SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Joel]

As for Ginsburg's dissent, her main argument is based on the claim that Phillips discriminated against the couple "for no reason other than their sexual orientation". But that claim is disproved by the other concurring Opinions.

E.g. Gorsuch:

"Mr. Phillips offered to make other baked goods for the couple, including cakes celebrating other occasions. Ibid. Later, Mr. Phillips testified without contradiction that he would have refused to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for any customer, regardless of his or her sexual orientation. Id., at 166–167 (“I will not design and create wedding cakes for a same-sex wedding regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer”). And the record reveals that Mr. Phillips apparently refused just such a request from Mr. Craig’s mother. Id., at 38–40, 169. (Any suggestion that Mr. Phillips was willing to make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for a heterosexual customer or was not willing to sell other products to a homosexual customer, then, would simply mistake the undisputed factual record. "

[firstfloor]

If Cow Poke is Batman, then you are probably closer to Quiltman.

Not really up to speed with my superheroes but plan to go see Deadpool 2 this weekend. Hope it not too rowdy or my wife won’t like it.

[seer]

As for Ginsburg's dissent, her main argument is based on the claim that Phillips discriminated against the couple "for no reason other than their sexual orientation". But that claim is disproved by the other concurring Opinions.

E.g. Gorsuch:

"Mr. Phillips offered to make other baked goods for the couple, including cakes celebrating other occasions. Ibid. Later, Mr. Phillips testified without contradiction that he would have refused to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for any customer, regardless of his or her sexual orientation. Id., at 166–167 (“I will not design and create wedding cakes for a same-sex wedding regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer”). And the record reveals that Mr. Phillips apparently refused just such a request from Mr. Craig’s mother. Id., at 38–40, 169. (Any suggestion that Mr. Phillips was willing to make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for a heterosexual customer or was not willing to sell other products to a homosexual customer, then, would simply mistake the undisputed factual record. "

Joel, given our discussions in the past, I wonder what your take is, generally, about these anti-discrimination laws as applied to private businesses.

[Cow Poke]

Apart from the occasional slip I am like Robin to your Batman. Doing it to the baddies but being a bit bad ourselves.

We cool!

[rogue06]

My understanding is that Evangelicals in business generally demand the right to discriminate against homosexuals on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

Your understanding is in error.


Now I figure if you dig around enough you might be able to find an exception but you're talking about a minuscule percent that for all statistical purposes could be classed as 1% at most.

[rogue06]

What rogue said.

We need far more posts expressing this sort of insightful wisdom

[rogue06]

Not really up to speed with my superheroes but plan to go see Deadpool 2 this weekend. Hope it not too rowdy or my wife won’t like it.

I have never understood the attraction of Deadpool

[seer]

I have never understood the attraction of Deadpool

It's funny...

[Cerebrum123]

Not really up to speed with my superheroes but plan to go see Deadpool 2 this weekend. Hope it not too rowdy or my wife won’t like it.

The Deadpool movies are quite brutal, and action oriented. Given what you've said, sounds like she won't like it.

[rogue06]

It's funny...

If you insist. smiley yawn.gif

[Sparko]

I haven't read the opinions themselves, but I've read some summaries, and the main takeaways seem to be:

1. The different Justices are all over the place on this case. They issued 5 different opinions between them.
2. The decision was more akin to tossing out the case on a technicality (that the prosecution had been unduly nasty toward the defendant) than a general ruling on the merits.
3. Insofar as it ruled on the merits, the Justices agreed that anti-discrimination laws are fine.

So a win for the specific conservative defendant, but in terms of the wider 'culture wars' either irrelevant or a win for liberals.

That is pretty much how every decision goes, star. They don't just agree in lockstep. They all have their opinions and the consensus wins. This was actually a very cohesive decision. Each of the 7 agreed with the core of the decision, that it was a violation of the first amendment to force someone to create artwork to support a specific cause. And nearly every case has been about this: cake decorating, floral arrangements, t-shirts. This decision seems to cover about 90% of these LBGT discrimination cases.

[Cow Poke]

That is pretty much how every decision goes, star. They don't just agree in lockstep. They all have their opinions and the consensus wins. This was actually a very cohesive decision. Each of the 7 agreed with the core of the decision, that it was a violation of the first amendment to force someone to create artwork to support a specific cause. And nearly every case has been about this: cake decorating, floral arrangements, t-shirts. This decision seems to cover about 90% of these LBGT discrimination cases.

Once again, as some of us have been saying all along, this puts a challenge to the nutty notion some of our liberals hold that, somehow, LGBTKBPXDSness trumps religious liberty.

[Sparko]

This ruling does not grant Christians a license to discriminate against homosexuals in future situations. It was specifically tailored to address the case that was in front of the court. In short, it's a one-off. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus against baker Jack Phillips instead of ruling impartially. That's what it's all about, not same sex marriage or wedding cakes per se.

That's not how it works, Tassman. When the supreme court rules, it becomes precedent in other cases. Any case of someone trying to cause an artist to support their agenda is now off limits. No more forcing printing companies to print gay pride shirts, no more gay wedding cakes, no more custom floral arrangements.

[rogue06]

That's not how it works, Tassman. When the supreme court rules, it becomes precedent in other cases. Any case of someone trying to cause an artist to support their agenda is now off limits. No more forcing printing companies to print gay pride shirts, no more gay wedding cakes, no more custom floral arrangements.

Same with photography. And before someone declares that isn't art tell that to the folks who have paid millions for photographs taken by folks like Andreas Gursky, Cindy Sherman and Richard Prince (to name but a few) and hang them in their homes.

[NorrinRadd]

That's not how it works, Tassman. When the supreme court rules, it becomes precedent in other cases. Any case of someone trying to cause an artist to support their agenda is now off limits. No more forcing printing companies to print gay pride shirts, no more gay wedding cakes, no more custom floral arrangements.

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.