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 NorrinRadd View Post
    I wish this were true, but I really think this is overstated. My reading was that Kennedy clearly acknowledged that the religious views of businesspeople had to be restricted, and that they were not automatically set aside by the mere fact of their choosing to go into business, but that they are also not absolute. His wording in the ruling seemed to say that those specific issues would need to be addressed later, and that the ruling at hand was focused on the behavior of the Commission.

    If SCOTUS takes up the "Barronelle the florist" case, it will get another swing at the broader issues.

    I am not brimming with confidence.
    That's why I just said "puts a challenge", and not "shuts it down".
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      The Deadpool movies are quite brutal, and action oriented. Given what you've said, sounds like she won't like it.
      Right, I’d better get her drunk first.
      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
      “not all there” - you know who you are

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        What rogue said. My and the courts arguments were very specific on this issue, and the court saw it exactly as I do. You guys arguing against it are being very short sighted. The ruling referenced 3 (THREE) other cases of attempts to force a shop to put DEFAMATORY remarks against gays on (wedding?) cakes! You simply can't with prejudice allow those bakers to object and refuse to make those cakes while at the same time allow this suit against this bakery to succeed. This is the way free speach and freedom of religion works. As soon as you start trying to make exceptions you open the door to the elimination of the freedom in its entirety. This is why the ACLU exists. You must allow that which you don't like to be spoken in order to preserve your right to speak that which you believe in even if it is not popular or is contrary to the reigning political offices. This is what Trump and those who ally with him do not understand. And it turns out it is what carpedeum and tassman and the rest of you arguing to have this bakery slammed with a ruling against them also do not understand! We must have a free press. We must have the freedom of speach. We must have the freedom of religion if we are to remain a free nation. When people jump on the bandwagon of opportunistically restricting those freedoms in others we head down the road to tyranny against us all. All of these shops deserve the right not to participate in that which they do not believe in when it comes to specialized symbols promoting events, ideas, or beliefs, which is what these cakes are.
        ...and there must be full equal rights for ALL citizens, including the right to purchase a wedding cake from public accommodations such as cake shops as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Frankly, I fail to see the distinction between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person.
        “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 Zymologist View Post
          I've never understood "narrow ruling" to mean that, but maybe I'm just clueless on its past usage?

          Does anyone know of any past cases that have used "narrow ruling" to mean that?
          It's lawyer babble. We use it to describe holding all the time in law school.

          **I have not read the whole thread so if this was already answered, pardonnez-moi**

          I'm not saying they didn't use it an obtuse way for headlines, but it's not uncommon to use "narrow" to describe holdings even with 9-0 votes.

          "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
          "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
          Katniss Everdeen


          Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            I wish this were true, but I really think this is overstated. My reading was that Kennedy clearly acknowledged that the religious views of businesspeople had to be restricted, and that they were not automatically set aside by the mere fact of their choosing to go into business, but that they are also not absolute. His wording in the ruling seemed to say that those specific issues would need to be addressed later, and that the ruling at hand was focused on the behavior of the Commission.

            If SCOTUS takes up the "Barronelle the florist" case, it will get another swing at the broader issues.

            I am not brimming with confidence.
            I'm a little more optimistic depending on the Court makeup of the next time one of these cases comes up. Kennedy wrote an opinion based largely on open animus to religous people and explicitly avoided the tough questions: "However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future . . . " Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Com'n, 2018 WL 2465172 at *13. It's pretty clear in Gorsuch and Kagan's concurrences that different parts of the vote see the decision differently and that is going to be the next battle.

            "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
            "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
            Katniss Everdeen


            Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              ...and there must be full equal rights for ALL citizens, including the right to purchase a wedding cake from public accommodations such as cake shops as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Frankly, I fail to see the distinction between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person.
              That is because, as best I can tell, you refuse to recognize there are two issues here, not one.

              There is the issue of discrimination: He won't serve them because they are gay.
              There is ALSO the issue of freedom of religion: He won't create a symbol of an act that violates his religious beliefs.

