BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker

[driftdiver]

Already did skippy.  Common carriers cannot unjustifiably refuse to carry a paying customer.

@Oceander

Justifiable reasons include drunk, wrong shirt, smelly, bad attitude, flight attendant doesn't like you, they sold your seat to someone else.   Just about anything

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Justifiable reasons include drunk, wrong shirt, smelly, bad attitude, flight attendant doesn't like you, they sold your seat to someone else.   Just about anything

And there are s lot of things it doesn’t cover.  A common carrier could not refuse to carry a gay couple because he disapproved of gay marriage.  He can be forced into that contrsct. 

[Suppressed]

Then they shouldn’t be engaged in the provision of goods to the public at retail.  It’s just that simple.

@Oceander
Yes, that's the legally correct and morally/ethically wrong answer.

A citizen should be free to pursue his chosen profession, doing business how and with whom he chooses, without being under government compulsion and the threat of violence for following his vocation rather than Statist mandate.

There's no reason we should have restrictions shackling businesses to force them to be considered analogous to common carriers, when really they should be allowed to be more akin to contract carriers or private carriers, where each customer entering can be considered a potential contractee.

[driftdiver]

And there are s lot of things it doesn’t cover.  A common carrier could not refuse to carry a gay couple because he disapproved of gay marriage.  He can be forced into that contrsct.

@Oceander

Providing a seat on an airplane is different then endorsing a gay marriage if you're a Christian.

[Silver Pines]

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU

@thackney

Lol, NARROW? 

[HoustonSam]

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.

I was simply agreeing with driftdiver's assertion in 157 that the courts have made the laws incomprehensible.  Your reply to his point, that the legislature writes the law, is well-taken; legislators also bear significant responsibility for the general level of distrust and even contempt that many people now bear toward the law.

With application to the specific decision discussed here, if the SC was unable to marshal a majority for a more fundamental decision, I consider that further evidence for my indictment :  the law of the nation has been made such a mess that "the highest court in the land" is apparently unable to deliver a meaningful decision.  No, I don't want laws to be more complicated, I want them to be simpler, shorter, and fewer.  Although I'm a legal layman and I don't routinely read court decisions, the awareness I do have indicates that the courts are fully complicit in divorcing the law from the good-faith effort of citizens to understand it and live within it.  I'll go so far as to argue that if a law, or a judicial decision, cannot be understood and its impact predicted by an intelligent citizenry, then it's a bad law or decision.

You and I have clashed previously here on the fundamental issues raised by the case.  I'm going to break with (the rest of) your critics and commend you here for a fair-minded acknowledgement that the defendant was under-served by this decision, and is still living with the legal uncertainty that is the basis of my argument against both the legislative and judicial functions.  I admire your acknowledgement of that, the more so because I know from your prior posts that you are critical of the defendant's position and, frankly, of his character.

@Jazzhead

[thackney]

@thackney

Lol, NARROW?

@CatherineofAragon

Narrow in the decision of why overturned, not the vote.  They gave essentially no decision basis for the next case except don't ridcule the religous beliefs.

[Hoodat]

Nope. I read the facts of the case, as you did not.  Which explains why you have no clue what you’re talking about. 

Really?  Then you should have no problem citing the part in the court documents where the plaintiffs were denied service because they are gay.  Let me know if you can't find a link to the Colorado case.

[Cyber Liberty]

Really?  Then you should have no problem citing the part in the court documents where the plaintiffs were denied service because they are gay.  Let me know if you can't find a link to the Colorado case.

He said earlier it was sufficiently "inferred."  I assume that means he will not find a passage as you have described.

[Sanguine]

After Baker Case, Problem with the Courts is Worse than you Think


    Description

On today’s show, we are joined by our old co-host, Joe Koss (CR’s social media director), to discuss how the Masterpiece court decision is nothing to celebrate beyond its very limited scope.  Joe studied natural law at a Catholic law school and talks about how far we have deviated from natural law that we now celebrate minor hiccups that very temporally and partially slow down the inexorable road to judicial Gomorrah.

