Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 21123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #175 on: June 04, 2018, 10:48:56 pm »
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.

Shirked it’s duties, or bowed to the realization that they could not get five votes for a reasoned opinion that would uphold the baker, and so settled for doing justice in the individual case alone?  It seems to me they made a little lemonade out of some potentially very sour lemons. 

Do not forget that if they had revoked certiorari, the lower court’s decision would remain the law of the case, and if they didn’t have five votes to overrule on the merits, they could have ended up with an effective affirmation of the lower court’s ruling. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 10:50:47 pm by Oceander »

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #176 on: June 04, 2018, 10:50:02 pm »
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.

 :thumbsup:

Especially the highlighted part.  It's impossible to know the instructions handed down from on high without a lawyer and a Judge to define what that is.  There is a quote from Atlas Shrugs about the State preferring to make everybody lawbreakers.
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 Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #177 on: June 04, 2018, 10:51:33 pm »
Shirked it’s duties, or bowed to the realization that they could not get five votes for a reasoned opinion that would uphold the baker, and so settled for doing justice in the individual case alone?  It seems to me they made a little lemonade out of some potentially very sour lemons.

I say shirked, yes.  If the court is playing vote-counting games then they should do so in the open so every body can see they are nothing more than political animals, and not some brilliant arbiters of law.
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:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #178 on: June 04, 2018, 10:52:08 pm »
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.

I'm not sure what your point is.  Do you prefer that laws be drafted to be so complex so as to micromanage each and every situation?    Laws convey enforceable rights and obligations,  which necessarily conflict with each other from time to time.  This case was a textbook definition of a collision of rights and obligations,  and the Court ultimately could not decide how to split the baby.

I share your frustration about that;  today's decision resolves very little and provides scant guidance to those who seek to practice their faith in the conduct of commerce,  and those who seek to move about in the world without being discriminated against and stigmatized.   But the Justices have enunciated a half dozen or so important propositions that will inform future decision-making. 

Rome wasn't built in a day,  and this vexatious issue (which those from all sides agree could best be resolved by tolerance and good faith) will continue to spawn 100-page threads on political discussion boards.   What is ironic, though, is the one who was most underserved by this decision may be Jack Phillips himself.   He's gone through hell and high water to get the SCOTUS to listen to him, and he received absolutely no guidance whether,  tomorrow morning when he opens his store,  he can sell custom wedding cakes again.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #179 on: June 04, 2018, 10:55:08 pm »
What is ironic, though, is the one who was most underserved by this decision may be Jack Phillips himself.   He's gone through hell and high water to get the SCOTUS to listen to him, and he received absolutely no guidance whether,  tomorrow morning when he opens his store,  he can sell custom wedding cakes again.

You have got to be kidding.  You have never let an opportunity to bash Phillips for being a bigot pass you by, and now you express sympathy for him?

9999hair out0000
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 10:55:59 pm by Cyber Liberty »
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:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #180 on: June 04, 2018, 10:58:14 pm »
I say shirked, yes.  If the court is playing vote-counting games then they should do so in the open so every body can see they are nothing more than political animals, and not some brilliant arbiters of law.

Read the decision, @Cyber Liberty .   It is all out in the open.  That's why they go to so much trouble to explain themselve,  and their reasoning.  The real value of the decision will be the concepts addressed by Justices Gorsuch, Kagen and Thomas in the concurrences/dissents.   None could command a majority today, so, as @Oceander says, some small measure of justice was done (though without informing Mr. Phillips regarding how the law will view his future actions.)


It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,398
  • Gender: Female
  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #181 on: June 04, 2018, 11:01:51 pm »
You have got to be kidding.  You have never let an opportunity to bash Phillips for being a bigot pass you by, and now you express sympathy for him?

9999hair out0000

LMAO!   I can't believe you let his words bother you, after all this time.   You know how he rolls.
No quarter given to the enemy within...ever.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #182 on: June 04, 2018, 11:03:14 pm »
You have got to be kidding.  You have never let an opportunity to bash Phillips for being a bigot pass you by, and now you express sympathy for him?

