Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    CP, that artistic aspect of wedding cake design has nothing to do with it, it is still just a wedding cake.
    Tell that to any bride.

    The baker was discriminating because of the nature of the people involved, not because of any artistic bs. The artistic aspect is just another ruse that the lawyers for the bigoted bakers came up with.
    You guys are the ones who have to keep renaming, qualifying, playing word games.... anybody with half a brain knows that a wedding cake is far more than "just a cake".
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • The idea that cake decoration isn't art is a bit of a stretch. Calligraphy will always be considered art, especially if you're writing in an unusual medium. However it remains to be seen whether a cake decoration can be counted as an artistic commission. I do hope so for the sake of religious freedom.

      The LGBTQ has nothing to gain at all from this.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        There is no clear precedent for the way they used the CC in this case. To address racial discrimination, in reality forcing one man to serve another, forcing him by law to offer his property and labor to those he would rather not.

        That is why I said it was slight of hand. The goal was not about regulating commerce but about addressing racial discrimination.
        It has become abundantly clear to me at this point that going down further on this argument would not be fruitful. Indeed, my response to this would be to mostly simply re-post the message you are responding to, as I feel I already addressed the points in your message there and that you simply ignored them here. Given this, and the fact no one else seems particularly interested in this tangential discussion (negating even the idea of posting in order to persuade and/or educate others), I do not feel the need to add anything beyond my previous posts in response to your claim here.

        Nevertheless, I will briefly address your new points:
        If you don't think the decision encroaches on personal freedom, property rights, or freedom of assembly/freedom of association as Constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, I don't know what to say.
        There are no small number of differences between that case and Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, not the least of which being that two different laws are being judged, which honestly by itself disqualifies the comparison.

        So let me ask, what would prevent the Congress from mandating all restaurants to offer a vegan menu for vegan travelers? Or a full range of diet drinks and low calorie meals for overweight travelers?
        In the words of Antonin Scalia: These laws would appear to be "stupid but constitutional."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Ah, resorting to name calling! An admission you lost the argument.
          You are in no position to complain about name-calling.

          And you stupidly attempt to bolster this supposed argument by dismissing the creativity and importance of the wedding cake.
          I'm not doing that at all, wedding cakes are important for wedding receptions. After all, this is what the fuss about homophobic cake-makers is about.

          AGREED! 100% -- except you don't get to choose who a "true artist" is.
          One goes to a baker for a wedding cake to be made. That's all. It's what bakers do. Some may be artistic and creative but the bottom-line is that they make cakes. There is little difference between a wedding cake made for a straight couple or for a gay couple. .

          You're sounding just like you did in arguing that ILGA didn't know who NAMBLA was.
          If you want to re-litigate the ILGA/NAMBLA argument in a different thread that would be fine by me.

          Like when a Bride talks to a wedding cake designer about the central focus of her WEDDING RECEPTION!!!
          I would have thought that the happy couple would be the central focus of a wedding, not the cake.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
            It has become abundantly clear to me at this point that going down further on this argument would not be fruitful. Indeed, my response to this would be to mostly simply re-post the message you are responding to, as I feel I already addressed the points in your message there and that you simply ignored them here. Given this, and the fact no one else seems particularly interested in this tangential discussion (negating even the idea of posting in order to persuade and/or educate others), I do not feel the need to add anything beyond my previous posts in response to your claim here.
            No Terraceth you claimed that there was clear precedent, that is false. I read up on the two cases you referenced. No where can I find the Court/Congress actually using the CC to address a social/moral issue.

            Nevertheless, I will briefly address your new points:There are no small number of differences between that case and Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, not the least of which being that two different laws are being judged, which honestly by itself disqualifies the comparison.
            The point was that the Boy Scout case made clear that freedom of assembly/freedom of association was a Constitutional right. If that is the case then the public accommodation clause violates that principle.

            In the words of Antonin Scalia: These laws would appear to be "stupid but constitutional."
            Right, and there would be no end to the harm this law could do.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              None of this has to do with artistic creativity and artistic freedom, which is the argument. Cake-makers, like all professional artisans, act in consultation with the customer who has a major input and the final say regarding the finished product. True artists, e.g. Renoir, act according to personal inspiration.
              The No True Scotsman fallacy. I love it.

              You are like a caricature of a liberal Tassman. You say the dumbest things.

              You are the Donald Trump of Liberals.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                That's not the argument dummy. The argument I was rejecting was that a baker can discriminate against a gay couple wanting a wedding cake on the grounds that it was a work of art...and that a true artist cannot be forced to create an inspired artwork against his will. In fact a wedding cake is not a work of art per se, it is the combination of the professional skills of an artisan in consultation with his customer, who has the final say.
                Have you ever heard of an art commission Tassy? It is when a client hires an artist to create a work of art to the client's specifications. Like say, hiring a sculptor to make a statue of a world leader. Or paint a portrait. Or like decorate a wedding cake. The client has input on what they want and the artist uses his talents to create the artwork. I am a graphic artist. I do exactly that. Someone comes to me and says, "I want a business card and logo. This is my company, this is what we represent and we like this type of paper and these colors, give me 3 designs to choose from" and I do. Then they say, "Hmm, I like this one, but can you make the logo a bit more blah blah blah" and I do that. It is artwork, just like sculpting a statue on commission, or drawing a portrait, or decorating a cake.

                You are a ignoramus.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  You are in no position to complain about name-calling.
                  Sure I am! I don't like it even when I do it, which is rarely.

                  I'm not doing that at all, wedding cakes are important for wedding receptions.
                  Yes, you really are. Wedding cakes are not just "important", they're VERY important. As in downright central. So much of what happens at the reception involves the cake.

