Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 21101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #250 on: June 05, 2018, 03:45:53 pm »
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.

But but but.... what about the perpetually offended.  They would have nothing to do to make their lives whole.
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

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 #251 on: June 05, 2018, 03:46:10 pm »
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.

When your behavior is a legally protected and preferred class of person by grant of government - no one is permitted to decline serving and acknowledging that behavior as good and right and normal.  We must all bend over and accept them, willingly.

Or suffer at the hands of the state and it's courts while being bankrupted trying to defend ourselves.

Because that is the actual intent.  It's not about finding someone who actually WANTS your business - its about punishing those whom you seek out to destroy because you know their faith is something you abhor.
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

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #252 on: June 05, 2018, 03:47:39 pm »
@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.
@txradioguy
That was kinda my point.  Anyone who can't see that this stuff is all agenda driven is truly blind.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 03:48:40 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #253 on: June 05, 2018, 03:49:30 pm »
@txradioguy
That was kinda my point.  Anyone who can't see that this stuff is all agenda driven is truly blind.

Oh yeah...I see that now...my bad.  It's worked for me too in life.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #254 on: June 05, 2018, 03:50:38 pm »
When your behavior is a legally protected and preferred class of person by grant of government - no one is permitted to decline serving and acknowledging that behavior as good and right and normal.  We must all bend over and accept them, willingly.

Or suffer at the hands of the state and it's courts while being bankrupted trying to defend ourselves.

Because that is the actual intent.  It's not about finding someone who actually WANTS your business - its about punishing those whom you seek out to destroy because you know their faith is something you abhor.

And that has to change @INVAR
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #255 on: June 05, 2018, 03:51:49 pm »
But but but.... what about the perpetually offended.  They would have nothing to do to make their lives whole.

They'll get over it!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #256 on: June 05, 2018, 03:53:31 pm »
But but but.... what about the perpetually offended.  They would have nothing to do to make their lives whole.

And sadly we're becoming more and more of a society that coddles and comforts the perpetually offended as opposed to the old days when we'd simply point and laugh at them and go on our way.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #257 on: June 05, 2018, 03:58:01 pm »
And sadly we're becoming more and more of a society that coddles and comforts the perpetually offended as opposed to the old days when we'd simply point and laugh at them and go on our way.

Ain't that the truth. 
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #258 on: June 05, 2018, 04:00:44 pm »
They'll get over it!

LOL!  But they don't.  It eats at them like a cancer. Gnaws at them. Consumes their daily life.   truly a mental illness in liberals and a few others..
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #259 on: June 05, 2018, 04:29:59 pm »
LOL!  But they don't.  It eats at them like a cancer. Gnaws at them. Consumes their daily life.   truly a mental illness in liberals and a few others..

Then let it consume them.  Their choice.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

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 #260 on: June 05, 2018, 04:41:59 pm »
And that has to change @INVAR

I doubt it will.

In fact I expect it will likely get worse.

I mean, we live in an age where no one is allowed to have a different opinion than the prevailing opinion crafted by disgruntled minorities and politicos from whatever cause they champion.

You are not allowed to think something  is evil if they say it is good and right - and neither are you to think something is good if they insist that it sucks and is bad.

Case-in-point:  I've watched the Star Wars fan community get divided and shredded over the fact that some imbeciles on the Alt-Right/Trump nuts/Gamers have determined that Star Wars must be destroyed since Disney owns it and they did not get what they wanted in the last few movies.  The insane rage of 'fighting back against the SJW agenda in Star Wars' because the heroes in the last few movies had more women and people of color in starring roles, and therefore everyone must hate Star Wars now, or you are a moron who just needs to shut up and go away.

These imbeciles were trashing this latest movie Solo months and months ago.  They organized a 'boycott' and stalked social media to descend on any comments favorable to the franchise.   Since the movie has been out - they are attacking the opinions of anyone who said they liked the movie, while cheerleading the disappointing box office that they have taken credit for. 

