The Briefing Room

General Category => National News/Current Events => Topic started by: mystery-ak on June 04, 2018, 10:23:23 AM

Title: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: mystery-ak on June 04, 2018, 10:23:23 AM
Quote
SCOTUSblog
‏Verified account @SCOTUSblog
6m6 minutes ago

In Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Supreme Court holds that Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated baker's rights under the free exercise clause

Quote
NBC News
‏Verified account @NBCNews
26s27 seconds ago

BREAKING: US Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who cited religious reasons for denying to make cake for same-sex wedding.

Just breaking..more to follow
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 10:26:07 AM
YES!!!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Gefn on June 04, 2018, 10:26:58 AM
Ah, @mystery-ak

My phone just started beeping with alerts on this. Going to post, and u beat me to it!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Free Vulcan on June 04, 2018, 10:28:49 AM
Link to the opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 04, 2018, 10:29:19 AM
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 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: mystery-ak on June 04, 2018, 10:29:23 AM
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

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.

more here with ruling

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: jpsb on June 04, 2018, 10:30:04 AM
Great, it is a good thing Trump, not Hillary, is picking the judges.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 10:30:24 AM
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 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU)

7-2 is pretty definitive...no wiggle room for anyone to say it was a "partisian" decision.


ETA:  @thackney Just noticed the Reuters link calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"  smh
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on June 04, 2018, 10:31:22 AM
 :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on June 04, 2018, 10:31:55 AM
I have no problems with gay marriage, but forcing someone to bake a cake is a huge violation of their freedoms.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 04, 2018, 10:32:05 AM
Fantastic!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: mystery-ak on June 04, 2018, 10:32:51 AM
7-2 is pretty definitive...no wiggle room for anyone to say it was a "partisian" decision.


ETA:  @thackney Just noticed the Reuters link calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"  smh

That's how it is being reported even Fox News repeated it..
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 10:34:07 AM
That's how it is being reported even Fox News repeated it..

That's crazy.  I could understand saying it was "narrow" if it was 5-4 or even 6-3. 


But 7-2?  Short of a 9-0 ruling that's pretty definitive.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Restored on June 04, 2018, 10:34:19 AM
You have to get the Fake News added to it.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: XenaLee on June 04, 2018, 10:38:46 AM
Um....... hey @Jazzhead !   Any comments?    :whistle:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Millee on June 04, 2018, 10:39:30 AM
I'm still not tired of winning!  :beer:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: XenaLee on June 04, 2018, 10:39:55 AM
That's crazy.  I could understand saying it was "narrow" if it was 5-4 or even 6-3. 


But 7-2?  Short of a 9-0 ruling that's pretty definitive.

Thus proving.... that the idiot left can't even "not lie" about that.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: jmyrlefuller on June 04, 2018, 10:42:01 AM
Thank God.

The thirteenth and first amendments live another day.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Polly Ticks on June 04, 2018, 10:43:20 AM
Excellent news. 

And agreed that 7-2 is hardly "narrow". 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: dfwgator on June 04, 2018, 10:44:02 AM
 :hands:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Restored on June 04, 2018, 10:44:05 AM
I wonder if they mean "narrow in scope".
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: jpsb on June 04, 2018, 10:45:04 AM
That's crazy.  I could understand saying it was "narrow" if it was 5-4 or even 6-3. 


But 7-2?  Short of a 9-0 ruling that's pretty definitive.

I think the "narrow" means that the court gave very little instruction/precedent in deciding the case.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Free Vulcan on June 04, 2018, 10:45:32 AM
I wonder if they mean "narrow in scope".

Yes, and the ruling is so.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 04, 2018, 10:47:27 AM
7-2 is pretty definitive...no wiggle room for anyone to say it was a "partisian" decision.


ETA:  @thackney Just noticed the Reuters link calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"  smh

I think "narrow" may apply to the reason for the decision.  Reading the decision makes it clear SCOTUS viewed the Colorado Commission treated Phillips differently than they treated similar cases.  This is the reason they give for overturning the decisions.

Quote
The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the
First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in
a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was
entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full
and fair consideration to his religious objection as he
sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this
case was presented, considered, and decided. In this case
the adjudication concerned a context that may well be
different going forward in the respects noted above. However
later cases raising these or similar concerns are
resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the
Commission and of the state court that enforced the
Commission’s order must be invalidated.
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances
must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the
context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved
with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere
religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to
indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
market.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: skeeter on June 04, 2018, 10:47:35 AM
Excellent.

My guess is this will change the complexion of some of the discussions around here.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: XenaLee on June 04, 2018, 10:49:17 AM
Excellent.

My guess is this will change the complexion of some of the discussions around here.

No it won't.  But...

nice dream.   :laugh:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Maj. Bill Martin on June 04, 2018, 10:49:37 AM
7-2 is pretty definitive...no wiggle room for anyone to say it was a "partisian" decision.


ETA:  @thackney Just noticed the Reuters link calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"  smh

Just scanned it so far, but it actually is a fairly narrow, technical decision.  The Court did not recognize a general right for a baker to refuse to put a gay message on a cake.  Rather, they went after aspects of the Colorado decision that showed a hostility towards religious beliefs in general.  It is still possible that a different case in which a baker is held liable for refusing to put such a message on a cake could have a different result.

It looks to me like the Justices deliberately chose a fairly narrow ground on which to rule so as to avoid the controversy.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Maj. Bill Martin on June 04, 2018, 10:50:02 AM
I think "narrow" may apply to the reason for the decision.  Reading the decision makes it clear SCOTUS viewed the Colorado Commission treated Phillips differently than they treated similar cases.  This is the reason they give for overturning the decisions.

Exactly.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
@Jazzhead

(https://media.giphy.com/media/5wWf7Hi5aXu3JiXXwli/200.gif)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Frank Cannon on June 04, 2018, 10:55:16 AM
Gay cakes are illegal now?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 10:55:56 AM
Gay cakes are illegal now?

What cakes do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not anybodies business.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 10:55:57 AM
Um....... hey @Jazzhead !   Any comments?    :whistle:

:2popcorn:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: TomSea on June 04, 2018, 10:57:26 AM
Right, narrow in the sense of this applying to a narrow set of circumstances perhaps. Not in the yes/nay votes.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 10:58:21 AM
I think "narrow" may apply to the reason for the decision. Reading the decision makes it clear SCOTUS viewed the Colorado Commission treated Phillips differently than they treated similar cases.  This is the reason they give for overturning the decisions.

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

That can be said of any of the cases where the baker was intentionally targeted though.  Some of these states rights commissions are gonna have to be a little more inclusive in who has and doesn't have to do things for people based on this I would think.

Certainly it builds legal precedent for future cases of this nature.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Frank Cannon on June 04, 2018, 10:59:18 AM
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 04, 2018, 11:02:57 AM
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.

When everything regarding the usurpation and diminishment of our liberties hangs on what 9 people in black robes have to say is a total bastardization of what the Founders intended for us.  So when the courts begin to make law by judicial fiat as they have on countless issues (i.e.: carbon dioxide is a declared pollutant) - they have nullified their legitimacy.  I find it unfortunate that the key and fundamental issue of whether or not someone can be compelled by force and punishment to violate their conscience to create and serve behaviors they find evil, was ignored to make this ruling based on the the technical dynamics of the Colorado Commission's bias.

From a Christian and orthodox position, once the institutions of government contravene the laws of God that govern a people beholden to them, then those institutions and that government no longer have any legitimate authority.  The maxim of 'better to obey God than men' is our directive from scripture itself.

None of us should live life by the leave of government permission and license, but that is where we are arriving.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Wingnut on June 04, 2018, 11:03:07 AM
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

Stop with the niggling details and negative waves.  A win is a win.   :smokin:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 11:06:49 AM
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

@Frank Cannon

As I read the ruling they are affirming the bakers religious liberty under the 1st amendment.  Saying the rights of gays do no supersede the rights of other individuals.  I'd say thats pretty huge
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Frank Cannon on June 04, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
@Frank Cannon

As I read the ruling they are affirming the bakers religious liberty under the 1st amendment.  Saying the rights of gays do no supersede the rights of other individuals.  I'd say thats pretty huge

It sounds to me like this is about whether a Pastor has to be forced to make a cake and not talking about everyone.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Free Vulcan on June 04, 2018, 11:10:19 AM
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

No, but it rights the ship a bit, in that these 'Civil Commissions' can't just dismiss religious claims without balancing their rights with others such as gays.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Maj. Bill Martin on June 04, 2018, 11:11:12 AM
That can be said of any of the cases where the baker was intentionally targeted though. 

No.  They actually pointed out how other cases involving bakers and messages on cakes were treated differently by the Commission.  It was the fact that his objection was religious, and not just speech-based that led them to be so biased against him.  They quoted statements made by members of the commission that showed a bias.  What the Court basically said was that the commission viewed his complaint differently because it was based in Christianity, and that's illegal.  It tainted the process.  They did not say that his religious objection itself was a valid reason not to bake the cake.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Maj. Bill Martin on June 04, 2018, 11:13:46 AM
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

Right.  There is a concurring opinion by Thomas and Gorsuch that does take the broader view, but that's only 2 out of 7 in the majority.

This reeks of a Roberts move to me -- trying to rule on the narrowest grounds possible.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 11:16:39 AM
It sounds to me like this is about whether a Pastor has to be forced to make a cake and not talking about everyone.

OK Debbie downer, please explain that.   Because as I read the decision I do not see that.   I see statements that being forced with "hosility" to make a wedding cake which sent a message contrary to the bakers sincerely held religious beliefs was infringing on his rights.  Further the Commissions efforts to suppress religion by " public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, " was a factor.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 04, 2018, 11:17:29 AM
Right.  There is a concussing opinion by Thomas and Gorsuch that does take the broader view, but that's only 2 out of 7 in the majority.

This reeks of a Roberts move to me -- trying to rule on the narrowest grounds possible.


I concur, this ruling comes off exactly as you analyzed.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 04, 2018, 11:33:10 AM
7-2 is pretty definitive...no wiggle room for anyone to say it was a "partisian" decision.


ETA:  @thackney Just noticed the Reuters link calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"  smh

In a world where 5 to 4 rulings has become the norm 7/2 is only  "narrow" because THEY don't like it.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
:2popcorn:

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.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 11:36:31 AM
Supreme Court punts.


Basically, the Court punted on this one.  They reversed because the original decision was tainted by the anti-religious bias of the commissioners who first decided the case.

It’s basically an extremely narrow unconstitutional-as-applied decision based solely on the facts that the baker’s religious beliefs were actively disparaged by the commissioners in comments that were not disavowed by any of the lower courts.

As far as the underlying issue, though, the case doesn’t move the ball any further down the field - in either direction. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 11:36:58 AM
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.   

Bingo!!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 11:38:32 AM
In a world where 5 to 4 rulings has become the norm 7/2 is only  "narrow" because THEY don't like it.

I assume it's being called "narrow" because it ducks the larger issues and instead rules on grounds peculiar to Mr. Phillips (that is, his disrespect by the Commission).   

Like I said, though, I haven't read the case yet; only skimmed the headnote.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 11:40:07 AM
No, but it rights the ship a bit, in that these 'Civil Commissions' can't just dismiss religious claims without balancing their rights with others such as gays.

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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 11:41:13 AM
Yet another example of why Conservatives can't get their shit together.   

Finally a Supreme Court decision comes down which pushes back the leftist agenda, even just a tiny bit.

And we have folks saying its not important, not a big deal.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 11:43:07 AM
The other thing to note is that the Court several times referred to the fact that in 2012, at the time of the original incident, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Colorado.  The Court specifically stated that this fact provided some justification to the baker’s refusal.   Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Colorado (and elsewhere), that justification is no longer there, and that one change may be sufficient to permit enforcement against a baker now, on the ground that the refusal is no longer justified. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 11:43:48 AM
Yet another example of why Conservatives can't get their shit together.   