              You and those arguing from your POV do so by refusing to accept that the second issue is just as much a right as the first. And just as much a component of this case as the first. It is so much simpler and easier to deal with a complex issue if one just ignores the element that makes it a complex issue. But it is beneath any intelligent person to do so. The problem here is that this issue potentially invokes BOTH conflicts simultaneaosly. It is not just one or the other. There are elements of both. Further, it is possible the shop owner is basiing his action on ONLY one or the other. And so you can't chose a solution without parsing out the fine details and reasoning about them to discern what is the PRIMARY motivation for the action. THAT is what determines how the situation should be decided. And THAT is what the judges did in this case.


              In this case, the general services of the shop do not discriminate. In fact, the specialty services do not discriminate UNLESS the message on the specialty cake or the symbolism of the specialty cake VIOLATES the owners religious beliefs. And that is the key and primary element in this case. To put it simply, if the owner refuses to bake specialty cakes for gay patrons only, this is properly classed a case of discrimination. But if the owner only refuses to make cakes which violate his religious beliefs, and he applies that exception evenly to ALL patrons, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation etc, then the case is properlay classed as a violation of his religious freedom.


              So in fact, there is no direct attempt at discrimination here. It is solely that the message of the cake, its symbology, a same sex marriage, which is in direct violation of the religious beliefs of the owner which defines marriage as the union of a man and woman ONLY.

              Further, in the case, directly referenced where 3 instances where a hetero couple came in and asked for a cake that denigrated gay unions which was justly refused by those shop owners, highlighting both the problem and an uneven application of the law in that those shop owners refusals where supported by Colorado.


              Why is it so hard to comprehend that if you deny the right to refuse based on his religious beliefs you must ALSO deny the case above the right of refusal based on their belief gay unions are a good thing? In all cases the cake as requested was a symbol of something that violated the shop owners' beliefs. And that was the ONLY reason the patrons were refused service. It had nothing to do with what they were. It had to do with what the cake meant and symbolized.

              Why is it so hard to comprehend that the primary issue here is religious freedom, and that one can discern that fact by recognizing that the shop owner served all patrons equally. He provided any service to any patron, as long as the patron was not requesting a product that promoted or symbolized ideas that violate his religious beliefs.




              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-06-2018, 08:28 AM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
                It's lawyer babble. We use it to describe holding all the time in law school.

                **I have not read the whole thread so if this was already answered, pardonnez-moi**

                I'm not saying they didn't use it an obtuse way for headlines, but it's not uncommon to use "narrow" to describe holdings even with 9-0 votes.
                Learn something new every day. Thanks!
                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  That is because, as best I can tell, you refuse to recognize there are two issues here, not one.

                  There is the issue of discrimination: He won't serve them because they are gay.
                  There is ALSO the issue of freedom of religion: He won't create a symbol of an act that violates his religious beliefs.

                  You and those arguing from your POV do so by refusing to accept that the second issue is just as much a right as the first. And just as much a component of this case as the first. It is so much simpler and easier to deal with a complex issue if one just ignores the element that makes it a complex issue. But it is beneath any intelligent person to do so. The problem here is that this issue potentially invokes BOTH conflicts simultaneaosly. It is not just one or the other. There are elements of both. Further, it is possible the shop owner is basiing his action on ONLY one or the other. And so you can't chose a solution without parsing out the fine details and reasoning about them to discern what is the PRIMARY motivation for the action. THAT is what determines how the situation should be decided. And THAT is what the judges did in this case.


                  In this case, the general services of the shop do not discriminate. In fact, the specialty services do not discriminate UNLESS the message on the specialty cake or the symbolism of the specialty cake VIOLATES the owners religious beliefs. And that is the key and primary element in this case. To put it simply, if the owner refuses to bake specialty cakes for gay patrons only, this is properly classed a case of discrimination. But if the owner only refuses to make cakes which violate his religious beliefs, and he applies that exception evenly to ALL patrons, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation etc, then the case is properlay classed as a violation of his religious freedom.


                  So in fact, there is no direct attempt at discrimination here. It is solely that the message of the cake, its symbology, a same sex marriage, which is in direct violation of the religious beliefs of the owner which defines marriage as the union of a man and woman ONLY.

                  Further, in the case, directly referenced where 3 instances where a hetero couple came in and asked for a cake that denigrated gay unions which was justly refused by those shop owners, highlighting both the problem and an uneven application of the law in that those shop owners refusals where supported by Colorado.


