BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker

[Oceander]

You're clueless. Unless the baker has previously made homosexual-themed cakes for heterosexuals,  he's perfectly within his rights. It's no different from any business/manufacturer  specifying what kind of product they make. Only they should determine what kind of product they make and how they make it.
The homosexuals in this case are only being discriminated against if the bakers refuses to sell him any of products, homosexual-themed, hetero-sexual themed, or no theme.
If a baker can be forced to create homosexual-themed cakes,  a painter of traditional religious themes can be forced to paint pictures of an anti-religious nature. Ditto for every business.
NOBODY!!!! should be able to tell a business person what he has to make and/or sell. How hard is that for you to understand?
Obviously, pretty hard.

He refused to sell them a custom cake without ever discussing the design, so for all he knew, they wanted an abstract design that was neither homo- not hetero- themed.  He simply refused to sell them a wedding cake because they were a gay couple.

[GtHawk]

I just saw an interesting little nugget in the discussion of this case over on Volokh Conspiracy; to wit: does the emphasis on the prejudiced remarks by the Colorado commissioners foreshadow a possible result in the case regarding Trump’s travel ban?  That is, if the subjective, but voiced, prejudices of the commissioners in this case were enough to render their decision unconstitutional discrimination, does that imply that the Supreme Court will also find that Trump’s prejudiced anti-Muslim statements render his travel ban unconstitutional discrimination?

If that’s true, then this case was an incredibly expensive horse-trade.

But Trumps ban wasn't for all Muslims, just those from some particularly troublesome countries, so it really isn't the same is it?

[Jazzhead]

And for those who attack Roberts for limiting scope of decisions, aren't you some of the ones complaining about the "unelected black robes" making sweeping decisions?

There's a lot to be said for decisions that are narrowly limited to the point at hand.  Just because our Congress is no longer responsible, taking up the mantle and legislating clearly, doesn't mean we should be leaning on the SCOTUS to do our legislating.  Besides, it was the baker himself who argued for a narrower construction (see Page 10).

They conceded that they had to make cakes for gay weddings.  It was only the issue of artistic skills and expressive statement (1st Amendment) they fought:


For those who say this is a great victory,. I say it's more like catching an opponent moving a pawn illegally.  Sure, it stops their move in this case, but it's no great victory in the game itself.

The decision has verbiage like the following (page 9):
That's far from a rebuke of the general principle of public accommodations law and its ability to infringe (my word) on religious liberty.  And this language wasn't from a dissenter!

How about Page 12:

Again, this is in the majority opinion.

Excellent comments, @Suppressed .  In no way does the majority opinion dismiss the harm suffered by customers who come to a place of business to obtain its advertised service, only to be turned away or stigmatized.   As has been noted by others,  the majority appears to treat as significant that gay marriage was not legal in Colorado when Mr. Phillips denied service.   Now that Colorado recognizes gay marriage,  it must be frustrating to Mr. Phillips that he still does not know today what he did not know yesterday - whether he can, going forward, refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay nuptuals.

[roamer_1]

You and Jazzhead are both clueless. Nobody...let me repeat....nobody should be forced to make something they don't want to make.
It makes no difference it's for religious reasons or whatever reasons or no specified reason. No business person should be forced to make something they don't want to make.

I will take that even further: No one should be forced to enter any contract they do not want to enter into - for any reason whatsoever.

[Jazzhead]

I will take that even further: No one should be forced to enter any contract they do not want to enter into - for any reason whatsoever.

Except that business at a public accommodation isn't based on a "contract" in the way you mean it.  Instead, a menu of goods or services is presented to the general public, which is then invited to enter and partake of those services.   The choice the storeowner makes is with respect to that menu of services.   The laws against discrimination are intended to address businesses that open their doors to the public and then arbitrarily refuse service on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.   Hence,  a baker has the liberty to choose to sell or not sell wedding cakes.  But once he makes that choice, he must offer that service on a nondiscriminatory basis.   

[driftdiver]

Maybe so, and maybe that would be the wiser policy, but it’s not the law.

Only because of activist judges and lawyers.  Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable.

[Oceander]

Only because of activist judges and lawyers.  Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable.

Are you kidding me?

[driftdiver]

Are you kidding me?

No its the lawyers and activist judges who are making a joke of our legal system

[Jazzhead]

No its the lawyers and activist judges who are making a joke of our legal system

Rules against discrimination in public accommodations are the product of legislation, not "activist judges".   Sorry, DD, but it was the peoples' elected representatives who decided you don't have the liberty to run a segregated lunch counter.   

[driftdiver]

Rules against discrimination in public accommodations are the product of legislation, not "activist judges".   Sorry, DD, but it was the peoples' elected representatives who decided you don't have the liberty to run a segregated lunch counter.

