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 Terraceth View Post
    That may or may not be true, but there is the Commerce Clause, so this isn't relevant.

    One may as well say "without the Taxing and Spending Clause, there would have been no Constitutional justification to tax on the federal level." But there is the Taxing and Spending Clause, so this is naught but a hypothetical.
    No the point is, how the CC was used. The fact is it was never used in the past to address racial discrimination, in reality, forcing by law, one man to serve, or associate, with another man. It is a novel application in federal law. There is no fundamental Constitutional right not to be discriminated against. And the fact that it could not be applied to those who did not accept out of state travelers or goods. So this is not a Constitutional right, or it would be applied across the board. Dressing it up in the Commerce Clause does not change these facts.
    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
      No it actually does not - you just refuse to see it because it doesn't support your nutty narrative.
      Yes, it actually does - you're just profoundly ignorant on the whole wedding cake thing. It's just downright goofy screwball ignorant to claim a wedding cake is something "standard". Goofy, nutty, nonsense.

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Yes, it actually does - you're just profoundly ignorant on the whole wedding cake thing. It's just downright goofy screwball ignorant to claim a wedding cake is something "standard". Goofy, nutty, nonsense.

        So there.
        I appreciate your valiant attempt to confuse Tassman with the facts, but it clearly isn't working.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          I appreciate your valiant attempt to confuse Tassman with the facts, but it clearly isn't working.
          And I hope my purposeful childish response was duly noted, as well.

          You ask ANY bride about her wedding cake, and it's a BIG STINKIN' DEAL!!!!! Just TRY "we can save a lot of money by going with just a 'standard wedding cake'"

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            And I hope my purposeful childish response was duly noted, as well.

            You ask ANY bride about her wedding cake, and it's a BIG STINKIN' DEAL!!!!! Just TRY "we can save a lot of money by going with just a 'standard wedding cake'"

            That's when the man gets told, after getting one of those exacerbated "you're-a-freaking-moron" looks, to just go watch the game and leave this to me.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              That's when the man gets told, after getting one of those exacerbated "you're-a-freaking-moron" looks, to just go watch the game and leave this to me.
              Yup - I just did some checking on the web (for FREE) about the significance of a wedding cake to a wedding, and SHEEEESH!!!!! It's like the Holy Grail!!!!




              (Of course, a lot of these sites want you to buy their wedding cakes or their wedding planning)
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                That's when the man gets told, after getting one of those exacerbated "you're-a-freaking-moron" looks, to just go watch the game and leave this to me.
                Ya know, it just occurred to me... Tassman is trying SO hard to minimize the importance of the wedding cake to the bride - almost to the degree he tried to minimize the association of NAMBLA with ILGA.

                "Nope, it's just a cake - just run down to Krogers and get one for $17.48 -- I've got COUPONS!!!!"

                (I remember how very hard I tried to appear 'interested' as my soon-to-be wife showed me pictures and pictures and pictures of wedding cakes*, and asked for my opinion..... I thought - I guess kinda like Tassman... "For cryin' out loud, it's just a CAKE!!!!" Fortunately, wisdom prevailed, and I never said that out loud!)



                *and this was before Al Gore invented the internetzweb, so these were from Bridal Magazines!

                ETA: I was much more interested in bridle catalogues, or, as we say here in Texas - "Tack"
                Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-15-2018, 06:56 PM.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Ya know, it just occurred to me... Tassman is trying SO hard to minimize the importance of the wedding cake to the bride - almost to the degree he tried to minimize the association of NAMBLA with ILGA.

                  "Nope, it's just a cake - just run down to Krogers and get one for $17.48 -- I've got COUPONS!!!!"

                  (I remember how very hard I tried to appear 'interested' as my soon-to-be wife showed me pictures and pictures and pictures of wedding cakes*, and asked for my opinion..... I thought - I guess kinda like Tassman... "For cryin' out loud, it's just a CAKE!!!!" Fortunately, wisdom prevailed, and I never said that out loud!)



                  *and this was before Al Gore invented the internetzweb, so these were from Bridal Magazines!
                  For most of us menfolk the ring is basically just a ring (but an expensive one) and the cake is just a cake. But try convincing the wimmenfolk of that. It's a thousand times worse than the which one should I wear question that the wise man avoids like the plague.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post




                    ETA: I was much more interested in bridle catalogues, or, as we say here in Texas - "Tack"
                    I'm beginning to sense the source of the problem

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      I'm beginning to sense the source of the problem
                      On our first date - it was... um... 'unscheduled', and when I got to her house she wasn't home. Her sister was, so I told her sister I was going horseback riding, and offered to let her come with me, knowing she would politely decline.

                      She didn't.