                  Why is it so hard to comprehend that if you deny the right to refuse based on his religious beliefs you must ALSO deny the case above the right of refusal based on their belief gay unions are a good thing? In all cases the cake as requested was a symbol of something that violated the shop owners' beliefs. And that was the ONLY reason the patrons were refused service. It had nothing to do with what they were. It had to do with what the cake meant and symbolized.

                  Why is it so hard to comprehend that the primary issue here is religious freedom, and that one can discern that fact by recognizing that the shop owner served all patrons equally. He provided any service to any patron, as long as the patron was not requesting a product that promoted or symbolized ideas that violate his religious beliefs.




                  Jim
                  Great answer Jim! What the "other side" just doesn't weem to get is that since the owner ALSO would not make any kind of Halloween items, if ANY person, STRAIGHT or gay had walked into the shop and asked for a Halloween cake, the baker would have also refused these commissions as well.
                  "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                  "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                  Comment


                  • Here's a great explanation from NYTimes (opinion)

                    This much, however, is clear: Business owners and others have no obligation under the Constitution, nor can one be imposed by statute, to confine their religion to the private domain. On the contrary, they have the constitutional right to proclaim and act on their religious beliefs in the public domain, including in the domain of commerce. If you are a Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu) business owner, you may run your business according to your religious principles, subject to legal regulations that are neutral (that is, not rooted in antipathy to your religious beliefs or those of your fellow citizens) and general in their applicability (that is, they apply to everyone equally).


                    This is what a number of us have been saying all along - we are not required to stop being Christians, or hide our faith, just because we engage in public commerce.

                    This whole notion of "keep your Christianity at home" that some on the left have been expressing is exactly the attitude of the Colorado commission that was struck down by SCOTUS.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • The Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with the underlying question as to whether or not business's can discriminate against individuals based on personal bias such as race, sexual orientation or religion. The ruling has only to do with this one particular case in which the court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in it's decision against the Baker was intolerant of his position in the way they handled the case. They didn't say that the lower court ruling against the Baker was wrong, they simply found a way to punt, to kick the can down the road so to speak. That's why it's said to be a narrow ruling, which is also the reason why Justice Ginsburg and Sotomayor opposed it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        The Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with the underlying question as to whether or not business's can discriminate against individuals based on personal bias such as race, sexual orientation or religion. The ruling has only to do with this one particular case in which the court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in it's decision against the Baker was intolerant of his position in the way they handled the case. They didn't say that the lower court ruling against the Baker was wrong, they simply found a way to punt, to kick the can down the road so to speak. That's why it's said to be a narrow ruling, which is also the reason why Justice Ginsburg and Sotomayor opposed it.
                        Supreme Court Rulings OFTEN have to do with "one particular case", and those become precedents.

                        Good to see you're back online!
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Supreme Court Rulings OFTEN have to do with "one particular case", and those become precedents.
                          Well of course, but in this case there was no precedent set, which was the point of my post.
                          Good to see you're back online!
                          Thanks.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Well of course, but in this case there was no precedent set, which was the point of my post.
                            It definitely sets the tone that a Christian businessperson's beliefs do not have to be abandoned simply because he/she chooses to engage in commerce. It also sends a signal that hostility toward religious beliefs should not be tolerated.

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Joel, given our discussions in the past, I wonder what your take is, generally, about these anti-discrimination laws as applied to private businesses.
                              My own take is that they:
                              • violate property rights (tantamount to theft or slavery, due to lack of consent)
                              • are a form of thoughtcrime
                              • violate freedom of association
                              • can violate freedom of speech
                              • can violate freedom of conscience (including freedom of religion)
                              • tend to be arbitrary and inconsistent
                              • may have undesirable side effects

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                My own take is that they:
                                • violate property rights (tantamount to theft or slavery, due to lack of consent)
                                • are a form of thoughtcrime
                                • violate freedom of association
                                • can violate freedom of speech
                                • can violate freedom of conscience (including freedom of religion)
                                • tend to be arbitrary and inconsistent
                                • may have undesirable side effects
                                I think I agree with all of that. I had no problem with the 64 Civil Rights Act as it applies to governments, that was needed, but I believe they went too far with the "public accommodations" clause.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X