Finally a Supreme Court decision comes down which pushes back the leftist agenda, even just a tiny bit.

And we have folks saying its not important, not a big deal.

Because you either haven’t read it, or haven’t appreciated it’s narrowness and limited nature of the relief. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 11:46:33 AM
FANTASTIC!!  Praise the LORD!!

7 to 2 is decisive!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 11:47:18 AM
FANTASTIC!!  Praise the LORD!!

7 to 2 is decisive!

The question is: of what is it decisive?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 11:48:28 AM
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.

What a ridiculous thing to say.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with not 'liking' homosexuals.  (Some are the nicest people on earth and very likable).

If you can't grasp the difference between moral principles and emotions, then you have some more thinking to do, and less emoting.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Free Vulcan on June 04, 2018, 11:49:00 AM
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.

Sure they can play that game, but they now need to provide solid legal justification rather than just arbitrary and bias dismissal. Those justifications can then be scrutinized to see if they are indeed fair and impartial.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 11:50:24 AM
The question is: of what is it decisive?

Even if it's just that states can't willy nilly prosecute people they don't like, it's good for now.

That's what this is all about according to you, right?  People who don't like other people?

Well, the people who don't like people with principles lost.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 11:51:42 AM
Because you either haven’t read it, or haven’t appreciated it’s narrowness and limited nature of the relief.

@Oceander
Doesn't matter.  Its a win against the leftist agenda that hates Christians.  First one in a long time from the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 04, 2018, 12:05:42 PM
Supreme Court punts.


Basically, the Court punted on this one.  They reversed because the original decision was tainted by the anti-religious bias of the commissioners who first decided the case.

It’s basically an extremely narrow unconstitutional-as-applied decision based solely on the facts that the baker’s religious beliefs were actively disparaged by the commissioners in comments that were not disavowed by any of the lower courts.

As far as the underlying issue, though, the case doesn’t move the ball any further down the field - in either direction.

^^^^^^THIS!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:08:38 PM
@Oceander
Doesn't matter.  Its a win against the leftist agenda that hates Christians.  First one in a long time from the Supreme Court.

It’s a win for the baker alone, and that only because the Court probably felt sorry for him and wanted to relieve him of the underlying decision without creating any new legal precedent.  It doesn’t establish one iota of the constitutional claims he made; it certainly doesn’t establish that religious belief trumps an otherwise neutral public accommodations law.  And, in point of fact, it could be easily limited to its facts in a subsequent case given that the Court emphasized the fact that, at the time, same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado.  That is no longer the case, and therefore this opinion could be limited on that basis alone.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:11:30 PM
Even if it's just that states can't willy nilly prosecute people they don't like, it's good for now.

That's what this is all about according to you, right?  People who don't like other people?

Well, the people who don't like people with principles lost.

No.  The people who can’t keep their fat gaps closed and their biases to themselves when they decide cases lost; nobody else lost.  In fact, if they hadn’t voiced their dislike of religion, it’s entirely possible that the case would have come out differently. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: mystery-ak on June 04, 2018, 12:16:46 PM
Supreme Court punts.


Basically, the Court punted on this one.  They reversed because the original decision was tainted by the anti-religious bias of the commissioners who first decided the case.

It’s basically an extremely narrow unconstitutional-as-applied decision based solely on the facts that the baker’s religious beliefs were actively disparaged by the commissioners in comments that were not disavowed by any of the lower courts.

As far as the underlying issue, though, the case doesn’t move the ball any further down the field - in either direction.

IOW the baker's rights were violated by the commissioners and the SCOTUS corrected that?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:26:55 PM
IOW the baker's rights were violated by the commissioners and the SCOTUS corrected that?

All they held was that his right to have his religious beliefs taken into consideration by a dispassionate, neutral decision-maker was violated.   It didn’t address at all the underlying issue of whether he had the right to refuse to make the cake in First Amendment grounds. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 12:30:53 PM
The other thing to note is that the Court several times referred to the fact that in 2012, at the time of the original incident, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Colorado.  The Court specifically stated that this fact provided some justification to the baker’s refusal.   Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Colorado (and elsewhere), that justification is no longer there, and that one change may be sufficient to permit enforcement against a baker now, on the ground that the refusal is no longer justified.

That was exactly the thought that occurred to me.  When I get a chance to read the case,  I will be looking for any clue whether the Court has made any substantive pronouncement whatsoever on a storeowner's ability to refuse advertised wedding-related services now that civil marriage is available to same sex couples nationwide. 

Why, pray tell, does the SCOTUS take cases like this if it doesn't intend to rule on the Constitutional issues?   The future value of this opinion may well lie in what is said in the concurring and dissenting opinions.  But at initial glance, this case appears to be a nothingburger.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:32:05 PM
What a ridiculous thing to say.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with not 'liking' homosexuals.  (Some are the nicest people on earth and very likable).

If you can't grasp the difference between moral principles and emotions, then you have some more thinking to do, and less emoting.

Whatever.  The baker’s alleged moral principles are just as subject to being overridden today as they were yesterday; this decision doesn’t change that one iota. 

It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 04, 2018, 12:34:11 PM
Whatever.  The baker’s alleged moral principles are just as subject to being overridden today as they were yesterday; this decision doesn’t change that one iota. 

It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.

As the cake bakers should as well. A simple "Sorry but I'm all booked up" will suffice!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 12:36:10 PM
No.  The people who can’t keep their fat gaps closed and their biases to themselves when they decide cases lost; nobody else lost.  In fact, if they hadn’t voiced their dislike of religion, it’s entirely possible that the case would have come out differently.

You just can't admit that this is a victory over the bias against Christianity, can you?

This IS a good thing in the defense of religious liberty and against those who would keep us from defending it.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 12:40:26 PM
Whatever.  The baker’s alleged moral principles are just as subject to being overridden today as they were yesterday; this decision doesn’t change that one iota. 

It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.

You ignored the main point.  That you erroneously blamed the baker for "not liking" homosexuals, when this issue has nothing to do with liking or not liking, and everything to do with the right of a Christian to not support something he/she believes is morally wrong.

It is the 'marriage' that is not being condoned, and not the people.

Your bias came through in your original post about people they 'don't like,' so it would be great if you would admit how your emotions overcame the facts of the issue when you presented your argument.

"Whatever" is a cop out.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: XenaLee on June 04, 2018, 12:42:20 PM
As the cake bakers should as well. A simple "Sorry but I'm all booked up" will suffice!

Yeah... but.... first....  you ask when the wedding is scheduled to occur.  Then.... you give the bad news that you're totally booked up until after that date.   :smokin:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:47:50 PM
That was exactly the thought that occurred to me.  When I get a chance to read the case,  I will be looking for any clue whether the Court has made any substantive pronouncement whatsoever on a storeowner's ability to refuse advertised wedding-related services now that civil marriage is available to same sex couples nationwide. 

Why, pray tell, does the SCOTUS take cases like this if it doesn't intend to rule on the Constitutional issues?   The future value of this opinion may well lie in what is said in the concurring and dissenting opinions.  But at initial glance, this case appears to be a nothingburger.   

Remember, it only takes four to grant cert.  my guess is that the four who granted were not willing to leave the underlying order standing, but could not muster enough votes for an explanation for why this would be acceptable on a First Amendment basis, but why religion-based race discrimination would not. 

So they horse-traded and got seven votes for the position that the commission was simply too nasty and obviously prejudiced. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:50:36 PM
You ignored the main point.  That you erroneously blamed the baker for "not liking" homosexuals, when this issue has nothing to do with liking or not liking, and everything to do with the right of a Christian to not support something he/she believes is morally wrong.

It is the 'marriage' that is not being condoned, and not the people.

Your bias came through in your original post about people they 'don't like,' so it would be great if you would admit how your emotions overcame the facts of the issue when you presented your argument.

"Whatever" is a cop out.

Why are you so fixated on the irrelevant?  It doesn’t matter how you cast the baker’s views on bleep and catamounts (there, does that make you feel better), it doesnt change the fact that this case doesn’t stand for anything other than that decision-makers should avoid the appearance of prejudice or bias. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:52:40 PM
You just can't admit that this is a victory over the bias against Christianity, can you?

This IS a good thing in the defense of religious liberty and against those who would keep us from defending it.

I can’t because it’s not. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 12:54:52 PM
As the cake bakers should as well. A simple "Sorry but I'm all booked up" will suffice!

 Bingo!!!!

Keep in mind, they need to vary the excuse a little, because otherwise they will establish a pattern of disparate treatment that will itself be actionable, but as they say, brevity is indeed the soul of wit (and of self-preservation). 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 01:00:54 PM
@Oceander
Doesn't matter.  Its a win against the leftist agenda that hates Christians.  First one in a long time from the Supreme Court.

Exactly.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 01:02:11 PM
It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.

Yup.  They have to at least pretend to give a crap about the beliefs of those idiot Christians and their barbaric beliefs.  It's a start.

I heard it said the problem with the Colorado case is they treated the baker's belief with "disdain," which is ironic because the person who said that has treated the baker's belief with nothing but disdain for the past year or so.

@txradioguy move over and gimme some of that...

:2popcorn:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:03:15 PM
Sure they can play that game, but they now need to provide solid legal justification rather than just arbitrary and bias dismissal. Those justifications can then be scrutinized to see if they are indeed fair and impartial.

That’s not that difficult. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 01:04:23 PM
Yup.  They have to at least pretend to give a crap about the beliefs of those idiot Christians and their barbaric beliefs.  It's a start.

I heard it said the problem with the Colorado case is they treated the baker's belief with "disdain," which is ironic because the person who said that has treated the baker's belief with nothing but disdain for the past year or so.

@txradioguy move over and gimme some of that...

:2popcorn:

@Cyber Liberty

I've got enough to share.  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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
@Cyber Liberty

I've got enough to share.  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.

What rights and freedoms were won back?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 01:07:09 PM
@Cyber Liberty

I've got enough to share.  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.

Correct.  This is the first decision I've seen in a while that acknowledges Christians are even entitled to HAVE beliefs, so it's the first chink in the armor.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:08:17 PM
Correct.  This is the first decision I've seen in a while that even acknowledges Christians are even entitled to HAVE beliefs, so it's the first chink in the armor.

Seriously?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 04, 2018, 01:08:23 PM
What rights and freedoms were won back?

The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: SirLinksALot on June 04, 2018, 01:08:23 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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:08:55 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?


Sotomayor.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 01:09:58 PM
Seriously?

No, I'm just making it up as I go along. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: SirLinksALot on June 04, 2018, 01:10:29 PM
OK, I found this from TOS

Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch join Kennedy’s opinion; Kagan concurs, joined by Breyer; Gorsuch concurs, joined by Alito. Thomas concurs in part and in the judgment.

Ginsburg dissents, joined by Sotomayor. So it’s 7-2.

Hopefully, Ginsburg will be gone in a few... but we'll have Sotomayor to deal with for a LOOONG time.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:12:00 PM
The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all.

That was never in doubt, as a matter of legal precedent.  The proposition that everyone is entitled to a neutral adjudicator, or at least an adjudicator who maintains the appearance of impartiality, is 1L 101. 

What’s interesting is that only two justices do not appear to have remembered 1L 101.  Thank God one of them is not long for the bench.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:12:34 PM
No, I'm just making it up as I go along. 

That would explain a lot. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 01:13:09 PM
OK, I found this from TOS

Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch join Kennedy’s opinion; Kagan concurs, joined by Breyer; Gorsuch concurs, joined by Alito. Thomas concurs in part and in the judgment.

Ginsburg dissents, joined by Sotomayor. So it’s 7-2.

Hopefully, Ginsburg will be gone in a few... but we'll have Sotomayor to deal with for a LOOONG time.


God help us if the "Wise Latina" ever becomes Chief Justice.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: SirLinksALot on June 04, 2018, 01:14:21 PM
READ THE DECISION HERE IF YOU HAVE INSOMNIA:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Free Vulcan on June 04, 2018, 01:15:58 PM
That’s not that difficult.