We live in an age where anyone who has a different opinion or belief system that is no longer the prevailing cultural acceptance, MUST be destroyed.  Hell they are demanding the president of Lucasfilm be fired, the lady George Lucas himself chose to run it, and are ramping up the efforts to pressure Disney to get rid of her and end the Star Wars franchise.

It's nuts.  That is just a microcosm of what is happening culturally.

The fact it is happening over movies - is just a symptom of the national condition that will bleed-out into the political/cultural sphere with much greater intensity.  Not only are we now a victim-oriented culture - but GROUPTHINK is now demanded, or expect punishment or mob efforts to impose punishment.
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 Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,131
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #261 on: June 05, 2018, 04:54:01 pm »
It's nuts.  That is just a microcosm of what is happening culturally.

Meh. It's the internet. It all boils down to this:

<NOPE>

It's nothing cultural really. It's just we're in this brave new world where you can say and do anything and get away with it.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 04:57:18 pm by MOD3 »

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #262 on: June 05, 2018, 04:54:06 pm »
I mean, we live in an age where no one is allowed to have a different opinion than the prevailing opinion crafted by disgruntled minorities and politicos from whatever cause they champion.

You are not allowed to think something  is evil if they say it is good and right - and neither are you to think something is good if they insist that it sucks and is bad.

George Orwell wrote a book about 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-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #263 on: June 05, 2018, 04:59:55 pm »
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.

@Jazzhead

I agree.  Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito proved to be judicial giants compared to Kennedy.


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.

The record most certainly was clear.  The cake itself is the message.
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 Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #264 on: June 05, 2018, 05:04:22 pm »
@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.

@thackney  - My apologies;  I didn't make myself clear.   I know that Mr. Phillips offered to sell other baked goods.  But what was never entirely clear from the record was whether he was only refusing to make a custom wedding cake, or whether he would have refused to sell them any wedding cake at all.   (The strong inference is the latter, IMO;  since he turned his customers away before having any discussion regarding the design of the cake.)

His website has said for several years now that he is not taking orders for custom wedding cakes.  But many wedding cakes are shown pictured on his website,  and I have seen photos of him in his shop where there are wedding cakes on display.  It seems that he continues to sell "off the shelf"
wedding cakes,  although not custom ones.    Can a gay couple come in and purchase one of those off-the-shelf wedding cakes?    If they cannot,  that greatly increases the odds that Phillips has engaged in unlawful discrimination.   See, e.g., Kagen's concurrence, where she makes the logical argument that discrimination exists when a baker won't sell to a gay couple the same product he sells to others.   But so long as Phillips has no objections to selling his off-the-shelf wedding cakes to both gays and straights,  then his refusal to make custom cakes for gay weddings suddenly implicates the free speech arguments made by Thomas's concurrence.   

However, Thomas' concurrence had no supporters other than Gorsuch,  and all the other Justices focused only on the free exercise claim.   That may very well have been because of bad (or, to be more precise) uncertain facts on the record.

The SCOTUS's jurisdiction is unique in that, more than most courts,  it picks and chooses the cases it wants to hear.   In Masterpiece,  the facts as briefed contained too many ambiguities for a majority to form on the Constitutional issues.  So they punted,  and disposed of Mr. Phillips'  case by declining to provide him (or any other storeowner)  guidance whether claiming religion creates an exception to generally-applicable laws against discrimination. 

Of course, one could say that the question was asked and answered over 40 years ago, in the Piggie Park case.   There,  shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act,  a bigot claimed religion as the basis for not seating blacks in his restaurant.   The Supreme Court quickly and without controversy held that he was full of shit.     
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 05:06:58 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #265 on: June 05, 2018, 05:10:31 pm »
@Jazzhead

I agree.  Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito proved to be judicial giants compared to Kennedy.


The record most certainly was clear.  The cake itself is the message.

See my post above.   Custom wedding cake vs. off-the-shelf wedding cake.   A huge difference in how the Constitutional issues are approached.   A huge difference in the availability of the free speech argument.   If the baker won't sell an off-the-shelf product to a gay couple,  the Supreme Court decided years ago that claiming religion is no defense to a charge of unlawful discrimination.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

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 #266 on: June 05, 2018, 05:10:52 pm »
@Jazzhead
Part of the issue is that many bakers who provide wedding cakes end up delivering and serving the cake.  Which means they need to participate in the wedding or at least the reception after the wedding.