When exploring other cases in the courts and the full context of this case, it’s clear we are losing religious liberty and the courts are the problem, not the solution.

https://omny.fm/shows/the-conservative-conscience-with-daniel-horowitz/after-baker-case-problem-with-the-courts-is-worse

[Hoodat]

And there are s lot of things it doesn’t cover.  A common carrier could not refuse to carry a gay couple because he disapproved of gay marriage.

Non-sequitur.  The same-sex couple was never denied service.  They were simply informed that the item they requested was not something that the baker made.  This has been explained over and over and over again.

[Bigun]

Non-sequitur.  The same-sex couple was never denied service.  They were simply informed that the item they requested was not something that the baker made.  This has been explained over and over and over again.

And denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[Hoodat]

@Oceander

Providing a seat on an airplane is different then endorsing a gay marriage if you're a Christian.

To provide a seat on an airplane is to rent something out that already exists.  Contrast that with the baker who was asked to create something new that did not already exist.

Justice Thomas' opinion is quite striking in that it lays out the process by which the baker creates wedding cakes.  It is similar to an artist interviewing the subject of a portrait before painting begins.

[Hoodat]

Nevermind... I got justices mixed up, vs. voting on this case.

@catfish1957

In any case involving the ACLU, Ginsburg should recuse herself.  And in any case involving written law, Sotomayor should recuse herself.

[roamer_1]

To provide a seat on an airplane is to rent something out that already exists.  Contrast that with the baker who was asked to create something new that did not already exist.

Doesn't matter if it is a service or a widget or a hamburger. It is mine. I will sell it where and when I want to, for whatever reason I care to employ. And I won't sell it for whatever whim I care to entertain.  I don't enter into a contract unless I want to. Period. And especially so on my private property. 

[musiclady]

Just saw this on an NPR site (while I was looking for something else), and thought people might be interested in this quote:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a local baker in Colorado was within his rights to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding. It's a blow to gay-rights advocates.

So for those who think this decision is meaningless, or no big deal, think again.

It IS a big deal to the leftists driving our culture into the sewer.

This is a GOOD thing.   

[Suppressed]

So for those who think this decision is meaningless, or no big deal, think again.

It IS a big deal to the leftists driving our culture into the sewer.

This is a GOOD thing.   

Sorry, @musiclady , but I think it's something different: the leftist NPR using this to rile their base.

[Jazzhead]

I was simply agreeing with driftdiver's assertion in 157 that the courts have made the laws incomprehensible.  Your reply to his point, that the legislature writes the law, is well-taken; legislators also bear significant responsibility for the general level of distrust and even contempt that many people now bear toward the law.

With application to the specific decision discussed here, if the SC was unable to marshal a majority for a more fundamental decision, I consider that further evidence for my indictment :  the law of the nation has been made such a mess that "the highest court in the land" is apparently unable to deliver a meaningful decision.  No, I don't want laws to be more complicated, I want them to be simpler, shorter, and fewer.  Although I'm a legal layman and I don't routinely read court decisions, the awareness I do have indicates that the courts are fully complicit in divorcing the law from the good-faith effort of citizens to understand it and live within it.  I'll go so far as to argue that if a law, or a judicial decision, cannot be understood and its impact predicted by an intelligent citizenry, then it's a bad law or decision.

You and I have clashed previously here on the fundamental issues raised by the case.  I'm going to break with (the rest of) your critics and commend you here for a fair-minded acknowledgement that the defendant was under-served by this decision, and is still living with the legal uncertainty that is the basis of my argument against both the legislative and judicial functions.  I admire your acknowledgement of that, the more so because I know from your prior posts that you are critical of the defendant's position and, frankly, of his character.

@Jazzhead

I appreciate your message,  @HoustonSam .   The reality of this case is that it presented a true clash of rights, each of which can be fairly described as both important and reasonable.  Few of us want to see folks discriminated against, and few of us want to see folks bashed for exercising their religious liberty.   

I learned quite a bit from the Gorsuch and Thomas concurrences;  as I said before I'd recommend a careful reading of the case by folks on both sides of this dispute.   The value of the decision will lie in the markers laid down in the concurrences to the majority opinion.   The majority punted,  and given the build-up this case received that is disappointing.  But the case didn't really present the issues the way the Court wanted them framed.  For example,  Phillip's refusal of service took place at a time when same-sex marriage was not yet recognized as legal in Colorado.  Moreover, the record wasn't entirely clear whether Phillips had refused only to prepare a cake with a same-sex "wedding" message or whether he had refused any cake at all.   Finally, the facts weren't all that clear whether the baking of a cake represents the sort of "expression" that triggers the protection of free speech rights.   