Maybe, but they must also be consistent from case to case. What's given to or taken from one must be done for all. It at least gives a legal team a foothold to hold these commissions accountable.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 04, 2018, 01:16:35 PM
That was never in doubt, as a matter of legal precedent.  The proposition that everyone is entitled to a neutral adjudicator, or at least an adjudicator who maintains the appearance of impartiality, is 1L 101. 

What’s interesting is that only two justices do not appear to have remembered 1L 101.  Thank God one of them is not long for the bench.

Prior to today, I suspect Jack Phillips would greatly disagree.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 01:17:02 PM
God help us if the "Wise Latina" ever becomes Chief Justice.

That can only happen if the nation is stoopit enough to elect a Dem before Roberts quits.  Which is probably a good likelihood, because Roberts is likely to retire the instant a Dem is sworn in.  That kind of crap is how he rolls.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
Prior to today, I suspect Jack Phillips would greatly disagree.

"That was never in doubt." 

I am a fool on these legal-beagle issues, but I was with Jack on that.  I never know how a court will rule, and "experts" like Andrew Napolitano are very often incorrect on their predictions.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 01:19:59 PM
That can only happen if the nation is stoopit enough to elect a Dem before Roberts quits.  Which is probably a good likelihood, because Roberts is likely to retire the instant a Dem is sworn in.  That kind of crap is how he rolls.

That's when he's not rolling over for a Dem president as was the case in the immigration rulings and Obamacare.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:23:12 PM
Maybe, but they must also be consistent from case to case. What's given to or taken from one must be done for all. It at least gives a legal team a foothold to hold these commissions accountable.

Within broad parameters, yes, but the devil is always in the details.  What makes one case the same as, or different from, another case is the similarity of the relevant facts; what is, or is not, relevant is a judgment call, and whether a particular fact exists or not is generally determined by the first person to hear the case, and appellate courts will generally only reverse a finding of fact for clear error, which is a fairly high hurdle. 

The basic problem in this case is not so much that the commissioners were biased, but that they pulled their trousers down and waggled their naughty bits at the baker when they made their decision.  If they’d maintained appearances, this might have been a much different case. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 01:29:10 PM
That's when he's not rolling over for a Dem president as was the case in the immigration rulings and Obamacare.

And, in a sense, in this case too.  Someone will come along and tell me I'm FOS, but the court went out of their way to make sure this doesn't set a precedence that can be used as a guide for future rulings.  We've seen that mealy-mouth crap quite a lot from the Roberts Court.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 01:30:46 PM
Within broad parameters, yes, but the devil is always in the details.  What makes one case the same as, or different from, another case is the similarity of the relevant facts; what is, or is not, relevant is a judgment call, and whether a particular fact exists or not is generally determined by the first person to hear the case, and appellate courts will generally only reverse a finding of fact for clear error, which is a fairly high hurdle. 

The basic problem in this case is not so much that the commissioners were biased, but that they pulled their trousers down and waggled their naughty bits at the baker when they made their decision.  If they’d maintained appearances, this might have been a much different case.

It will add doubt into the equation when commissioners or other elected reps make policy going forward.   If I was the baker I would turn around and file suit for the legal costs of all this.  Bankrupt the city
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:36:33 PM
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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 01:37:24 PM
It will add doubt into the equation when commissioners or other elected reps make policy going forward.   If I was the baker I would turn around and file suit for the legal costs of all this.  Bankrupt the city

It’ll just make future decision-makers more careful about what they say.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 04, 2018, 01:54:39 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: edpc on June 04, 2018, 01:59:22 PM
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/D2Or9NNhZ87TSwUDsWsIvA--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD01MDY7dz00MDA-/https://byronsmuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1767-marie-antoinette.jpg.cf.jpg)


Let them eat gayke.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 02:09:00 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.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 02:11:55 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 02:17:45 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 02:18:31 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 02:19:28 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 02:21:54 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 02:23:55 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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 02:27:02 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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 02:28:25 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 02:30:33 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 02:34:43 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 02:35:19 PM
IIRC, you supported that technique.  Gander = Goose. 

I’m not claiming innocence of any sort, simply pointing out driftdivers hypocrisy.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 02:37:23 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 02:40:57 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 02:46:20 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 02:48:16 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
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 02:49:24 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:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:10:40 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 03:12:21 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 04, 2018, 03:14:25 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.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:14:55 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).
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:18:25 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:19:29 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 03:20:22 PM
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.

Uh, no.  He refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple without even discussing the design with them. For all he knew, they may have wanted no text on it at all, nothing that would identify them as a same-sex couple. 

Read the facts as set forth in the Courts opinion.  Unless you think the Court is lying about the facts. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:22:10 PM
I think it was a pyrrhic victory at best.

Nonsense.  Liberal fascists were caught red-handed violating the very equal protection that they claim to champion, and they were called to the carpet for it.

This is a victory for liberty, period.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Fishrrman on June 04, 2018, 03:24:46 PM
Major Bill wrote:
"It looks to me like the Justices deliberately chose a fairly narrow ground on which to rule so as to avoid the controversy."

In other words, they "kicked the can down the road" a bit as best they could until the next "cake case" arises.

Still in all, this seems to be a "foundational" decision. It sets precedent for that next case to come before them (stare decisis). And lower courts will be somewhat "bound" by the Colorado cake decision.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:26:59 PM
Uh, no.  He refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple without even discussing the design with them.

The baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, not a same-sex couple.  Get your facts right, @Oceander
The Colorado court records clearly show that a heterosexual woman also requested a cake for a same-sex wedding.  She was also refused on the exact same grounds - the baker does not make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.


For all he knew, they may have wanted no text on it at all, nothing that would identify them as a same-sex couple.

Totally irrelevant.  Writing on a cake does not change the fact of what the cake was for.


Read the facts as set forth in the Courts opinion.  Unless you think the Court is lying about the facts.

I did read the facts.  And it is clear that you did not.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 03:32:28 PM
Major Bill wrote:
"It looks to me like the Justices deliberately chose a fairly narrow ground on which to rule so as to avoid the controversy."

In other words, they "kicked the can down the road" a bit as best they could until the next "cake case" arises.

A disturbing tendency on the Roberts court.  Take a look at this from the other case decided today, about whether an illegal immigrant minor in immigrant custody can obtain an abortion.

Quote
In the unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices threw out the lower court decision on the grounds that the dispute became moot once the teenager had the abortion.

...

The justices on Monday declined to take up the administration’s request for disciplinary action against the ACLU lawyers. The administration had accused them of misleading the Justice Department over when she would have the abortion.


The ACLU helped her get the abortion while the case was on appeal, so the Court dismissed it as moot, then denied the motion to sanction the ACLU for interfering with the case.  All in the name of avoiding making any precedent.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 03:32:51 PM
The baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, not a same-sex couple.  Get your facts right, @Oceander
The Colorado court records clearly show that a heterosexual woman also requested a cake for a same-sex wedding.  She was also refused on the exact same grounds - the baker does not make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.


Totally irrelevant.  Writing on a cake does not change the fact of what the cake was for.


I did read the facts.  And it is clear that you did not.

No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Fishrrman on June 04, 2018, 03:33:02 PM
Sir Links wrote:
"Hopefully, Ginsburg will be gone in a few... but we'll have Sotomayor to deal with for a LOOONG time."

The wise Latina has significant health problems.
If Trump gets re-elected, he might even get to appoint her replacement.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 03:34:32 PM
Nonsense.  Liberal fascists were caught red-handed violating the very equal protection that they claim to champion, and they were called to the carpet for it.

This is a victory for liberty, period.
"This is a victory for liberty, period."

 :beer: :patriot:
Yes, and triple that.   Many people fail to understand the implications of this decision. If it had went the other way, any person with a business could be coerced into making something they didn't want to make.
Whether the cake baker didn't want to bake the cake because he's an artist or because of his religion is irrelevant.
You should not be forced to create/make/manufacture something you don't want to.
The people who would coerce the baker into making the cake are petty fascists. Yeah, I said it.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:43:05 PM
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

He also refused to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual woman, specifically because she requested one for a same-sex wedding.  The baker informed the HETEROSEXUAL woman that he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings.

Shall I repost the court decision for you again?  It's been posted three times already, but I have no problem doing it again.

Here's the bottom line.  This baker does not recognize same-sex 'marriage' celebrations as 'weddings' as defined by his religious beliefs.  Thus, he does not make wedding cakes celebrating such events.  Nowhere in any of this does a person's sexual preference come into play.  If a homosexual man was to marry a homosexual woman, then he would accept their wedding cake order.  Conversely, if a heterosexual man was to marry a heterosexual man, he would not accept their wedding cake order.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 03:44:09 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.

It's not "the same cake."

If you're going to argue vociferously against religious freedom, at least get your facts straight.

Otherwise you just look like any old liberal arguing against liberty.

And you're not.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 03:45:01 PM
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight.

Didn't the baker also refuse to bake a cake for a Homosexual marriage for a Hetero person, too?  And isn't it true he offered to sell them any other thing from the bakery?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: jmyrlefuller on June 04, 2018, 03:46:23 PM
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight.
Which should be his right. If he is an obedient Christian, he is told to "not even eat with / the sexual sinners of this world (...) the adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals." (1 Corinthians 5 and 6, and yes, I deliberately chose the New Testament, even though the commands against it can be traced back as far as Sodom and Gomorrah.) Such commands were already in place when the First Amendment was codified.

To specifically order him to serve a homosexual when it is explicitly against his faith not only violates his free exercise, but his right not to be forced into involuntary servitude (the 13th Amendment).
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 03:46:53 PM
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight.

And again, if a heterosexual customer wanted a cake for a homosexual "marriage," it would have been refused.

THOSE are the facts, like it or not.

It is not discrimination to refuse to make a product that you don't ever make in your place of business.

There was no discrimination here.......... until the state of Colorado discriminated against this Christian.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 03:50:34 PM
Which should be his right. If he is an obedient Christian, he is told to "not even eat with / the sexual sinners of this world (...) the adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals." (1 Corinthians 5 and 6, and yes, I deliberately chose the New Testament, even though the commands against it can be traced back as far as Sodom and Gomorrah.)

To specifically order him to serve a homosexual when it is explicitly against his faith not only violates his free exercise, but his right not to be forced into involuntary servitude (the 13th Amendment).

To put it more into context, consider the ministry of Jesus.  All four gospels give numerous accounts of Jesus preaching in the marketplace.  His parables centered on real marketplace issues - farming, stewardship, day laboring, land owner, accounting, etc.  The defendant in this case was simply taking Christ's lessons to heart and being that marketplace servant by dedicating his works to the Lord.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 04, 2018, 03:52:12 PM
Did you read Justice Thomas' opinion?  He nails it.

Yes, he did indeed.

Keep in mind, this wasn't a Baker that took his religion lightly and used it for an excuse on a gay couple.  This Baker refused to make anything Halloween decorated because of his view of his religion.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 04, 2018, 04:01:09 PM
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.

Certainly an interesting thought, and perhaps there is something to that analysis.  Not having a legal education I'll refrain from attempting any detailed criticism of the idea, other than to argue that the travel ban applied to countries, not to any specific faith.  Even if one grants that Trump is personally prejudiced against Muslims, and revealed that bias through his statements, the travel ban would not apply to millions of Muslims in countries not included in the ban.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 04:02:11 PM
And again, if a heterosexual customer wanted a cake for a homosexual "marriage," it would have been refused.

THOSE are the facts, like it or not.

It is not discrimination to refuse to make a product that you don't ever make in your place of business.

There was no discrimination here.......... until the state of Colorado discriminated against this Christian.

No, because he never discussed design, so there was no way of knowing whether the cake itself would bear any indication that it was for a same-sex wedding.  The design could have been completely abstract.  If a heterosexual-sex couple requested such an abstract cake, he would have made it for them - even if they were buying it for their gay friends - but because the customers were a gay couple, he refused.  He discriminated on the basis of who they were, not on the basis of the cake he would be called upon to design.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 04:06:27 PM
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.