So to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple means you would have to attend the wedding. 
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #267 on: June 05, 2018, 05:16:39 pm »
If the baker won't sell an off-the-shelf product to a gay couple .  .  .

But that's not what happened.  The baker most certainly did offer to sell any off-the-shelf product to the same-sex couple.

btw, their sexual preferences of the customers were not mentioned in the Colorado court documents.
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 musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #268 on: June 05, 2018, 05:19:48 pm »
Sorry, @musiclady , but I think it's something different: the leftist NPR using this to rile their base.

Point taken.

But it makes me a bit happy that they're upset.  ^-^
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 Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #269 on: June 05, 2018, 05:30:34 pm »
But that's not what happened.  The baker most certainly did offer to sell any off-the-shelf product to the same-sex couple.

I meant an off-the-shelf wedding cake.  Mr. Phillips still makes those.  Are you saying he would sell such a wedding cake to a gay couple?   

Quote
btw, their sexual preferences of the customers were not mentioned in the Colorado court documents.

The customers said they wanted the cake for their own wedding.   Of course their sexual preference was known to the baker.  That's why he refused service.   If a straight couple had made the exact same request (a cake for their own wedding), Phillips would have obliged.   The law is clear that religion does not provide a justification for refusing service - see Piggie Park.   The only claim that would have had merit would have been the free speech argument - based on the baking of a custom cake that involved expressive conduct.   That was the ground that the Trump administration urged in its amicus briefs,  but which was pointedly not addressed by any of the Justices other than Thomas.   And I think that was because the record wasn't clear whether Phillips was refusing service with respect to custom wedding cakes, off-the-shelf wedding cakes, or both.   The SCOTUS won't go out on a limb and infer facts not in evidence.  It will take a different case - perhaps the upcoming case involving a florist - to successfully raise the free speech issue.    But the free exercise argument fails -  religion cannot be an excuse for refusing to serve gays the same product the baker is willing to serve straights.  He can only refuse service with respect to a unique product that he would not serve to straights on the same basis.   

« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 05:31:23 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

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 #270 on: June 05, 2018, 05:34:43 pm »
I meant an off-the-shelf wedding cake.  Mr. Phillips still makes those.  Are you saying he would sell such a wedding cake to a gay couple?   

The customers said they wanted the cake for their own wedding.   Of course their sexual preference was known to the baker.  That's why he refused service.   If a straight couple had made the exact same request (a cake for their own wedding), Phillips would have obliged.   The law is clear that religion does not provide a justification for refusing service - see Piggie Park.   The only claim that would have had merit would have been the free speech argument - based on the baking of a custom cake that involved expressive conduct.   That was the ground that the Trump administration urged in its amicus briefs,  but which was pointedly not addressed by any of the Justices other than Thomas.   And I think that was because the record wasn't clear whether Phillips was refusing service with respect to custom wedding cakes, off-the-shelf wedding cakes, or both.   The SCOTUS won't go out on a limb and infer facts not in evidence.  It will take a different case - perhaps the upcoming case involving a florist - to successfully raise the free speech issue.    But the free exercise argument fails -  religion cannot be an excuse for refusing to serve gays the same product the baker is willing to serve straights.  He can only refuse service with respect to a unique product that he would not serve to straights on the same basis.   

But its not the same product in fact the happy but litigious couple refused the same product.  No, they wanted a gay wedding cake.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #271 on: June 05, 2018, 05:42:10 pm »
I agree with Ed Straker of the American Thinker.

He said Justice Kennedy created the "right" of two men or two women to "marry" out of thin air several years ago, and now he is making up the law as he goes along.  IMHO, the right decision would have been to leave the decision up to the states themselves, but that is all water under the bridge now.

He has not yet decided how far this newly created right goes, and since he is unmoored by the framework of the Constitution, he is choosing, for now, to decide these disputes on a case-by-case basis.  This is what happens when you abandon an established body of law and operate based on feelings.  Not only do you throw out consistency, but you make it hard to apply the law consistently because there is no consistent law to apply.

