Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 21145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #100 on: June 04, 2018, 05:54:39 pm »
People can poo poo this decision all they want to...but a win is a win...no matter how small.  The left encroached on the rights of Christians incrementally and there's nothing wrong with winning back certain rights and freedoms the same way.

I think it was a pyrrhic victory at best.  If you read the decision and re-read Oceanders comments, I think his analysis is correct on this ruling.

I think we can nod our heads in agreement and acknowledgement of the ruling, but I think it would be wrong for us to cheer and say that this was a victory for the Rights of Conscience and freedom of association.  This ruling completely sidestepped those core and vital components that get to the heart of the matter.

Essentially SCOTUS ruled against the Commission because they were 'too openly mean and dismissive of Phillips' faith'.  They did not rule that we cannot be forced to serve behaviors we find morally and religiously repugnant and evil.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #101 on: June 04, 2018, 05:59:22 pm »



Let them eat gayke.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #102 on: June 04, 2018, 06:09:00 pm »
It’ll just make future decision-makers more careful about what they say.

@Oceander
Perhaps and they should be more careful. In fact the commissioners that spoke out as they did should be removed from their position.

Most people won't read the details.   They'll simply hear that the city infringed on the rights of this baker because of their Christian beliefs.

Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #103 on: June 04, 2018, 06:11:55 pm »
Essentially SCOTUS ruled against the Commission because they were 'too openly mean and dismissive of Phillips' faith'.  They did not rule that we cannot be forced to serve behaviors we find morally and religiously repugnant and evil.

I'm coming to the conclusion that Roberts is risk-averse, to the point of rendering the SCOTUS useless.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #104 on: June 04, 2018, 06:17:45 pm »
I'm coming to the conclusion that Roberts is risk-averse, to the point of rendering the SCOTUS useless.

If he couldn’t get 5 votes to reverse on broader grounds, being more aggressive would have resulted in actual or implied affirmance. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #105 on: June 04, 2018, 06:18:31 pm »
@Oceander
Perhaps and they should be more careful. In fact the commissioners that spoke out as they did should be removed from their position.

Most people won't read the details.   They'll simply hear that the city infringed on the rights of this baker because of their Christian beliefs.



Certainly.  But that doesn’t mean they’ll change their minds; it just means they’ll dissemble about their true reasoning. 

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #106 on: June 04, 2018, 06:19:28 pm »
It's good SCOTUS ruled correctly on this issue, but apparently for a completely different reason than the crux of the issue itself.  Ultimately it would not have mattered if it ruled the other way either.


Right. What a disappointing, mealy-mouthed decision.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #107 on: June 04, 2018, 06:21:54 pm »
Certainly.  But that doesn’t mean they’ll change their minds; it just means they’ll dissemble about their true reasoning.

@Oceander
A nice big lawsuit will fix that problem.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #108 on: June 04, 2018, 06:23:55 pm »
@Oceander
A nice big lawsuit will fix that problem.

Extortion by lawsuit?  Weren’t you one of the people giving me inordinate grief over the lawyers suing the family that took in the kid who became a school shooter?

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #109 on: June 04, 2018, 06:27:02 pm »
Extortion by lawsuit?  Weren’t you one of the people giving me inordinate grief over the lawyers suing the family that took in the kid who became a school shooter?

@Oceander
Well a reasonable person would see a difference between a couple who took in a young man after his mother died & city officials who discriminated against a baker for his religious beliefs.

Don't you think a judge would agree?
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #110 on: June 04, 2018, 06:28:25 pm »
Extortion by lawsuit?  Weren’t you one of the people giving me inordinate grief over the lawyers suing the family that took in the kid who became a school shooter?

@Oceander
Besides its not extortion.   

Suing a couple because they helped a homeless kid is extortion.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #111 on: June 04, 2018, 06:30:33 pm »
Extortion by lawsuit?  Weren’t you one of the people giving me inordinate grief over the lawyers suing the family that took in the kid who became a school shooter?

IIRC, you supported that technique.  Gander = Goose. 
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #112 on: June 04, 2018, 06:34:43 pm »
@Oceander
Besides its not extortion.   

Suing a couple because they helped a homeless kid is extortion.

Not if there’s a reasonable basis for the claim. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #113 on: June 04, 2018, 06:35:19 pm »
IIRC, you supported that technique.  Gander = Goose. 