That's funny, @Oceander ,  I was reading the case on the train this afternoon and beside one passage in the majority opinion I scribbled the word "Trump!"    That passage is as follows:

Quote
  Members of the Court have disagreed on the question whether statements made by lawmakers may properly be taken into account, in determining whether a law intentionally discriminates on the basis of religion.  [citation omitted]  In this case, however, the remarks were made in a very different context - by an adjudicatory body [the Colorado Commission] deciding a particular case.

That sure sounds like a signal regarding the Court's upcoming ruling on the Trump travel ban.   But here, of course, the requirement of neutrality is essential to due process and impartial justice.   The Colorado Commission's record including the statement of one of its members that religious belief has been used to justify slavery and even the Holocaust was simply outrageous,  and effectively tipped the scales of justice against  Mr. Phillips.

But is the case a nothingburger, as I suggested above?   I don't think so, although the language that will affect future cases will be mostly found in the concurring and dissenting opinions.   I'd recommend that anyone who favors the baker read Justice Kagan's opinion, and that anyone who favors the plaintiffs read Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, as well as Justice Thomas's opinion, who unlike the other Justices, takes seriously Mr. Phillip's claims regarding his free speech rights (as opposed to his right to freely exercise his religion.)    These are the competing arguments on the merits on which the Court punted, and for which resolution awaits another day.   Like Oceander said,  it was not possible to get five Justices to agree on anything other than Kennedy's absolutely correct conclusion that Phillips' claims were not treated fairly by the adjudicator.

But is the majority opinion valueless with respect to the Constitutional issues?   I don't think so.   Although addressed far more directly and substantively by the concurring and dissenting opinions,  the majority touched on the issue of disparate treatment in how the Commission upheld the conscience objections of three other bakers who refused to bake cakes with "offensive" anti-gay messages,  while consigning Mr. Phillip's conscience objections to the dustbin.

Quote
  Before the Colorado Court of Appeals, Philips protested that this disparity in treatment reflected hostility on the part of the Commission toward his beliefs.  He argued that the Commission had treated the other bakers' conscience-based objections as legitimate,  but treated his as illegitimate - thus sitting in judgement of his religious beliefs themselves.

. . .  A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government's own assessment of offensiveness.   Just as 'no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion', it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State to prescribe what shall be offensive.   The Colorado court's attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips' religious beliefs.   

This, I think, is the victory Mr. Phillips gained.   He may not know whether he can, in the future, refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings, but if he refuses again it seems clear that his conscience-based objection -  grounded in religion - must be treated as seriously and presumptively genuine as a conscience-based objection based on secular belief.  It is Mr. Phillips who is the arbiter of what is offensive to his religious sensibilities, not the State.  The government cannot favor or disfavor religion,  and cannot place its thumb on the scale of justice by dismissing expression or conduct rooted in religious faith as inherently quaint or backward or destructive.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 04:08:47 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.

When everything regarding the usurpation and diminishment of our liberties hangs on what 9 people in black robes have to say is a total bastardization of what the Founders intended for us.  So when the courts begin to make law by judicial fiat as they have on countless issues (i.e.: carbon dioxide is a declared pollutant) - they have nullified their legitimacy.  I find it unfortunate that the key and fundamental issue of whether or not someone can be compelled by force and punishment to violate their conscience to create and serve behaviors they find evil, was ignored to make this ruling based on the the technical dynamics of the Colorado Commission's bias.

From a Christian and orthodox position, once the institutions of government contravene the laws of God that govern a people beholden to them, then those institutions and that government no longer have any legitimate authority.  The maxim of 'better to obey God than men' is our directive from scripture itself.

None of us should live life by the leave of government permission and license, but that is where we are arriving.
"I find it unfortunate that the key and fundamental issue of whether or not someone can be compelled by force and punishment to violate their conscience to create and serve behaviors they find evil, was ignored to make this ruling based on the the technical dynamics of the Colorado Commission's bias"

Yes, I agree, but it's not just people with religious convictions. It's  all business persons who have the right to refuse to make/create/manufacture something they don't want to.
It's no different than a customer demanding a car manufacturer make a candy-striped vehicle with gold-colored wheels. The car maker has the right to refuse to make that kind of car on any grounds, religious or otherwise.
Nobody should be able to force a business person to make something they don't want to.
That is totally different from refusing to sell something that's already made and up for sale to someone.
The same would apply to homosexual bakers who only bake items with homosexual themes. A customer is free to purchase any item in their store.  But a  customer cannot demand the homosexual bakers bake a christian-themed bakery item.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 04:13:35 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.
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Suppressed on June 04, 2018, 04:20:01 PM
If he couldn’t get 5 votes to reverse on broader grounds, being more aggressive would have resulted in actual or implied affirmance.

 :thumbsup:

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).

Quote
“[..]there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. ”

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:

Quote
Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented.  He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to
make an expressive statement [...]


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):
Quote
“[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

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:

Quote
And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.

Again, this is in the majority opinion. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 04:23:45 PM
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.

 :amen:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 04:26:01 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.
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 04:27:18 PM

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.

It is not that simple.   Of course a baker should not be forced to make wedding cakes.  But here,  the baker advertised such cakes as his specialty.  He put himself out before the public as a baker of such cakes.   The question, unfortunately not answered today, is whether and when religious belief provides a basis to refuse service to one customer but not another.  The facts in this case were not easy, because Mr. Phillips had no discussion with his customer regarding the design or message of the cake.   As Justice Kagan pointed out,  this was not a case of refusing to provide a service that he had promised to no one else to provide.  If his customers had been straight, he would have baked the cake.  Because they were gay, he refused.   Is religious belief alone sufficient to permit him to disregard his legal obligation of fair and nondiscriminatory dealing?   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 04:29:36 PM
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.

Maybe so, and maybe that would be the wiser policy, but it’s not the law. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 04:31:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: GtHawk on June 04, 2018, 04:34:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 04:39:08 PM
:thumbsup:

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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 04:44:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 04:51:44 PM
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.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 04:56:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 05:11:00 PM
Only because of activist judges and lawyers.  Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable.

Are you kidding me?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 05:16:20 PM
Are you kidding me?

No its the lawyers and activist judges who are making a joke of our legal system
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 05:20:39 PM
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.   

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 05:29:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 05:30:38 PM
@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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 04, 2018, 05:33:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 06:04:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: GrouchoTex on June 04, 2018, 06:11:02 PM
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.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 06:21:19 PM
These are the things that will make this government the despotic and tyrannical Beast it will has become.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 06:23:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 06:25:42 PM
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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 06:26:32 PM
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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 06:29:02 PM


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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 06:30:24 PM
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.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 04, 2018, 06:34:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 04, 2018, 06:35:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 06:41:32 PM
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.

:facepalm2:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 06:42:21 PM
@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.     
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 06:46:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 06:48:56 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 06:50:02 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 06:51:33 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 06:52:08 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.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 06:55:08 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
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 06:58:14 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.)


Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: XenaLee on June 04, 2018, 07:01:51 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 04, 2018, 07:03:14 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.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 07:05:46 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 07:07:38 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 04, 2018, 07:11:40 PM
We either have freedom or no freedom.

Scotus chose freedom.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 07:13:45 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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Suppressed on June 04, 2018, 07:13:47 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 04, 2018, 07:14:31 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 07:16:52 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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 04, 2018, 07:21:24 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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Suppressed on June 04, 2018, 07:21:58 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. 

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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 07:27:47 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?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 07:31:50 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
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 07:32:34 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 04, 2018, 07:37:32 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?   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 07:39:02 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 07:46:08 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 07:47:07 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 07:51:05 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 07:51:41 PM
But the notion that a shopkeeper who advertises a service should honor his word

Once again, Advertisement is not a contract. There is no word to keep.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 07:54:19 PM
It is not that simple.   Of course a baker should not be forced to make wedding cakes.  But here,  the baker advertised such cakes as his specialty.  He put himself out before the public as a baker of such cakes.   The question, unfortunately not answered today, is whether and when religious belief provides a basis to refuse service to one customer but not another.  The facts in this case were not easy, because Mr. Phillips had no discussion with his customer regarding the design or message of the cake.   As Justice Kagan pointed out,  this was not a case of refusing to provide a service that he had promised to no one else to provide.  If his customers had been straight, he would have baked the cake.  Because they were gay, he refused.   Is religious belief alone sufficient to permit him to disregard his legal obligation of fair and nondiscriminatory dealing?   
So you really believe that if the baker had specified beforehand,  there wouldn't be people demanding he make them a homosexual-themed cake?
The two homosexuals involved knew full well that this baker would not bake them a homosexual-themed cake for their wedding. There were numerous other bakeries who would have been happy to bake their cake.
Even after the baker said he didn't do homosexual-themed cakes, they still demanded he bake one for them.
But homosexuality has nothing to do with the underlying principle. 
If I am  a Satanist, and a baker refuses to bake me a Satanist-themed cake on religious grounds, I don't file a lawsuit claiming discrimination.  The baker has a right to refuse to bake me that Satanist cake I want...even if he didn't specify beforehand he didn't bake Satanist-themed cakes.
As I recall, homosexuals don't have any more rights than Satanists and other groups.
Because a baker (or any business) doesn't specify they don't make/create certain types of articles in no way justifies a customer demanding the baker make them a cake for their personal bent.
Point me to that section of the constitution that says businesses must make/create whatever a customer demands.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 07:55:08 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.


Then they shouldn’t be engaged in the provision of goods to the public at retail.  It’s just that simple. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 07:55:30 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.

@Oceander

No they aren't.  Carriers refuse people all the time.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 07:56:51 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 simply refused to sell them a wedding cake because they were a gay couple.
Doesn't matter in the slightest.  A business owner is under no obligation whatsoever to make/create whatever a customer demands.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 07:57:29 PM
Once again, Advertisement is not a contract. There is no word to keep.

The argument about "advertising" is specious, as I've pointed out before.  If there was an advertisement that plainly stated "No same-sex marriages" it would not have solved it at all.  Phillips would still have been sued, and that ad would have been added to the list of particulars against him.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 07:58:05 PM
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.
:thumbsup:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 07:58:26 PM
@Oceander

No they aren't.  Carriers refuse people all the time.

Look up the definition and regulation of common carriers. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 04, 2018, 08:00:17 PM
So who should make the laws, in your view, in our Republic?   If not judges, and not the peoples' elected representatives?

The judiciary has no authority or power to make laws in the Republic. 

Whatever this socialist mobocracy you champion is - obviously you think judges should make laws.

And obviously so does Congress.

Like it or not,  laws against discrimination in public accommodations reflect the considered will of the people.

If the will of the people contravenes the Laws of God, then whatever the people want is as null and void as if ordered by nine judges in black robes.  i.e.; If they passed some stupid law that says I must work on the Sabbath or have my business open on holy days for 'public accommodation' because they reflect the will of the people - those too will be 'laws' I will ignore,- because they are invalid and null due the fact they contravene the Laws of God that I observe.

So if some homo group wants shirts or a website designed that advocate for their cause or an event that promotes their behavior, I refuse to do business with them.  Because they are asking me to violate my faith to create a vehicle to promote perverted behavior.   I refuse and no one can force me to design and create anything for such people or their cause. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 08:06:34 PM
Because they said they wanted a cake for “our wedding”.  The necessary inference is there.

Ah, so you simply assumed it instead of reading the actual court documents in this case.  Now I understand how you can be so wrong about the facts of this case.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 04, 2018, 08:13:32 PM
Then they shouldn’t be engaged in the provision of goods to the public at retail.  It’s just that simple.
Oh, good grief.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 08:16:02 PM
Look up the definition and regulation of common carriers.