@Jazzhead

Today must be a bad day for your crowd.  Probably sitting back devising new ways to corrupt America thru the legal system.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead

Today must be a bad day for your crowd.  Probably sitting back devising new ways to corrupt America thru the legal system.

It's apparent that labor of love was in full swing within minutes of the announcement of the decision.  Color you and me surprised.

[INVAR]

Sorry, DD, but it was the peoples' elected representatives who decided you don't have the liberty to run a segregated lunch counter.

And tomorrow those same 'representatives' will tell us that we do not have the liberty to buy or sell unless we think and act in accordance and approval of deviant behaviors they have made a protected and preferred class of peoples.

These are the things that will make this government the despotic and tyrannical Beast it will become.

[roamer_1]

Except that business at a public accommodation isn't based on a "contract" in the way you mean it. 

Every single transaction is a contract as I mean it. An exchange is made between two consenting parties. That is the very basis of trade.

[GrouchoTex]

Glad to hear this.
Unlike some folks, I never felt that a cake maker was somehow a public utility, needing to be regulated as such.
Let's be honest.
Someone would have made that cake, without batting an eye.
This baker was targeted by the fringe left for his religious objections to it.
I'm glad he prevailed.

[roamer_1]

These are the things that will make this government the despotic and tyrannical Beast it will has become.

[txradioguy]

No its the lawyers and activist judges who are making a joke of our legal system

@driftdiver that's a fact of life you'll never get either one of them to admit.

[Oceander]

Every single transaction is a contract as I mean it. An exchange is made between two consenting parties. That is the very basis of trade.

No, it isn’t.  From time immemorial, the law has required certain transactions without regard to the existence of the quintessential contract.  Sometimes this is through implied contracts, other times as a matter of public policy.  Common carriers, for example, have been required to carry all comers, without distinction, since time immemorial.  So, too, have innkeepers. 

[Oceander]

Glad to hear this.
Unlike some folks, I never felt that a cake maker was somehow a public utility, needing to be regulated as such.
Let's be honest.
Someone would have made that cake, without batting an eye.
This baker was targeted by the fringe left for his religious objections to it.
I'm glad he prevailed.

He didn’t prevail on the underlying merits. 

[roamer_1]

No, it isn’t.  From time immemorial, the law has required certain transactions without regard to the existence of the quintessential contract.  Sometimes this is through implied contracts, other times as a matter of public policy.  Common carriers, for example, have been required to carry all comers, without distinction, since time immemorial.  So, too, have innkeepers.

Yes, it is.

[Oceander]

Yes, it is.

The facts, and reality, disagree. A common carrier has always been required - forced if you please - to enter into contracts with all who can pay the fare.   

[txradioguy]

Rules against discrimination in public accommodations are the product of legislation, not "activist judges".   Sorry, DD, but it was the peoples' elected representatives who decided you don't have the liberty to run a segregated lunch counter.

Actually the activism by your brethren on the left and activist judges work hand in hand on issues like this. One creates the situation for the other to act upon either with rulings from the bench that suddenly need legislation to back them up or legislation that is crafted in such a way activist judges can rule favorably for you Liberals against the rest of us.

[HoustonSam]

No its the lawyers and activist judges who are making a joke of our legal system

When free men cannot know whether they are within the law until an exclusive caste divines its meaning, and that exclusive caste routinely divines that meaning to be counter-intuitive to the thinking of intelligent citizens, consent of the governed is forfeit.  It is precisely the legal profession that has brought itself, and law in general, into disrepute.  Unfortunately "contempt of court" has become a routine state of citizenship.

That decisions are rendered on a narrow basis is generally good I think, but when a court pointedly refuses to decide the critical issues that are actually raised by a case, that court fails to do its job in my opinion.  This decision should not give significant optimism to those, like myself, who believe the baker has no obligation to prepare the cake.

[Oceander]

Actually the activism by your brethren on the left and activist judges work hand in hand on issues like this. One creates the situation for the other to act upon either with rulings from the bench that suddenly need legislation to back them up or legislation that is crafted in such a way activist judges can rule favorably for you Liberals against the rest of us.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Today must be a bad day for your crowd.  Probably sitting back devising new ways to corrupt America thru the legal system.

So who should make the laws, in your view, in our Republic?   If not judges, and not the peoples' elected representatives?

Like it or not,  laws against discrimination in public accommodations reflect the considered will of the people.  Judges have a crucial role to play, of course, when, as here, the rights of different persons intersect and collide   But the notion that a shopkeeper who advertises a service should honor his word is something your fellow citizens,  acting as they do by means of their elected representatives, have decided to make the law.     

[Cyber Liberty]

He didn’t prevail on the underlying merits.

That's because the Roberts court shirked its duties.  Again.  To the applause of lawyers everywhere because they can stay on this gravy train a while longer.  A real decision on the merits would have stopped other cases cold.