I think the Court realized after the case was briefed that it wasn't the sort of case it really wanted to rule on.  After all, there's an old adage that bad facts make for bad law.   So the Court decided to absolve the baker on the narrowest of possible grounds, while giving him no guidance regarding how to run his business going forward.     I think Mr. Phillips deserved more.   

[TomSea]

None of this should go to court, if a baker doesn't want to bake such a cake,  then, we should try to persuade them to.

[thackney]

I appreciate your message,  @HoustonSam .   The reality of this case is that it presented a true clash of rights, each of which can be fairly described as both important and reasonable.  Few of us want to see folks discriminated against, and few of us want to see folks bashed for exercising their religious liberty.   

I learned quite a bit from the Gorsuch and Thomas concurrences;  as I said before I'd recommend a careful reading of the case by folks on both sides of this dispute.   The value of the decision will lie in the markers laid down in the concurrences to the majority opinion.   The majority punted,  and given the build-up this case received that is disappointing.  But the case didn't really present the issues the way the Court wanted them framed.  For example,  Phillip's refusal of service took place at a time when same-sex marriage was not yet recognized as legal in Colorado.  Moreover, the record wasn't entirely clear whether Phillips had refused only to prepare a cake with a same-sex "wedding" message or whether he had refused any cake at all.   Finally, the facts weren't all that clear whether the baking of a cake represents the sort of "expression" that triggers the protection of free speech rights.   

I think the Court realized after the case was briefed that it wasn't the sort of case it really wanted to rule on.  After all, there's an old adage that bad facts make for bad law.   So the Court decided to absolve the baker on the narrowest of possible grounds, while giving him no guidance regarding how to run his business going forward.     I think Mr. Phillips deserved more.   

@Jazzhead

I don't know how you make that claim.  The second sentence reads:

In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

7th page:

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.”

18th page:

Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery
was willing to sell other products, including those depicting Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell “birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,”

29th page:

We
know this because all of the bakers explained without contradiction that they would not sell the requested cakes to anyone, while they would sell other cakes to members of the protected class (as well as to anyone else). So, for example, the bakers in the first case would have refused to sell a cake denigrating same-sex marriage to an atheist customer, just as the baker in the second case would have refused to sell a cake celebrating same-sex marriage to a heterosexual customer. And the bakers in the first case were generally happy to sell to persons of faith, just as the baker in the second case was generally happy to sell to gay persons. In both cases, it was the kind of cake, not the kind of customer, that mattered to the bakers.

33rd page:

After sitting down with them for a consultation, Phillips told the couple, “‘I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.’”

35th page:

The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented.

[driftdiver]

I don't know how you make that claim.  The second sentence reads:

In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

@thackney
Yesterday both @Oceander and @Jazzhead made points that the legislature changed the law to make gay marriage legal.   They denied the influence of radical activist judges and lawyers who manipulated the law according to their agendas.

This is simply not true.   A brief review of the history shows activists were pursuing gay marriage through the courts until the Supreme Court issued a ruling that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.   These court cases were supported by Obama and the DOJ (Eric Holder).

So once again lawyers have lied to us. 

[INVAR]

@Jazzhead

I don't know how you make that claim.  The second sentence reads:

In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

7th page:

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.”

18th page:

Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery
was willing to sell other products, including those depicting Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell “birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,”

Those statements do not fit the narrative that was insisted upon this entire time.

[Sanguine]

Those statements do not fit the narrative that was insisted upon this entire time.

Only by a few misinformed souls.

[Bigun]

None of this should go to court, if a baker doesn't want to bake such a cake,  then, we should try to persuade them to.

How about we try it this way.  How about when someone declines your business move on and find someone who wants it.  That has always worked very well for me.

[txradioguy]

How about we try it this way.  How about when someone declines your business move on and find someone who wants it.  That has always worked very well for me.

@Bigun

Or...and I know it's impossible to expect...how about Liberals quit targeting businesses/people who don't agree with their agenda by suing them and trying to run them out of business.