@Oceander

Again, common carriers refuse people every day for various reasons
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: jmyrlefuller on June 04, 2018, 08:27:40 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.
So tell me how a Christian baker operating a sole proprietorship is even remotely comparable to entities that have common carrier status. Most are publicly held corporations without any inherent religious beliefs. Most have large market share and little competition in their territories. Common carrier was a compromise to ensure competition and interoperability. It is in no way applicable in the case of individuals.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 08:31:22 PM
@Oceander

Again, common carriers refuse people every day for various reasons

Read the definition.  Try this for starters:  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+carrier

They cannot refuse for unjustified reasons. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 08:33:08 PM
So tell me how a Christian baker operating a sole proprietorship is even remotely comparable to entities that have common carrier status. Most are publicly held corporations without any inherent religious beliefs. Most have large market share and little competition in their territories. Common carrier was a compromise to ensure competition and interoperability. It is in no way applicable in the case of individuals.

Size doesn’t matter; what matters is the business you enter into and how you hold yourself out to the public.  One guy with a freight truck, operating as a sole proprietorship, can be a common carrier if he holds himself out as being willing to transport persons or goods for a fee.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 08:33:43 PM
Ah, so you simply assumed it instead of reading the actual court documents in this case.  Now I understand how you can be so wrong about the facts of this case.

Nope. I read the facts of the case, as you did not.  Which explains why you have no clue what you’re talking about.  Which is a shame, because when you read in good faith, you have some excellent things to say, as you did on the tariffs thread the other day.  It’s a real shame you can’t bring that same good faith and honesty to this subject. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 08:37:45 PM
Judging from the statements coming out from the leftists this is a major win for conservatives and freedom.

Love it
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 08:38:45 PM
Read the definition.  Try this for starters:  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+carrier

They cannot refuse for unjustified reasons.

@Oceander

They can refuse for any number of reasons.  Heck they dont like your shirt and you are off.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 08:38:53 PM
Judging from the statements coming out from the leftists this is a major win for conservatives and freedom.

Love it

:bigsilly:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 08:40:00 PM
@Oceander

They can refuse for any number of reasons.  Heck they dont like your shirt and you are off.



/snicker


Why don’t you go read up on the regulation of common carriers instead of farting from the wrong end of your digestive tract. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 08:49:50 PM
/snicker


Why don’t you go read up on the regulation of common carriers instead of farting from the wrong end of your digestive tract.


@Oceander

Go look it up yourself .   Its quite obvious you missed that day in school.   Have fun skippy
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 08:51:57 PM

@Oceander

Go look it up yourself .   Its quite obvious you missed that day in school.   Have fun skippy

Already did skippy.  Common carriers cannot unjustifiably refuse to carry a paying customer. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: catfish1957 on June 04, 2018, 08:52:39 PM
7-2?  Should have been 7-1, as one particular activist judge should have recused herself.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 08:53:09 PM
7-2?  Should have been 7-1, as one particular activist judge should have recused herself.

Why?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: catfish1957 on June 04, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
Why?

Nevermind... I got justices mixed up, vs. voting on this case.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 09:06:04 PM
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
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 04, 2018, 09:08:47 PM
@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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Suppressed on June 04, 2018, 09:14:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 04, 2018, 09:17:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Silver Pines on June 04, 2018, 09:26:19 PM
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 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU)

@thackney

Lol, NARROW? 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 04, 2018, 09:28:08 PM
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
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 04, 2018, 09:32:03 PM
@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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 09:40:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 04, 2018, 09:46:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 04, 2018, 09:47:03 PM
Quote
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
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 09:47:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 04, 2018, 10:00:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 10:01:05 PM
@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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 04, 2018, 10:19:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: roamer_1 on June 04, 2018, 10:40:05 PM
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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 04, 2018, 11:23:28 PM
Just saw this on an NPR site (while I was looking for something else), and thought people might be interested in this quote:

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.   :patriot:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Suppressed on June 05, 2018, 01:05:20 AM
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.   :patriot:

Sorry, @musiclady , but I think it's something different: the leftist NPR using this to rile their base.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 10:57:14 AM
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.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: TomSea on June 05, 2018, 11:05:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 05, 2018, 11:16:24 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 11:23:47 AM
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 (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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 11:33:39 AM
@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 (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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 05, 2018, 11:34:57 AM
Those statements do not fit the narrative that was insisted upon this entire time.

Only by a few misinformed souls.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 05, 2018, 11:41:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 05, 2018, 11:45:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Wingnut on June 05, 2018, 11:45:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 11:46:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 05, 2018, 11:47:39 AM
@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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 05, 2018, 11:49:30 AM
@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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 05, 2018, 11:50:38 AM
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
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 05, 2018, 11:51:49 AM
But but but.... what about the perpetually offended.  They would have nothing to do to make their lives whole.

They'll get over it!
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 05, 2018, 11:53:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Wingnut on June 05, 2018, 11:58:01 AM
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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Wingnut on June 05, 2018, 12:00:44 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..
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Bigun on June 05, 2018, 12:29:59 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 12:41:59 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on June 05, 2018, 12:54:01 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 12:54:06 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 12:59:55 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 01:04:22 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 (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.     
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 01:10:31 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.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 01:10:52 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. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 01:16:39 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: musiclady on June 05, 2018, 01:19:48 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.  ^-^
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 01:30:34 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.   

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 01:34:43 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: SirLinksALot on June 05, 2018, 01:42:10 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Emjay on June 05, 2018, 01:47:39 PM
I wonder if they mean "narrow in scope".

That's what they claimed to mean, but their headline is a reach and misleading.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Oceander on June 05, 2018, 01:53:53 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 01:58:35 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.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 02:01:45 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.


There was never any newly-constructed "right of gays to marry".  What was affirmed is the right of gay couples to the equal protection of the law.   The individual states remain able to deny all special rights to married couples, gay and straight.  What they cannot do is afford the special rights, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to straight couples but not to gay couples. 

While the context here happens to be wedding cakes,  the right of gays to be protected from discrimination derives from the status of sexual orientation as a protected classification.  And there, the states indeed have a say-so.  For example, Colorado extends protected status to sexual orientation, but Pennsylvania generally does not.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 02:09:15 PM
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.

@Oceander
Seriously, you don't understand what that means OR is that part of the game you are playing.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 05, 2018, 02:09:52 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.

........

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.

These arguments are very consistent with the position I took up thread : those charged with interpreting the law have made an unmanageable mess of it, to the extent that intelligent citizens of good will cannot even know whether they are acting within the law.  "The law" is whatever a majority of justices feels like on a given day, without regard for the plain meaning of words or the clearly-defined-and-limited Constitutional authority of each branch of the federal government and of each state.

Jazzhead has suggested that the facts of the case were not clear enough to allow for a definitive resolution.  Many here, myself included, disagree.  But assuming for the sake of argument that the facts were unclear, we are forced to conclude that the nation's law has become a multi-variate differential equation, a mass of detail complexity not decipherable by logical principles but amenable only to the personal sympathies of a privileged caste of elites.

The federal judiciary has maintained for years the the US Constitution does *not* mean what it *does* say about arms, and that it *does* mean what it *does not* say about abortion.  This is precisely why many on this board, and elsewhere, maintain resolutely that they simply will not comply.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 02:10:09 PM
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.



I'm not making stuff up.  Look at the Masterpiece website - he clearly sells off-the-shelf wedding cakes.  But my point is that IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD whether he was refusing to sell his customers a custom wedding cake, an off-the-shelf wedding cake, or both.  (That question has nothing to do with whether he'd sell them chocolate chip cookies.)    That's one reason why the SCOTUS ultimately did not use this case as its vehicle for deciding the broader Constitutional issues.   It found narrowly for the baker and punted.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 02:10:26 PM
There was never a newly-constructed "right of gays to marry".  What was affirmed is the right of gay couples to the equal protection of the law.

Couples rights?  When did our founding fathers invent these 'couples' rights?  Or are you simply making it up now?

As for equal protection, no one has ever been denied the right to marry based upon their sexual preference. in other words, 'preference' was never a legal consideration.  That is known as equal protection.

Yet you advocate that we should introduce preference into the equation - well, one preference anyway.  While at the same time you deny me my preference.  Nothing equal about that.  So once and for all, stop saying this is about equal protection.  It's not.  It is about one class of people being given preferential treatment above all others.  My preference continues to be denied.


What they cannot do is afford the special rights and obligations of civil marriage to straight couples but not gay couples.

Ah, once again, the argument for tyranny - the Constitution be damned.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 02:11:41 PM
There was never any newly-constructed "right of gays to marry".  What was affirmed is the right of gay couples to the equal protection of the law.   The individual states remain able to deny all special rights to married couples, gay and straight.  What they cannot do is afford the special rights, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to straight couples but not to gay couples. 

While the context here happens to be wedding cakes,  the right of gays to be protected from discrimination derives from the status of sexual orientation as a protected classification.  And there, the states indeed have a say-so.  For example, Colorado extends protected status to sexual orientation, but Pennsylvania generally does not.   

@Jazzhead
Nonsense, through activist judges and lawyers they maneuvered the laws into such a way that bypassed the will of the people repeatedly.   Every man and woman already had equal protection.   Any man could marry any woman just as any woman could marry any man.

No what they wanted was special treatment, just like in everything else.   They want endorsement of their lifestyle and repudiation of Christian morals and traditional values.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 02:17:34 PM
    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.

Stop being obtuse.   A gay couple comes in and requests a cake for "their own wedding".  He refuses.   A straight couple comes in and requests a cake for "their own wedding".  Of course that is discrimination based on sexual orientation.   There is no other sensible explanation.   The only question left is whether that discrimination is nevertheless justified.   





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


Again, stop being obtuse (and ridiculous).


Quote
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.

Not free exercise.  Free speech.  Whether the Court will recognize that remains to be seen.  But even the Trump administration in its amicus brief knew that discrimination with respect to a public accommodation based on free exercise would not fly.  Again, see Piggie Park.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 02:22:44 PM
But my point is that IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD whether he was refusing to sell his customers a custom wedding cake, an off-the-shelf wedding cake, or both.

It was crystal clear from the record that the baker offered anything and everything else to plaintiffs.  But he did not make cakes for same-sex weddings.  So if you continue to insist based upon your absurd self-invented facts that the baker had off-the-shelf wedding cakes, then you just end up looking foolish.

Think, man.  What baker is going to bake wedding cakes and put them on display in their store hoping that someone happens to come into the store at the last minute needing a wedding cake.  Do you have any idea how much wedding cakes cost?  Seriously, stop lying.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 02:23:02 PM
Couples rights?  When did our founding fathers invent these 'couples' rights?  Or are you simply making it up now?

As for equal protection, no one has ever been denied the right to marry based upon their sexual preference. in other words, 'preference' was never a legal consideration.  That is known as equal protection.


So you're the only human being on God's green earth who married with no expectation of having sex?    That is a spurious (and ridiculous) characterization of equal protection and you know it.   A sexual relationship is part and parcel of marriage.   Gays marry gays, straights marry straights. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 02:28:15 PM
So you're the only human being on God's green earth who married with no expectation of having sex?    That is a spurious (and ridiculous) characterization of equal protection and you know it.   A sexual relationship is part and parcel of marriage.   Gays marry gays, straights marry straights.

@Jazzhead
You don't have to get married to have a sexual relationship.

The primary purpose of marriage throughout the ages is to ensure the stability of the family.  A stable family is a better environment for children.   Stable children tend to grow up into stable adults which contribute to a stable society.

Which is why this was being pushed, to destabilize our society.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 05, 2018, 02:34:09 PM
The federal judiciary has maintained for years the the US Constitution does *not* mean what it *does* say about arms, and that it *does* mean what it *does not* say about abortion.  This is precisely why many on this board, and elsewhere, maintain resolutely that they simply will not comply.
That is an exemplary summary of our judiciary and problems we now have.

Thanks for the insight.

I do wish you would chime in more often on threads, @HoustonSam .

You are a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 05, 2018, 02:36:15 PM
As an aside here:  Does anyone notice the liberal face is presented by two known lawyers on this thread?

