting to know people different from us.

Things change.  Attitudes change.  We aren't living in the 1950's anymore.  I'd wager the vast majority of white Americans have a friend from another race, culture, religion, sexual orientation, etc. 

[JBJ 3648]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No shit.  Giving people protected reasons why they can discrimate is fucked up, and has no place in a society that promotes free enterprise and equality of all under the law.

You guys are seeing this wrong:

He did not discriminate under Colorado law.  Full stop.

The CRC ignored Colorado law to prosecute a guy based on his religion.  Full stop.

Edited June 4, 2018 by JBJ

['stache 21762]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

And they'll lose.  I don't think the concept is that tough.

You really think some bumblefuck courts in Alabama (and Alabama-esque places like Okrahoma) won't rule in favor of stupid arguments to avoid serving gays?  It's gonna happen.  Cause gays are evil and praise jesus or some bullshit.  You can't fix stupid.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You guys are seeing this wrong:

He did not discriminate under Colorado law.  Full stop.

The CRC knew that he did not discriminate under Colorado law.  Full stop.

The CRC ignored Coloado law to prosecute a guy based on his religion.  Full stop.

Fact ??  Interesting.

I still don't believe any discrimination is OK.

[DixonHur 11171]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Fact ??  Interesting.

I still don't believe any discrimination is OK.

I don't think anyone is arguing that discrimination is OK,.  I agree  that discrimination should be completely unacceptable.but I think people have a right to run their private business the way they want.  I don't have to agree with them.

Edited June 4, 2018 by DixonHur

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

It's too simple to say the free market or changing attitudes will ultimately fix the situation.   Sometimes the govt has to step in especially when the majority is or perceived to be discriminatory against the minority.   Eventually the majority may decide to stop on their own, but maybe not.  Or they may move too slowly.   If the govt hadn't integrated schools during the Civil Rights era, would schools be integrated now?  Most would be but I think it's naive to think all.

If a baker was discriminating against someone, how am I supposed to know as another consumer.  If I happened to be in the store at the time, or presumably reading through every yelp review, maybe I might know.  But then again, maybe not.

[DixonHur 11171]

7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It's too simple to say the free market or changing attitudes will ultimately fix the situation.   Sometimes the govt has to step in especially when the majority is or perceived to be discriminatory against the minority.   Eventually the majority may decide to stop on their own, but maybe not.  Or they may move too slowly.   If the govt hadn't integrated schools during the Civil Rights era, would schools be integrated now?  Most would be but I think it's naive to think all.

If a baker was discriminating against someone, how am I supposed to know as another consumer.  If I happened to be in the store at the time, or presumably reading through every yelp review, maybe I might know.  But then again, maybe not.

I thin you're conflating two issues.  The integration of public schools is a totally separate argument.  The 14th Amendment mandates that everyone be treated equal under the law...i.e. the government can't discriminate.

That's much different than saying a baker has to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that discrimination is OK,.  I agree  that discrimination should be completely unacceptable.but I think people have a right to run their private business the way they want.  I don't have to agree with them.

I disagree with discrimination being acceptable as a "way I choose to run my private business".  Private businesses are already subject to a myriad of state, local and federal requirements. 

About the only place left for that kind of thinking is golf clubs run by mostly old white guys.  I get your thoughts about being able to out the racists and such, but I don't think it would work out quite the way you'd hope it would, political donations would be an interesting place.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that discrimination is OK,.  I agree  that discrimination should be completely unacceptable.but I think people have a right to run their private business the way they want.  I don't have to agree with them.

Wait . . . so you think discrimination should be "unacceptable" but you also think people should have the right to discriminate in private business?

[DixonHur 11171]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . so you think discrimination should be "unacceptable" but you also think people should have the right to discriminate in private business?

Yes, why is that so hard to understand.  There are a lot of things that I don't like...doesn't mean they should all be illegal.

Shame is a powerful tool.

Edited June 4, 2018 by DixonHur

[jimmyjazz 45546]

I guess it depends on how you define "unacceptable".  For me, in this context, I would take it as a synonym for "illegal".  I couldn't tell what you were advocating.

[troph 24562]

private business is a misnomer when your business is a retail one open to the public.