So there will continue to be huge clusters of litigation about people who are coerced into participating in same-sex ceremonies.

What about businesspeople who have to participate in weddings, such as caterers, photographers, and musicians?  The First Amendment has been held to protect freedom of association, but with freedom of association must also logically come freedom from association.  It is one thing to sell the fish that are eaten at a gay ceremony, but it's another to actually have to go to the ceremony to fry it.

Homosexuals have been free to pursue relationships with each other for a long time.  What has changed is that everyone else has been forced to accept it and now at times even participate in it. 

I read an opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday from a gay rights advocate who suggested amending the Constitution to protect gay rights.  That would have been a much better course for the country, whether it succeeded or not, than what the Supreme Court did: informally amending the Constitution on its own and playing by ear, with the whirlwind of lawsuits created by its irresponsibility.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 05:43:29 pm by SirLinksALot »

Offline Emjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,687
  • Gender: Female
  • Womp, womp
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #272 on: June 05, 2018, 05:47:39 pm »
I wonder if they mean "narrow in scope".

That's what they claimed to mean, but their headline is a reach and misleading.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #273 on: June 05, 2018, 05:53:53 pm »
But its not the same product in fact the happy but litigious couple refused the same product.  No, they wanted a gay wedding cake.

They never discussed any of their ideas for the cake, so there is no basis for concluding they wanted a “gay” cake, whatever the hell that means. 

According to the facts as recited by the Supreme Court, they got as far as telling him they wanted a cake for “our wedding” at which point the baker said no, and they left.  For all the baker knew at the time, the cake they wanted would not be identifiably “gay” or “straight”, whatever the hell that means.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,815
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #274 on: June 05, 2018, 05:58:35 pm »
I meant an off-the-shelf wedding cake.  Mr. Phillips still makes those.  Are you saying he would sell such a wedding cake to a gay couple?

The Colorado court record shows that the defendant offered to sell the couple anything in his store.  The next day, he made the same offer to the mother of one of the plaintiffs.  I see zero evidence that Mr. Phillips made generic off-the-shelf wedding cakes.  I suspect that you simply made that up.  But if you are correct, then the court records prove that Phillips offered to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake.  And if you are incorrect, then this proves once again that you are still in the habit of making up facts to fit your narrative.


The customers said they wanted the cake for their own wedding.   Of course their sexual preference was known to the baker.  That's why he refused service.

Nowhere in the court records did the plaintiffs announce their sexual preferences to the baker.  Also, at no point did the baker refuse service to the plaintiffs.  (See:  Colorado case record).  The baker only informed the plaintiffs that the item they requested is not one that he ever creates.


The only claim that would have had merit would have been the free speech argument - based on the baking of a custom cake that involved expressive conduct.

Actually, there have been numerous merited claims that have been presented to you over the course of months.  You simply dismiss them based upon premises you make up out of thin air.  But then if you read Thomas' opinion, you would see the free speech argument screaming at you.  And you would have a better understanding of the silliness of the false premises you keep offering.


If a straight couple had made the exact same request (a cake for their own wedding), Phillips would have obliged.

If two straight people of the same gender had made the exact same request (a cake for their own wedding), Phillips would have refused.


But the free exercise argument fails -  religion cannot be an excuse for refusing to serve gays the same product the baker is willing to serve straights.

Not sure what sexual preference has to do with this since it was never part of the original case, but the baker never refused service.  Never.  The Colorado court documents confirm that.  This case has never been about refusing service to anyone.  It is about creating something against the will of the person creating it.

Bottom line.  The baker view marriage as a covenant union of one man and one woman before G-d - as two become one.  He interviews the couple, asks them questions, and then is moved by the Spirit to create a masterpiece to celebrate that covenant.  When two people of the same gender want to join in this fashion, he has nothing spiritually to base that upon.   It is a violation of his spiritual conscience.  By his religion, there is no process for leaning upon the Spirit to create something that is not in alignment with his relationship with G-d.

Free exercise.
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-