I wonder if this is a coincidence?  If not, I need to fire some legal advisers.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 02:42:33 PM
@Jazzhead
You don't have to get married to have a sexual relationship.

The primary purpose of marriage throughout the ages is to ensure the stability of the family.  A stable family is a better environment for children.   Stable children tend to grow up into stable adults which contribute to a stable society.

Which is why this was being pushed, to destabilize our society.
Some gays, too, want the stability of family.   Why not?  It's better and healthier than the bathhouse lifestyle of the 70s.   Why shouldn't we encourage gays to be monogamous and marry?    What is "destabilizing" about my neighbors and their family?     
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 05, 2018, 02:43:34 PM

I do wish you would chime in more often on threads, @HoustonSam .


You are very kind @IsailedawayfromFR.  TBR got along fine before I ever showed up, and it gets along fine without me.  I appreciate having an opportunity to speak my mind when I have something to say and I hope my expression will be clear and fair-minded.  I've known people who said too much and I would rather err in the other direction.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 02:43:42 PM
If two straight people of the same gender had made the exact same request (a cake for their own wedding), Phillips would have refused.
Stop being obtuse.   A gay couple comes in and requests a cake for "their own wedding".  He refuses.   

...Again, stop being obtuse (and ridiculous).

You're projecting your own obtuseness. 

In reports and records, the two homo men AND the STRAIGHT mother of one of the homos came into the shop with a book of ideas and concepts to show Phillips for the cake they wanted him to create.  In 30 seconds of discourse he simply told them when asked to make a same-sex wedding cake - "Sorry guys, I don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.  I'll sell you anything else, pastries or shelf cakes - but I do not create cakes for same sex weddings".  Then they cursed him, flipped him off and marched out of the store and went right to a lawyer to file suit.

He refused to create a same-sex cake to celebrate their perversion.  He did not refuse to sell to them because they were homos.

So Hoodat is precisely correct when he says that if a normal hetero person asked Phillips to create a same-sex wedding cake, they too would have been refused.  Phillips discriminated against the behaviors they wanted his cake to celebrate, not the persons.

But you know this already, and deliberately try to frame the issue to foist the narrative you have cultivated since this cake broke in the public eye.

The Obtuse one, is you.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 02:44:20 PM
As an aside here:  Does anyone notice the liberal face is presented by two known lawyers on this thread?

I wonder if this is a coincidence?  If not, I need to fire some legal advisers.

This isn't "liberal" vs. "conservative".   It is a knotty problem where one set of rights conflicts with another.   A big part of the problem is the laziness of labeling stuff as "liberal" vs. "conservative".   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 02:50:27 PM
So you're the only human being on God's green earth who married with no expectation of having sex?    That is a spurious (and ridiculous) characterization of equal protection and you know it.   A sexual relationship is part and parcel of marriage.   Gays marry gays, straights marry straights.

I happen to know two straight men in California who got married for health insurance reasons.  One needed a policy, and the other had a very good policy through work.  So here you have straight marrying straight, except they were of the same gender.  And if they had gone to Masterpiece bakery to have a wedding cake made, they would have been told the EXACT same thing that plaintiffs were told.

That's called 'equal protection'.   You just don't happen to like equal protection.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 02:52:35 PM
Why shouldn't we encourage gays to be monogamous and marry?

Because it is a perversion and abomination to nature, and to the Creator who made the institution of marriage to begin with.  It is egregiously detrimental to the propagation of a wholesome society and opens the doors for people with perverted sexual desires to demand marriage rights to pets, objects and children.

What is "destabilizing" about my neighbors and their family?     

The homo agenda is not content to have their perverts masturbate together in private and keep to themselves.  They have to flaunt it in our faces, have parades and demand that the rest of us acknowledge it, celebrate it and participate in it.

That's why they are destabilizing.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 02:55:29 PM
This isn't "liberal" vs. "conservative".   It is a knotty problem where one set of rights conflicts with another. 


Actually, it is a problem where the tyranny of a select few is imposed upon the very foundation upon which our US Constitution is based.  If Congress wanted to pass some law defining marriage, then they have every right under the Constitution to do so.  But in lieu of that, said decision is left up to the States - also under the Constitution.

The problem lies when one side relies upon black-robed tyrants who ignore the Constitution and impose their will upon the States without referendum, legislation, or vote.  And they do so under the lie of equal protection, claiming equal protection for one select class while ignoring dozens of others.

T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 02:58:35 PM
As an aside here:  Does anyone notice the liberal face is presented by two known lawyers on this thread?

I wonder if this is a coincidence?  If not, I need to fire some legal advisers.

@IsailedawayfromFR
Oh yeah I've noticed.  And both come from the coasts.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 05, 2018, 02:59:35 PM
A big part of the problem is the laziness of labeling stuff as "liberal" vs. "conservative".   

I have to agree with @Jazzhead here.  Arguments over who is the real conservative and who is a closet liberal are just disputes over labels.  We might as well argue about distinctions between shades of a color.  "The color is salmon, and if you call it "coral" you're going to burn in Hell and I'm going to enjoy watching."

I've actually stopped thinking of myself as a "conservative", because I can't find a common principle that unifies the various positions I take on issues, all of which are conventionally labeled "conservative."  You pick an issue, I'll give you my opinion on it, and down the line every opinion will fall into the "conservative" camp, but I can't tell you what pro-life has in common with low taxes, RKBA, or traditional marriage.

Shortly upthread @IsailedawayfromFR paid me a very kind compliment, far nicer than I deserve.  The honest reason I don't post here more often is that there is simply no value in arguing about labels and calling each other names.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 02:59:55 PM
Why shouldn't we encourage gays to be monogamous and marry?    What is "destabilizing" about my neighbors and their family?     

That is a question that should be left up to the people of the State of Vermont, or California, or Pennsylvania, or Georgia.  It is not something that should be forced upon them with brute tyranny.

If Pennsylvania wants to legalize same-sex marriage, then they should have the right to do so.  And if Ohio wants to define marriage as between one man and one woman, they should be allowed that freedom as well.  Yet your position is not one of freedom at all.  It is one where you impose your tyranny on everyone else as Amendment X is burnt to ashes.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 02:59:58 PM
I happen to know two straight men in California who got married for health insurance reasons.  One needed a policy, and the other had a very good policy through work.  So here you have straight marrying straight, except they were of the same gender.  And if they had gone to Masterpiece bakery to have a wedding cake made, they would have been told the EXACT same thing that plaintiffs were told.

That's called 'equal protection'.   You just don't happen to like equal protection.

@Hoodat
heck there are a lot of straight married couples who dont have sex

or so I've heard

:)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 03:00:39 PM
You are very kind @IsailedawayfromFR.  TBR got along fine before I ever showed up, and it gets along fine without me.  I appreciate having an opportunity to speak my mind when I have something to say and I hope my expression will be clear and fair-minded.  I've known people who said too much and I would rather err in the other direction.

@HoustonSam
I could probably do better to follow your example
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 05, 2018, 03:05:53 PM
This isn't "liberal" vs. "conservative".   It is a knotty problem where one set of rights conflicts with another.   A big part of the problem is the laziness of labeling stuff as "liberal" vs. "conservative".   
That is the problem with 'legalese' in a nutshell.

Most people use morality guidelines when confronted with that choice.

The years of decline in morality is the reason we have these discussions.

When I grew up, I knew the moral thing to do and what others were expected to do.  Now, it is left to trying to figure out in legal texts.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 05, 2018, 03:07:08 PM
You are very kind @IsailedawayfromFR.  TBR got along fine before I ever showed up, and it gets along fine without me.  I appreciate having an opportunity to speak my mind when I have something to say and I hope my expression will be clear and fair-minded.  I've known people who said too much and I would rather err in the other direction.
Well, your namesake the Raven had no hesitation to speak his mind, so I do hope you keep yours open to the rest of us as often as possible.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: SirLinksALot on June 05, 2018, 03:10:08 PM
There was never any newly-constructed "right of gays to marry".  What was affirmed is the right of gay couples to the equal protection of the law.   The individual states remain able to deny all special rights to married couples, gay and straight.  What they cannot do is afford the special rights, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to straight couples but not to gay couples. 

What is in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, on which the Court said this decision was based.  It promises that no “state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Even there, Kennedy’s decision is awkward and unclear, claiming to base its decision on a deprivation of liberty, namely the fundamental right to marry the person you want.  Equal protection seems the less strained basis.

But then Kennedy, then writing for the majority, waxes eloquent about equal dignity, as he has done in the past.  It’s in many of his Supreme Court opinions, from the Casey abortion case to the Lawrence sodomy decision to his opinion in the Windsor Federal Defense of Marriage Act case.   So some kind of dignity right is in Kennedy’s mind and jurisprudence; the problem is that it is not in the Constitution.  And it is so broad and vague it shouldn’t be.

One unanswered question is what equal dignity, or even dignity itself, might mean under the law.  None of the cases attempts to answer that question.  Webster’s Dictionary says dignity is the “quality or state of being worthy, honored or esteemed.”  The Oxford Dictionary adds the term “respect.”  Does this mean, then, that when people in our litigious society feel disrespected, their constitutional rights are violated?  Or, with some limitation, if government is somehow involved in that disrespect, there is a legal cause of action?  In some countries and cultures, even jokes have prompted arrests and prosecution on similar grounds.  Will the First Amendment protection of free speech still win out over this new “constitutional right?”

and here's the other problem --- Although many religions, including conservative Christianity, Judaism and Islam, do not accept gay marriage, the Supreme Court’s opinion gave scant attention to their concerns.  Justice Kennedy said they may “continue to advocate” their view and “teach the principles…they have long revered.” 

But wait, isn’t the First Amendment stronger than that?  Doesn’t it protect free exercise of religion, not just advocacy and teaching? If a Christian or Muslim school or agency does not deal with same sex couples and their families in the same way as heterosexual couples, does that not violate Kennedy’s principle of “equal dignity?”  But at the same time, is that not protected by the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.?  Or how about the bakers or florists or artists who feel they must exercise their religious beliefs and decline to participate in gay marriages?

Equal dignity looks like Pandora ’s box to me.  It is not in the Constitution and is ill-defined, vague and uncertain.  No one really knows what it means in a legal context.  It is overly broad—there is indignity everywhere in a crowded and busy world.  And it has now been attached to a new practice, same-sex marriage, that clashes and jars against other rights, most notably free speech and the free exercise of religion, also guaranteed by our Constitution.

This is what Justice Kennedy's decision has given us.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 03:10:32 PM
That is the problem with 'legalese' in a nutshell.

Most people use morality guidelines when confronted with that choice.

The years of decline in morality is the reason we have these discussions.

When I grew up, I knew the moral thing to do and what others were expected to do.  Now, it is left to trying to figure out in legal texts.

@IsailedawayfromFR
On top of which the legal texts are now based on a "living" Constitution and are ever changing according to the whim of the well funded activists.

 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 05, 2018, 03:11:36 PM
Well, your namesake the Raven had no hesitation to speak his mind, so I do hope you keep yours open to the rest of us as often as possible.

Thanks again @IsailedawayfromFR.  You might notice I *did* speak my mind again just a bit farther down this thread, and perhaps I said too much.  Maybe like The Raven himself when he spoke against secession.

Be that as it may, I appreciate your charitable description of my thoughts and contributions, and I'll strive to live up to that expectation.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 03:16:16 PM
That is the problem with 'legalese' in a nutshell.

Most people use morality guidelines when confronted with that choice.

The years of decline in morality is the reason we have these discussions.

When I grew up, I knew the moral thing to do and what others were expected to do.  Now, it is left to trying to figure out in legal texts.

So how do you propose to address discrimination with respect to public accommodation in a "moral" fashion?    Is there, for example, a moral basis for the owner of Piggie Park to deny seating in his restaurant to black persons on the basis of his religion?   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 05, 2018, 03:25:54 PM

When I grew up, I knew the moral thing to do and what others were expected to do.  Now, it is left to trying to figure out in legal texts.