                  After all, this is what the fuss about homophobic cake-makers is about.
                  Why does your brain ALWAYS go to homostuff?

                  One goes to a baker for a wedding cake to be made. That's all. It's what bakers do.
                  Yeah, they walk in and say... hmmm... I'll take that one over there, and it better not be more than twenty bucks!

                  If you want to re-litigate the ILGA/NAMBLA argument in a different thread that would be fine by me.
                  You lost that fair and square, Tass, no need to put you through all that humiliation and embarrassment again.

                  I would have thought that the happy couple would be the central focus of a wedding, not the cake.
                  I would have thought that anybody with a brain would have known that, and wouldn't need it explained to them. And I clearly said WEDDING RECEPTION, now wedding.
                  Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-17-2018, 10:11 AM.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    In the words of Antonin Scalia: These laws would appear to be "stupid but constitutional."
                    So then an amendment is needed?

                    What do you think of an amendment that would override (or reinterpret?) the commerce clause to say that Congress has no power to impose any restrictions or commands on commerce, but only the power to prevent states from imposing restrictions on interstate commerce? And isn't that the original intent? The problem was that under the Articles of Confederation, states started to impose restrictions of commerce on each other?


                    (We might also need an amendment to defeat Roberts' ruling that Congress can impose any law as long as the penalty is called a "tax"?)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                      (We might also need an amendment to defeat Roberts' ruling that Congress can impose any law as long as the penalty is called a "tax"?)

                      That!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        No Terraceth you claimed that there was clear precedent, that is false. I read up on the two cases you referenced. No where can I find the Court/Congress actually using the CC to address a social/moral issue.
                        You don't think things like prostitution and/or stealing are social, or at least moral, issues?

                        The point was that the Boy Scout case made clear that freedom of assembly/freedom of association was a Constitutional right. If that is the case then the public accommodation clause violates that principle.
                        No it doesn't. It simply means that in their application of the law was unconstitutional. They gave no indication whatsoever in the decision that there was anything wrong in the law, just the application.

                        Although I think the whole thing could be resolved simply by ruling that the Boy Scouts did not qualify as a place of public accommodation under the definition of the law, which seemed to be the what the supreme court felt, but that argument was weirdly undeveloped, with just a footnote noting only one court had ever considered them to be one. Maybe they just decided the first amendment was a stronger rationale.

                        Right, and there would be no end to the harm this law could do.
                        Something being "harmful" doesn't mean something is unconstitutional.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                          So then an amendment is needed?

                          What do you think of an amendment that would override (or reinterpret?) the commerce clause to say that Congress has no power to impose any restrictions or commands on commerce, but only the power to prevent states from imposing restrictions on interstate commerce? And isn't that the original intent? The problem was that under the Articles of Confederation, states started to impose restrictions of commerce on each other?
                          This would appear obviate the "problem," yes. Whether or not it's actually a good idea, or even has any chance of passing, is another issue entirely (I would answer "no").

                          But in regards to your claim of original intent, that doesn't hold up at all. If the commerce clause were just a restriction on the power of states rather than a power given to the federal government, we must note that only a few years after the ratification of the constitution, congress passed a law regulating regulating ship licenses (conflict between this and a later New York law led to Gibbons v Ogden, one of the first court cases about the Commerce Clause).

                          Even if the argument is that congress didn't properly understand it, a simple reading of the text of the Constitution seems to clearly indicate it was clearly an ability to regulate interstate commerce proactively rather than simply a limitation on that of individual states. Let us review the applicable section: "Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states are mentioned in the same breath, so to try to argue the power to regulate among the several states is really just a prohibition on what states can do would mean, logically, that congress has no real authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This does not make sense. Additionally, if the goal was simply to restrict the powers of the states, then it would make more sense to place that in Section 10, in the list of things states are not allowed to do.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Have you ever heard of an art commission Tassy? It is when a client hires an artist to create a work of art to the client's specifications. Like say, hiring a sculptor to make a statue of a world leader. Or paint a portrait. Or like decorate a wedding cake. The client has input on what they want and the artist uses his talents to create the artwork. I am a graphic artist. I do exactly that. Someone comes to me and says, "I want a business card and logo. This is my company, this is what we represent and we like this type of paper and these colors, give me 3 designs to choose from" and I do. Then they say, "Hmm, I like this one, but can you make the logo a bit more blah blah blah" and I do that. It is artwork, just like sculpting a statue on commission, or drawing a portrait, or decorating a cake.
                            Nevertheless, the professional skills of a cake-maker are the same professional skills whether it is a cake for a heterosexual wedding or a homosexual wedding, which is the point. For a cake-maker to refuse the latter is contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
                            Last edited by Tassman; 07-17-2018, 11:54 PM.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              You don't think things like prostitution and/or stealing are social, or at least moral, issues?
                              You are correct, I went back and read more on the Mann act as it relates to the CC, and the CC was used expressly to prevent or curtail "immoral" acts across state borders. I still find that a strange application of the CC.

                              No it doesn't. It simply means that in their application of the law was unconstitutional. They gave no indication whatsoever in the decision that there was anything wrong in the law, just the application.

                              Although I think the whole thing could be resolved simply by ruling that the Boy Scouts did not qualify as a place of public accommodation under the definition of the law, which seemed to be the what the supreme court felt, but that argument was weirdly undeveloped, with just a footnote noting only one court had ever considered them to be one. Maybe they just decided the first amendment was a stronger rationale.
                              But they did use the first amendment and freedom of association as their rationale.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Nevertheless, the professional skills of a cake-maker....
                                We're making some progress!
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                289 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X