9999hair out0000

Whatever I may personally think about his actions toward those two customers is beside the point.  He stuck his neck out in a big way, first to stick by his principles against the legal leviathan,  and then to carry his beef all the way to the Highest Court in the Land.  He was absolved, but he still hasn't received any guidance whether tomorrow morning he can sell custom wedding cakes again.   
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 11:04:12 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #183 on: June 04, 2018, 11:05:46 pm »
Read the decision, @Cyber Liberty .   It is all out in the open.  That's why they go to so much trouble to explain themselve,  and their reasoning.  The real value of the decision will be the concepts addressed by Justices Gorsuch, Kagen and Thomas in the concurrences/dissents.   None could command a majority today, so, as @Oceander says, some small measure of justice was done (though without informing Mr. Phillips regarding how the law will view his future actions.)

Nope.  It was not in the open.  If the court had attempted to reach a precedent and failed as @Oceander suggests would have happened, that would have been "open."  Roberts chose, yet again, to weasel out of it.
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 Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #184 on: June 04, 2018, 11:07:38 pm »
LMAO!   I can't believe you let his words bother you, after all this time.   You know how he rolls.

Hypocrisy of that level needs to have a spotlight cast upon it.  Being "bothered" and "appalled" are not quite the same thing.  And yes, that is how he rolls.
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:

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #185 on: June 04, 2018, 11:11:40 pm »
We either have freedom or no freedom.

Scotus chose freedom.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,821
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #186 on: June 04, 2018, 11:13:45 pm »
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 refused to make ANYONE a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.  These two were not singled out.  His prohibition was applied equally to all.  You would know this if you actually bothered to read the court documents.


He simply refused to sell them a wedding cake because they were a gay couple.

How would he know they were gay?  Neither of them advertised their sexual preferences to the baker.  Nor was their sexual preferences ever brought up in any court documents.  So how would he know?
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 Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #187 on: June 04, 2018, 11:13:47 pm »
Nope.  It was not in the open.  If the court had attempted to reach a precedent and failed as @Oceander suggests would have happened, that would have been "open."  Roberts chose, yet again, to weasel out of it.

@Cyber Liberty

I think the anger should be focused on the Legislative Branch, who should take the opportunity to clarify what is meant, channeling the Will of The People. 

We should leave SCOTUS decisions narrow, and The People need to take responsibility for giving us an irresponsible Congress -- booting out those who won't give us clear legislation rather than ceding their role to the judiciary.
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #188 on: June 04, 2018, 11:14:31 pm »
Anybody else see the irony in the Civil Rights Commission is the entity who violated the civil rights of a citizen?

I say do away with an agency that bad, or at least fire each and every Commissioner who approved fining the baker.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 11:16:42 pm by IsailedawayfromFR »
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #189 on: June 04, 2018, 11:16:52 pm »
Nope.  It was not in the open.  If the court had attempted to reach a precedent and failed as @Oceander suggests would have happened, that would have been "open."  Roberts chose, yet again, to weasel out of it.

Absolutely not.  You utterly fail to comprehend how courts work if that is your honestly held belief. 

The alternative would have been leaving the lower court’s decision in place, with the result that there would be certainty that the baker’s religious views counted for naught.  Would you have preferred that?

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #190 on: June 04, 2018, 11:21:24 pm »
I haven't read the case yet;  I've got to split for a dentist's appointment but will try to read the opinion on the train.   Based on a very quick read, it sounds like the Court felt the Colorado Commission disrespected Mr. Phillips and treated his claims with disdain.   The opinion appears to duck the Constitutional issues and instead finds fault with the Commission for acting like politically motivated jerks.
The Court found a Civil Rights Commission violated the civil rights of a citizen.
That is a lot more than 'treating with disdain' or 'jerks'.

Violating civil rights is a huge issue.

I wonder what recourse the baker has against the commission?
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #191 on: June 04, 2018, 11:21:58 pm »
There are those who are arguing what's right, on one side.

On the other side, there are those who are arguing what is law.

Unfortunately, those two don't align. 

  • A baker shouldn't be forced to make a morally repugnant product because he produced and sells similar yet different ones.
  • A Jewish baker shouldn't be forced to make Nazi cakes just because he produces Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian ones.
  • A homosexual baker shouldn't be forced to make a "God Hates bleeps" cake for Westboro Baptist just because he makes "God Loves You" cakes for Springfield Baptist.
BUT...the law doesn't care what's morally or ethically right.  It reflects what has been legislated upon us by the representatives that We the People have foolishly put in there.