@IsailedawayfromFR that's because in the decades since we were kids the left and all their offshoots have decided there are no absolutes...no right and wrong...no good and evil...just millions of shades of gray....and who are we to judge.

It's allowed them to make heroes out of cop killers...saints out of sinners...and via judicial fiats and contorted legislative doctrine take the most perverted things people can come up with and rationalize it as normal behavior and anyone who objects is simply bigoted.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: HoustonSam on June 05, 2018, 03:29:11 PM
What is in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, on which the Court said this decision was based.  It promises that no “state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Even there, Kennedy’s decision is awkward and unclear, claiming to base its decision on a deprivation of liberty, namely the fundamental right to marry the person you want.  Equal protection seems the less strained basis.

But then Kennedy, then writing for the majority, waxes eloquent about equal dignity, as he has done in the past.  It’s in many of his Supreme Court opinions, from the Casey abortion case to the Lawrence sodomy decision to his opinion in the Windsor Federal Defense of Marriage Act case.   So some kind of dignity right is in Kennedy’s mind and jurisprudence; the problem is that it is not in the Constitution.  And it is so broad and vague it shouldn’t be.

One unanswered question is what equal dignity, or even dignity itself, might mean under the law.  None of the cases attempts to answer that question.  Webster’s Dictionary says dignity is the “quality or state of being worthy, honored or esteemed.”  The Oxford Dictionary adds the term “respect.”  Does this mean, then, that when people in our litigious society feel disrespected, their constitutional rights are violated?  Or, with some limitation, if government is somehow involved in that disrespect, there is a legal cause of action?  In some countries and cultures, even jokes have prompted arrests and prosecution on similar grounds.  Will the First Amendment protection of free speech still win out over this new “constitutional right?”

and here's the other problem --- Although many religions, including conservative Christianity, Judaism and Islam, do not accept gay marriage, the Supreme Court’s opinion gave scant attention to their concerns.  Justice Kennedy said they may “continue to advocate” their view and “teach the principles…they have long revered.” 

But wait, isn’t the First Amendment stronger than that?  Doesn’t it protect free exercise of religion, not just advocacy and teaching? If a Christian or Muslim school or agency does not deal with same sex couples and their families in the same way as heterosexual couples, does that not violate Kennedy’s principle of “equal dignity?”  But at the same time, is that not protected by the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.?  Or how about the bakers or florists or artists who feel they must exercise their religious beliefs and decline to participate in gay marriages?

Equal dignity looks like Pandora ’s box to me.  It is not in the Constitution and is ill-defined, vague and uncertain.  No one really knows what it means in a legal context.  It is overly broad—there is indignity everywhere in a crowded and busy world.  And it has now been attached to a new practice, same-sex marriage, that clashes and jars against other rights, most notably free speech and the free exercise of religion, also guaranteed by our Constitution.

This is what Justice Kennedy's decision has given us.

Very well-stated @SirLinksALot.  Your statement of our case is extremely effective.  "Dignity" seems to be the legal trump card now, but no one really knows what that means.  Nevertheless, we seem to have a right to it, except when we don't.  The Ten Commandments were carved into stone; the Federal Judiciary should issue copies of the US Constitution engraved in Silly Putty.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 05, 2018, 03:32:59 PM
Quote
What was affirmed is the right of gay couples to the equal protection of the law.

There is no "right" marry.  They weren't being denied any kind of equal protection under the law.

When are you going to get it through your brain that the 14th Amendment was never meant to be used and abused by you Liberals in the manner that it has?

It was meant to protect freed slaves...NOT to invent special carve outs for gays that straight couples don't have...and pave the way for disastrous legislation like Obamacare.

Liberal slip and fall lawyers like you and your brethren on capitol hill have been misusing the equal protection clause for almost 50 years now.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 05, 2018, 03:33:41 PM
So how do you propose to address discrimination with respect to public accommodation in a "moral" fashion?    Is there, for example, a moral basis for the owner of Piggie Park to deny seating in his restaurant to black persons on the basis of his religion?   

Sounds like all discrimination is "bad."  Should we eliminate all forms of discrimination?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 03:34:33 PM
One unanswered question is what equal dignity, or even dignity itself, might mean under the law.  None of the cases attempts to answer that question.  Webster’s Dictionary says dignity is the “quality or state of being worthy, honored or esteemed.” The Oxford Dictionary adds the term “respect.”  Does this mean, then, that when people in our litigious society feel disrespected, their constitutional rights are violated?  Or, with some limitation, if government is somehow involved in that disrespect, there is a legal cause of action?  In some countries and cultures, even jokes have prompted arrests and prosecution on similar grounds.  Will the First Amendment protection of free speech still win out over this new “constitutional right?”

Bingo!  You nailed the crux of what what now governs our society: the right not to be offended if you are a protected class by grant of government or the courts.   

'Dignity' is now a 'right' to be extended to perverse behaviors society once considered abominable and heinous.  "Normal" behaviors are to be eschewed and penalized. 

It's all part of the remaking of society.   A civil society is not possible in this environment, and the protected behaviors will seek to punish and abolish anyone or any belief that they feel does not condone and celebrate their behavior, due dignity.

Equal dignity looks like Pandora ’s box to me. 

It's worse.  It becomes the fulcrum and sledgehammer by which any thought or belief contrary to the the special protected class of behaviors, will be made illegal.  Because some animals are more equal than others.

'Dignity' is just code for 'Respect and Acknowledge without causing any offense'.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Wingnut on June 05, 2018, 03:35:07 PM
Sounds like all discrimination is "bad."  Should we eliminate all forms of discrimination?

I see what you are doing.   :cool:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 03:54:14 PM
Sounds like all discrimination is "bad."  Should we eliminate all forms of discrimination?

No.  I am speaking of arbitrary discrimination, in the context of public accommodations,  based on a customer's immutable characteristics as identified by the legislature.    What is different between the plaintiff's claimed right to discriminate based on religion in Piggie Park and the plaintiff's claimed right to discriminate based on religion in Masterpiece Cakeshop?   What is the moral difference?   

I'm not speaking of discrimination on the lines of "no shirt, no service" - but of course you know that.   *****rollingeyes*****
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 05, 2018, 03:58:21 PM
There is no "right" marry.


Correct.

Quote
  They weren't being denied any kind of equal protection under the law.

Incorrect. 

Quote
When are you going to get it through your brain that the 14th Amendment was never meant to be used and abused by you Liberals in the manner that it has?

It was meant to protect freed slaves...NOT to invent special carve outs for gays that straight couples don't have...

The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny.   

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "special rights" for gays.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 04:05:15 PM
What is in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, on which the Court said this decision was based.  It promises that no “state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

@SirLinksALot

Clearly, you misquoted.  I have it on good authority here that Amendment XIV actually says, "No “state [shall] deprive any couple of life, liberty, or marriage  .  .  .
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 05, 2018, 04:08:34 PM

Incorrect.

Really?  What Constitutional right were/are gays being denied?  the right to vote?  right to employment?  are there poll taxes or reading tests being required of them before they vote?

Is there some part of the Bill of Rights that gays are being denied equal protection under?

Please tell me where gays are not being taken care of under the 14th or any of the other amendments. 

The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny.   

Quote
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "special rights" for gays.   

The hell it doesn't.  Gays now have a "right" to marry that straight couples don't have.  Therefore they've been given a special provision.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 05, 2018, 04:10:06 PM
@SirLinksALot

Clearly, you misquoted.  I have it on good authority here that Amendment XIV actually says, "No “state [shall] deprive any couple of life, liberty, or marriage  .  .  .

No, it says "This Amendment can be construed to allow leftists to bastardize the Constitution any way they see fit.  This elasticity only applies to Socialists."  All that is required is clever use of the English language, and application of any foreign law a fellow named "Breyer" wants to employ.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 05, 2018, 04:15:32 PM

Quote from: txradioguy
They weren't being denied any kind of equal protection under the law.

Incorrect.     

How so?  Can you name a single class for which this bake will create a cake for a same-sex wedding?

The answer is a resounding "no".  As you know already, equal protection already exists.  And as everyone else knows already, you don't like it.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 04:16:14 PM
I am speaking of arbitrary discrimination, in the context of public accommodations,  based on a customer's immutable characteristics as identified by the legislature.

Yes.  Exactly.

You just admitted the fact that Government and their courts have now created and given preferential rights to persons based on behaviors/characteristics that make them a government-recognized special class superior to other classes of citizens and beliefs that have made inferior, and therefore not entitled to the same special protections.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 05, 2018, 04:21:09 PM
Really?  What Constitutional right were/are gays being denied?  the right to vote?  right to employment?  are there poll taxes or reading tests being required of them before they vote?

Is there some part of the Bill of Rights that gays are being denied equal protection under?

Please tell me where gays are not being taken care of under the 14th or any of the other amendments. 

The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny.   

The hell it doesn't.  Gays now have a "right" to marry that straight couples don't have.  Therefore they've been given a special provision.

@txradioguy
Worse then that, this is basically a right to marry anyone and anything they want.   Want to marry your sister, have at it.  Want 3 wives, go for it.  How about your dog, yep. 

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 05, 2018, 04:28:58 PM
I'm not speaking of discrimination on the lines of "no shirt, no service" - but of course you know that.   *****rollingeyes*****

No, I have no idea what you mean by "discrimination," you throw the word around like manhole covers.  And, for your information, I still don't know what you mean because your definition continues to be twisted beyond recognition.

 *****rollingeyes***** backatcha.

Added: 

Quote
based on a customer's immutable characteristics

Unless you've twisted the plain meaning of "immutable," there is nothing "immutable" about homosexuality, unless "gaydar" is really a thing.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 05, 2018, 04:35:09 PM
Yes.  Exactly.

You just admitted the fact that Government and their courts have now created and given preferential rights to persons based on behaviors/characteristics that make them a government-recognized special class superior to other classes of citizens and beliefs that have made inferior, and therefore not entitled to the same special protections.

Homosexuality is not an "immutable" trait.  In fact, it's the first protected class ever added to the civil rights statues that is not.  It's a "behavior."
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 05, 2018, 04:42:49 PM
Homosexuality is not an "immutable" trait.  In fact, it's the first protected class ever added to the civil rights statues that is not.  It's a "behavior."

Of course it is.

But now, thanks to the Courts of men, BEHAVIORS are now immutable Rights that must be afforded 'Dignity" and "Respect".  Since behaviors are now classified as identifying immutable "traits", and the behaviors themselves are the identifying factor - one may not discriminate against another's behavior - even when that behavior is perverse, wicked, depraved and perverted.

We are now told, that we must afford protected behaviors, 'dignity' and we may not discriminate against them by refusing to promote and serve those behaviors.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 05, 2018, 04:43:41 PM
So how do you propose to address discrimination with respect to public accommodation in a "moral" fashion?    Is there, for example, a moral basis for the owner of Piggie Park to deny seating in his restaurant to black persons on the basis of his religion?   
Whence did that come from?

Reading the bible often instead of legal texts will give one the sense of knowing when it doubt what is 'The Right thing to do'.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 05, 2018, 04:48:37 PM
The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny. 
Let's turn back to the case at hand. 

Since in this court case referred to in this thread it was determined that a Civil Rights Commission engaged in violating the civil rights of a citizen, how does that get reconciled?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 12:18:12 AM
Yes.  Exactly.

You just admitted the fact that Government and their courts have now created and given preferential rights to persons based on behaviors/characteristics that make them a government-recognized special class superior to other classes of citizens and beliefs that have made inferior, and therefore not entitled to the same special protections.

No preferential rights.  Whites,  straights and Christians are similarly protected against arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations.

 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 12:25:46 AM
No preferential rights.  Whites,  straights and Christians are similarly protected against arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations.

The Colorado Commission's actions in this case alone proves that statement bullshit.

They are persecuted, not protected.  They are subservient, not equal.   Special rights and accommodations have been afford by the courts to those who practice perverted behavior as a fundamental right that must be afforded 'dignity'.