Edited June 4, 2018 by troph

[Johnny Sack 8397]

22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It's too simple to say the free market or changing attitudes will ultimately fix the situation.   Sometimes the govt has to step in especially when the majority is or perceived to be discriminatory against the minority.   Eventually the majority may decide to stop on their own, but maybe not.  Or they may move too slowly.   If the govt hadn't integrated schools during the Civil Rights era, would schools be integrated now?  Most would be but I think it's naive to think all.

If a baker was discriminating against someone, how am I supposed to know as another consumer.  If I happened to be in the store at the time, or presumably reading through every yelp review, maybe I might know.  But then again, maybe not.

Lots of states don’t have gays as a protected class.   Texas is one of them.  Are Texas gays having a lot of trouble getting goods and services?  I don’t see much in the media about it. 

My aunt is gay. Her and her partner have zero trouble with discrimination in this state. Or any other that doesn’t protect them. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, troph said:

private business is a misnomer when your business is a retail business open to the public.

Why?  It’s still a transaction between two private entities.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, troph said:

private business is a misnomer when your business is a retail business open to the public.

'ZACTLY !!!  You aren't private when you're open to the public.

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

'ZACTLY !!!  You aren't private when you're open to the public.

private in this context refers to ownership, not that no one can find you.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

'ZACTLY !!!  You aren't private when you're open to the public.

I guess if CAIR wants to hire me even though I detest them, I have to represent them in court.  Since my shingle is hanging out for the public.  

[Mole 4320]

I'm no legal scholar, but I'm a musician, so issues around compelled expression, and if that is actually happening, catch my attention. It's been interesting to watch these battles play out while we figure out the lines. I don't see this as a business issue but rather an artistic one. The religious issue seems less relevant to me than the expression issue. If the cake constitutes an artistic expression, and it depends on the cake, then I don't see why the reason even matters. Most artistic expressions are done for money (you're welcome) so I don't understand why the business aspect of it matters either.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

private in this context refers to ownership, not that no one can find you.

Using the term private implies something its not, It's public. I'm in private practice. I'm still catering to the public thru that private practice like every other private employer.

[EastTexan 662]

4 hours 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.

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

 

"Wiser Person"= David Dennison

[troph 24562]

private in this context refers to ownership, not that no one can find you.

Public accommodation laws apply to private businesses. That’s well settled law, only recently upset by the rationale given in the hobby lobby decision.

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Using the term private implies something its not, It's public. I'm in private practice. I'm still catering to the public thru that private practice like every other private employer.

Perhaps, but in business you can be private, public, or non-profit.  Perhaps the names aren't descriptive enough, but it is what it is.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I guess if CAIR wants to hire me even though I detest them, I have to represent them in court.  Since my shingle is hanging out for the public.  

Oh sure there are ways to not take business. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . so you think discrimination should be "unacceptable" but you also think people should have the right to discriminate in private business?

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?

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, troph said:

Public accommodation laws apply to private businesses. That’s well settled law, only recently upset by the rationale given in the hobby lobby decision.

It's definitely law, but don't know if it's "settled".  Has it been argued before of SCOTUS?  Honestly don't know the answer.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I don’t like the idea of compelling custom cakes.  What if the baker decides to do a shitty job?  Do the gays take him back to court for that?

I remember when gays just wanted the government out of their bedrooms. And they said that’s all they wanted. This bake cake or else is a bridge too far. 

And this is from someone who argued back in 2001 in law school that it was absurd and an equal protection violatoon for the state to ban gay marriage between consenting adults.  

Edited June 4, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[Dahobbs 17437]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don’t like the idea of compelling custom cakes.  What if the baker decides to do a shitty job?  Do the gays take him back to court for that?

Yes? Breach of contract? Deceptive trade practice? Arent you an attorney?!

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes? Breach of contract? Deceptive trade practice? Arent you an attorney?!

I was talking about taking him back to court for discrimination. And having him fined with the pain of incarceration for not paying 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

7 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Insurance companies can charge young men more for driving insurance but can't charge young women more for health insurance.  What's with that?

I don't know the answer, but I suppose it might be explained by demonstrable evidence that young men have more accidents than young women, but no such evidence exists regarding health care costs for the 2 demographics.