And no matter how foolish, the laws have been written to force people into involuntary acts at the whim of others just because they Pursue their own Happiness.  Liberty is dead, sacrificed at the Altar of "Fairness".

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #192 on: June 04, 2018, 11:27:47 pm »
@Cyber Liberty

I think the anger should be focused on the Legislative Branch, who should take the opportunity to clarify what is meant, channeling the Will of The People. 

We should leave SCOTUS decisions narrow, and The People need to take responsibility for giving us an irresponsible Congress -- booting out those who won't give us clear legislation rather than ceding their role to the judiciary.

Congress can never amend the Civil Rights Act to clarify this, they would be instantly demagogued to death by the Democrats, both in Congress and in the press.  That said, yes, that would be the correct way to do it, by our conservative standards.

I would add to your post, "ceding their role to the judiciary and the unelected bureaucrats."  How many "The secretary shall decide" clauses were written into Obastardcare?
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 Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #193 on: June 04, 2018, 11:31:50 pm »
  • A baker shouldn't be forced to make a morally repugnant product because he produced and sells similar yet different ones.
  • A Jewish baker shouldn't be forced to make Nazi cakes just because he produces Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian ones.
  • A homosexual baker shouldn't be forced to make a "God Hates bleeps" cake for Westboro Baptist just because he makes "God Loves You" cakes for Springfield Baptist.

I would point out the first bullet point is not the same as the second two.  The first involves a defined, protected class.  The second two involve Nazies and WBC, which are notably NOT "protected classes" under the law.

It doesn't blunt you excellent point about the fact that liberty has been kissed away by imbeciles.  8888crybaby
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 11:33:29 pm by Cyber Liberty »
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:

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #194 on: June 04, 2018, 11:32:34 pm »
Anybody else see the irony in the Civil Rights Commission is the entity who violated the civil rights of a citizen?

I say do away with an agency that bad, or at least fire each and every Commissioner who approved fining the baker.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

What's most remarkable is that there are actually liberal justices who agree that religious liberty was infringed by this so-called "Civil Liberties" Commission.  Bully for them!

Obviously, we all know that in modern parlance, civil liberties only apply to leftists.   **nononono*  I'm glad that a few leftists actually saw things otherwise.
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.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #195 on: June 04, 2018, 11:37:32 pm »
Anybody else see the irony in the Civil Rights Commission is the entity who violated the civil rights of a citizen?

I say do away with an agency that bad, or at least fire each and every Commissioner who approved fining the baker.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Positively Orwellian, isn't it?   

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #196 on: June 04, 2018, 11:39:02 pm »
What's most remarkable is that there are actually liberal justices who agree that religious liberty was infringed by this so-called "Civil Liberties" Commission.  Bully for them!

Obviously, we all know that in modern parlance, civil liberties only apply to leftists.   **nononono*  I'm glad that a few leftists actually saw things otherwise.

The leftist tilt of these laws is by design.  I Binged "protected classes", and this came up from Wiki (Yes, I know, but this is the sort of thing they get right because the definitions can't be politicized):

Quote
U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008). Many state laws also give certain protected groups special protection against harassment and discrimination, as do many employer policies. Although it is not required by federal law, employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.

A who's who of leftist causes.
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 roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,307
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #197 on: June 04, 2018, 11:46:08 pm »
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.

'Always' since when, the 60's? Because I know for a fact it wasn't true of stagecoaches.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #198 on: June 04, 2018, 11:47:07 pm »
He refused to make ANYONE a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.  These two were not singled out.  His prohibition was applied equally to all.  You would know this if you actually bothered to read the court documents.


How would he know they were gay?  Neither of them advertised their sexual preferences to the baker.  Nor was their sexual preferences ever brought up in any court documents.  So how would he know?

Because they said they wanted a cake for “our wedding”.  The necessary inference is there. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #199 on: June 04, 2018, 11:51:05 pm »
'Always' since when, the 60's? Because I know for a fact it wasn't true of stagecoaches.

Since long before then.  You apparently don’t know nearly as much as you think you do.  Which is a shame.

Stagecoaches were classified as common carriers in California since at least the midn19th century, so that would be at least since the 1850s.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 11:53:22 pm by Oceander »