I’m not claiming innocence of any sort, simply pointing out driftdivers hypocrisy.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 06:36:21 pm by Oceander »

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #114 on: June 04, 2018, 06:37:23 pm »
I can’t because it’s not.

Sure it is.

No matter how small, the victory is there.

Overt anti-Christian bias received an official blow with this decision, and at the very least, the antagonistic, Christian hating left will have to be less obvious.

It's a victory.  Just like any reduction in abortion is a victory, even though the entire issue is not solved.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #115 on: June 04, 2018, 06:40:57 pm »
Sure it is.

No matter how small, the victory is there.

Overt anti-Christian bias received an official blow with this decision, and at the very least, the antagonistic, Christian hating left will have to be less obvious.

It's a victory.  Just like any reduction in abortion is a victory, even though the entire issue is not solved.

No, it isn’t.  If anything, it’s a roadmap for how they can effectively achieve what they want without running afoul of the Constitution, and it plainly implies that the result could very well be different if the same thing happened today, now that same-sex marriage is legal in all states.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,829
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #116 on: June 04, 2018, 06:46:20 pm »
But 7-2?  Short of a 9-0 ruling that's pretty definitive.

It is encouraging to know that Breyer and Kagan believe in the Constitution.  I am beginning to like Kagan more and more.  She approached this position with a degree of humility that is befitting anyone who has never sat in a judge's seat before joining the Supreme Court.  I believe she is really trying to do the right thing, which for a liberal is quite refreshing.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #117 on: June 04, 2018, 06:48:16 pm »
It is encouraging to know that Breyer and Kagan believe in the Constitution.  I am beginning to like Kagan more and more.  She approached this   I believe she is really trying to do the right thing, which for a liberal is quite refreshing.

@Hoodat
And unusual as of late
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #118 on: June 04, 2018, 06:49:24 pm »
I’m not claiming innocence of any sort, simply pointing out driftdivers hypocrisy.

I see your point, but I don't think the cases are similar enough to make it.   :shrug:
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,829
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #119 on: June 04, 2018, 07:10:40 pm »
Not really. What it really means is that future commissioners should keep their personal religion opinions to themselves, pay lip service to neutral adjudication, and come up with some general platitudes for why bakers like this can be compelled to bake for people they dislike.

@Oceander

Any degree of affinity or animosity this baker had for these customers played zero role in this case.  At no time did the baker refuse these customers service.  He simply refused to bake a product that he was not willing to make for anyone.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #120 on: June 04, 2018, 07:12:21 pm »
@Oceander

Any degree of affinity or animosity this baker had for these customers played zero role in this case.  At no time did the baker refuse these customers service.  He simply refused to bake a product that he was not willing to make for anyone.

He refused to make for a same-sex couple exactly the same cake he was willing to make for a hetero-sex couple.  He discriminated. 

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #121 on: June 04, 2018, 07:14:25 pm »
He refused to make for a same-sex couple exactly the same cake he was willing to make for a hetero-sex couple.  He discriminated.

No, not the exact same.  It is a custom product designed after meeting with each couple.

If they only wanted a standard product, they could have bought anything in his store.  He offered to sell them other products.

Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,829
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #122 on: June 04, 2018, 07:14:55 pm »
OK Folks, I read the entire thread as well as the Reuters link but could not find the names of the Two Justices who voted against the Colorado Baker.

Who were the two? I would guess that one of them would be Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsberg..., who's the other?


Ginsberg (who should be forced to recuse herself in any case involving the ACLU), and Sotomayor (who is far and away the worst justice on the Supreme Court).
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,829
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #123 on: June 04, 2018, 07:18:25 pm »
He refused to make for a same-sex couple exactly the same cake he was willing to make for a hetero-sex couple.  He discriminated.

Uh, no.  A heterosexual customer also requested a cake for a same-sex wedding.  The request of that heterosexual customer was refused.

Also, the baker offered to sell the plaintiffs any other baked good in his store.  So no, he did not discriminate at all.

There are some products he sells.  And there are some products he doesn't sell.  And these rules apply regardless of the sexual preference of the customer.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,829
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #124 on: June 04, 2018, 07:19:29 pm »
No, not the exact same.  It is a custom product designed after meeting with each couple.

Did you read Justice Thomas' opinion?  He nails it.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-