                      So my first date with my wife was actually with her sister.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        No the point is, how the CC was used. The fact is it was never used in the past to address racial discrimination, in reality, forcing by law, one man to serve, or associate, with another man. It is a novel application in federal law.
                        Let us suppose it was in fact a "novel application" even though what the law affected was both commerce and interstate, and the Supreme Court in a previous decision (which, as noted before, is one you cited for precedent) indicated that congress could enact such anti-discrimination legislation under the Commerce Clause if the legislation was appropriately modified. And the fact that, even ignoring the 1930's or later, there had been cases when a law seen as ineligible under some portion of the Constitution was reworked to apply under the Commerce Clause (e.g. in The Trade-Mark Cases a claim that national trademark act was acceptable under the Copyright Clause was rejected by the Supreme Court, so the new version of the law limited itself to trademarks used in more than one state) and there had been cases where the Commerce Clause was used to combat some perceived moral wrong that involved commerce that were upheld by the Supreme Court (e.g. Brooks v United States or Hoke v United States). Let's suppose that in spite of all of that, it was a "novel application."

                        If, in and of itself, a "novel application" of the Commerce Clause (or any other clause of the Constitution) rendered it ineligible, nothing could have ever been enacted under the Commerce Clause. After all, the very first law ever enacted under it was certainly a "novel application" due to there being no preceding application. Perhaps the argument is that this supposed "novel application" of the Commerce Clause in the Civil Rights Act should be judged more harshly as the Commerce Clause had been around for quite a while, but this fails also. Simply put, "novel applications" can emerge because previously, there was not sufficient reason to make such a law. "Novel applications" are inherently involved, for example, with new technology because said technology previously did not exist. Another reason a law may not have previously been enacted under any given enumerated power could be that there was simply not demand for it prior to that point. For example, the Commerce Clause could be used to enact a law forbidding any state from engaging in any commerce with one another. It would have a "novel application" on the basis that no previous law had done so, likely because it's a terrible idea and no one wants it, but is thoroughly allowed by the Commerce Clause.

                        So even if it was a "novel application" (despite the clear precedent), that by itself means nothing. It must be shown to be inconsistent in some way with prior precedent or laws. Which, I hope I have demonstrated, is not the case.

                        There is no fundamental Constitutional right not to be discriminated against. And the fact that it could not be applied to those who did not accept out of state travelers or goods. So this is not a Constitutional right, or it would be applied across the board.
                        You appear to have completely misunderstood the entire situation.

                        The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not enacted under some idea there was a "fundamental Constitutional right not to be discriminated against" (technically there is, but it generally applies only to government action rather than that of private citizens). If it was, then you might have a point here. But again, that's not the case. The authority of enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the simple basis that congress has authority to regulate commerce interstate commerce and therefore it was, well, regulating interstate commerce by putting anti-discriminatory rules on it.

                        But perhaps your argument is that because it was not a "fundamental Constitutional right," congress could not require it at all. But that's completely nonsensical. The federal government can, as long as doing so in a way that is within its enumerated powers and not in violation of any other part of the Constitution, grant any number of rights that are not "fundamental Constitutional rights."

                        Dressing it up in the Commerce Clause does not change these facts.
                        It may not change those facts, but those facts, as I've shown, are either irrelevant or incorrect.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Yes, it actually does - you're just profoundly ignorant on the whole wedding cake thing. It's just downright goofy screwball ignorant to claim a wedding cake is something "standard".
                          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.
                          “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
                            So even if it was a "novel application" (despite the clear precedent), that by itself means nothing. It must be shown to be inconsistent in some way with prior precedent or laws. Which, I hope I have demonstrated, is not the case.
                            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.


                            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not enacted under some idea there was a "fundamental Constitutional right not to be discriminated against" (technically there is, but it generally applies only to government action rather than that of private citizens). If it was, then you might have a point here. But again, that's not the case. The authority of enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the simple basis that congress has authority to regulate commerce interstate commerce and therefore it was, well, regulating interstate commerce by putting anti-discriminatory rules on it.
                            That is why I said it was slight of hand. The goal was not about regulating commerce but about addressing racial discrimination.

                            But perhaps your argument is that because it was not a "fundamental Constitutional right," congress could not require it at all. But that's completely nonsensical. The federal government can, as long as doing so in a way that is within its enumerated powers and not in violation of any other part of the Constitution, grant any number of rights that are not "fundamental Constitutional rights."

                            It may not change those facts, but those facts, as I've shown, are either irrelevant or incorrect.
                            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.

                            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? When you use the CC to address moral and social issue where does it end?
                            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
                              That's not the argument dummy.
                              Ah, resorting to name calling! An admission you lost the argument.

                              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 you stupidly attempt to bolster this supposed argument by dismissing the creativity and importance of the wedding cake.

                              and that a true artist cannot be forced to create an inspired artwork against his will.
                              AGREED! 100% -- except you don't get to choose who a "true artist" is.

                              In fact a wedding cake is not a work of art per se,
                              You're sounding just like you did in arguing that ILGA didn't know who NAMBLA was.

                              it is the combination of the professional skills of an artisan in consultation with his customer, who has the final say.
                              Like when a Bride talks to a wedding cake designer about the central focus of her WEDDING RECEPTION!!!
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                And I hope my purposeful childish response was duly noted, as well.

                                You ask ANY bride about her wedding cake, and it's a BIG STINKIN' DEAL!!!!! Just TRY "we can save a lot of money by going with just a 'standard wedding cake'"

                                CP, that artistic aspect of wedding cake design has nothing to do with it, it is still just a wedding cake. 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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                64 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                249 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                335 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X