There is no equal protection, despite your insistence there is.

Some animals are more equal than others in this perverse society you and your compadres have created.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 12:32:30 AM
Let's turn back to the case at hand. 

Since in this court case referred to in this thread it was determined that a Civil Rights Commission engaged in violating the civil rights of a citizen, how does that get reconciled?

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.  I see the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision as a due process case, not an equal protection case.  Phillips was denied due process because the adjudicator (the Commission) exhibited evidence of bias against religion.   

What do you see as the equal protection issue?    This is a matter of claiming an exemption from a law of general application on the basis of religion.   The law says if you deal with the public, then treat customers fairly.   Doesn't matter who you are or who they are.   You claim a religious exemption.   How does that reflect on the law's equal protection?     

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 07:00:28 AM
Homosexuality is not an "immutable" trait.  In fact, it's the first protected class ever added to the civil rights statues that is not.  It's a "behavior."

What is proscribed (in some jurisdictions) is discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation".    That's not behavior, that's wiring.   A homosexual who enters a store with no shoes or shirt can be bounced the same as a straight man who does the same thing. 

And likewise,  Mr. Phillips refused service because a gay couple requested a wedding cake for "our wedding".  If a straight couple had made the same request, he would have honored it.   The discrimination, facially,  was on the basis of who the customer was,  not how he/she behaved.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 07:17:02 AM
What is proscribed (in some jurisdictions) is discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation".    That's not behavior, that's wiring.   A homosexual who enters a store with no shoes or shirt can be bounced the same as a straight man who does the same thing. 

And likewise,  Mr. Phillips refused service because a gay couple requested a wedding cake for "our wedding".  If a straight couple had made the same request, he would have honored it.   The discrimination, facially,  was on the basis of who the customer was,  not how he/she behaved.   

Again, you are 100% wrong.  First of all, at no time was the couple refused service.  The court documents are clear.  The baker offered to make them anything he made.  But same-sex weddomg cales were simply not something he made - for anyone, regardless of sexual preference.

Again, if two straight people of the same gender came in the store to order a wedding cake for their wedding, he would have refused.

The court documents are also clear in that at no time did plaintiffs inform the baker of their sexual preference, nor did the baker ever cite sexual preference as the reason he didn't make wedding cakes for non-conventional weddings.

All of these points have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to offer a false narrative of events.  Why is that?

And as for "wiring", sexual preferences change.  Humans also have a will whereas we can choose whether we want to engage in sexual activity or not.  Having sex is a choice, based solely on the prefernce of an individual at any given moment.  If someone wants to have gay sex, that is their decision.  If they don't want to have gay sex, that is also their decisiion.  And if they want to change their outlook on who they are attracted to, that is also their decision.

But then of course none of that has anything at all to do with whether a baker can be forced to make a cake against his deeply held convictions about marriage being a covenant between one man and one woman where two genders become one spiritual union.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 08:31:17 AM
All of these points have been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you continue to offer a false narrative of events.  Why is that?

Because the facts do not fit his homosexual advocacy is right and good while we Christians are hateful bigots agenda.

So he will do as he always does, ignore facts he does not like to push his antithetical agendas.

Again, if two straight people of the same gender came in the store to order a wedding cake for their wedding, he would have refused.

The straight mother of one of the homos accompanied them into the store with a book of ideas and designs - for all we know she is the one who made the request and the moment it was announced what the cake was for - Phillips declined and stated he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings, and offered them anything else off the shelf, but not a custom-designed wedding cake for a homosexual celebration of perversion.

nor did the baker ever cite sexual preference as the reason he didn't make wedding cakes for non-conventional weddings.

Phillips also makes it clear he does not make cakes for Halloween or Demonic themes, divorces, or any other celebration that contravenes his faith.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 06, 2018, 08:43:23 AM
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.  I see the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision as a due process case, not an equal protection case.  Phillips was denied due process because the adjudicator (the Commission) exhibited evidence of bias against religion.   

What do you see as the equal protection issue?    This is a matter of claiming an exemption from a law of general application on the basis of religion.   The law says if you deal with the public, then treat customers fairly.   Doesn't matter who you are or who they are.   You claim a religious exemption.   How does that reflect on the law's equal protection?   
Not sure what I am getting at?

Read the article:
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU)

There is recourse when someone violates the civil rights of a citizen of the US.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was found violating those rights.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 09:05:06 AM
Let's turn back to the case at hand. 

Since in this court case referred to in this thread it was determined that a Civil Rights Commission engaged in violating the civil rights of a citizen, how does that get reconciled?

@IsailedawayfromFR
In general the civil rights commissions around the country were not put in place to ensure all people were treated equal. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 09:35:11 AM
If a straight couple had made the same request, he would have honored it.   

This has been disproved so many times I can't count.  @Hoodat and @INVAR are only the most recent to explain it to you, just above this post.  You have ignored it every time, which tells me you are not arguing in good faith, you are merely lecturing on the topic of your choice.

My debating flowchart has a hundred empty, unanswered lines pointing at you.  If this were a real debate as scored in a High School debate tournament, you would lose hands down, to a unanimous board of Judges.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 06, 2018, 09:48:16 AM
This has been disproved so many times I can't count.  @Hoodat and @INVAR are only the most recent to explain it to you, just above this post.  You have ignored it every time, which tells me you are not arguing in good faith, you are merely lecturing on the topic of your choice.

My debating flowchart has a hundred empty, unanswered lines pointing at you.  If this were a real debate as scored in a High School debate tournament, you would lose hands down, to a unanimous board of Judges.

Makes you wonder how he got through first year law.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 09:53:27 AM
Makes you wonder how he got through first year law.

Arguments in court are not scored by the same criteria.  He is not the only person I've seen illustrating this principle.  First- and second-year law school is the last any lawyer ever sees the rules of debate.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 06, 2018, 09:55:57 AM
Arguments in court are not scored by the same criteria.  He is not the only person I've seen illustrating this principle.  First- and second-year law school is the last any lawyer ever sees the rules of debate.

Well whether it's the rules of debate or arguments before the court...I'm not seeing a convincing case being brought forth.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 10:19:58 AM
Well whether it's the rules of debate or arguments before the court...I'm not seeing a convincing case being brought forth.

Me neither.  When an argumenter starts using "facts" not in evidence, he loses the debate at the first rebuttal both in court (and the Judge is unbiased) and in a formal debate.  A good opponent Lawyer will shoot that down in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 10:21:37 AM
Well whether it's the rules of debate or arguments before the court...I'm not seeing a convincing case being brought forth.

@txradioguy
Oh yeah well everyone knows that just makes you a misogynistic, racist, transgenerist, sexist, nazi who likes to torture little kitties.

Because reasonable people all know better.



yes, this is /s
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 06, 2018, 10:31:55 AM
@txradioguy
Oh yeah well everyone knows that just makes you a misogynistic, racist, transgenerist, sexist, nazi who likes to torture little kitties.

Because reasonable people all know better.



yes, this is /s

 :silly:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 10:37:28 AM
Me neither.  When an argumenter starts using "facts" not in evidence, he loses the debate at the first rebuttal

And when an arguer continues to use these same "facts" after being shown again and again and again that said "facts" are untrue, invalid, or not in evidence, then that arguer reveals a gaping hole in character.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 10:43:10 AM

The court documents are also clear in that at no time did plaintiffs inform the baker of their sexual preference, nor did the baker ever cite sexual preference as the reason he didn't make wedding cakes for non-conventional weddings.


Don't be an idiot.   The same-sex couple told Phillips the cake was wanted for "our wedding".   If a man and woman entered the store and requested a cake for "our wedding" - the EXACT SAME REQUEST - Phillips would have complied.   That is, facially, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

It is idiotic to ignore the obvious sexual orientation of the customers by positing the absurd situation of a two straight men requesting a cake for their wedding.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 10:43:25 AM
And when an arguer continues to use these same "facts" after being shown again and again and again that said "facts" are untrue, invalid, or not in evidence, then that arguer reveals a gaping hole in character.

That is the point the "arguer" crosses over to "lecturer."
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 10:44:01 AM
And when an arguer continues to use these same "facts" after being shown again and again and again that said "facts" are untrue, invalid, or not in evidence, then that arguer reveals a gaping hole in character.

You just described yourself to a tee, @Hoodat.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 10:51:23 AM
Don't be an idiot.   The same-sex couple told Phillips the cake was wanted for "our wedding".   If a man and woman entered the store and requested a cake for "our wedding" - the EXACT SAME REQUEST - Phillips would have complied.   That is, facially, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

It is idiotic to ignore the obvious sexual orientation of the customers by positing the absurd situation of a two straight men requesting a cake for their wedding.

He doesn't make same-sex wedding cakes PERIOD.  Doesn't matter WHO orders them.  That has been stated repeatedly. 

You ignore it because like your homo advocacy pals, deviant and evil behavior is now a protected caste status, and no one is permitted to deny servicing and celebrating that deviancy under the false narrative of 'equal protection'.

I will always and forever discriminate against evil behavior and refuse to serve it.  You can try and put a gun to my head and force me to serve it - but that just makes you the tyrant I claim that you are.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 10:52:00 AM
Don't be an idiot.   The same-sex couple told Phillips the cake was wanted for "our wedding".   If a man and woman entered the store and requested a cake for "our wedding" - the EXACT SAME REQUEST - Phillips would have complied.   That is, facially, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

It is idiotic to ignore the obvious sexual orientation of the customers by positing the absurd situation of a two straight men requesting a cake for their wedding.

@Jazzhead
Why do you think the rights of the cake buyers should supersede the rights of the baker?

edited to point out there is no right to buy a cake in the Constitution.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 10:55:20 AM
We should go find gay bakers and ask each of them to produce a cake for successful gay conversion therapy.  A celebration type thing.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 10:56:56 AM
@Jazzhead
Why do you think the rights of the cake buyers should supersede the rights of the baker?

edited to point out there is no right to buy a cake in the Constitution.

Yes there is.  It is in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution, not enumerated that can magically discover any such right at any time depending on the whim of the Justice in the black robe.

Meanwhile Enumerated Rights can be 'reasonably regulated' out of existence and perverted into a government-granted privilege that requires government permission and license before being permitted to exercise that right, under strict government supervision and guidelines.

But Rights discovered in the penumbras and emanations may not be infringed or regulated in any manner.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 11:01:10 AM
@Jazzhead
Why do you think the rights of the cake buyers should supersede the rights of the baker?

I never said they did.   Indeed, why do you insist that the rights of the baker supersede the rights of his customers?  It is the baker that decides his menu of services;  his customer merely wants what he has advertised to provide.   To me, the power dynamic here favors the baker.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 11:01:14 AM
You just described yourself to a tee, @Hoodat.

Really?  Then you should have no problem showing that ad that shows that Masterpiece Bakery sells off-the-shelf wedding cakes.  Been waiting months to see it.  You continue to claim it.  Yet no ad.  Go figure.

Contrast that with my approach.  When I say that the baker offered to make any other item for the plaintiffs, but simply did not make same-sex wedding cakes, I also provide the evidence.  This marks the fourth time that I have posted this:

Quote
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery
in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and
create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips
declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for
same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising
Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them
any other baked goods
.


https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf (https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf)

Notice the difference here.  I backed up my claim with the actual court decision.  Contrast that with what you backed your claims with - nothing.

It is clear you have integrity issues, Jazzhead.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why.  Seriously, why is it so important for you to reiterate the same false narrative again and again?  What do you gain from it?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 06, 2018, 11:10:35 AM
I never said they did.   Indeed, why do you insist that the rights of the baker supersede the rights of his customers?  It is the baker that decides his menu of services;  his customer merely wants what he has advertised to provide.   To me, the power dynamic here favors the baker.

Because the customer can get his product from another supplier instead of forcing the baker into making a product he doesn't want to produce.  That may not always be the case but it certainly was in this case.  This Baker was known to be devout in his religious beliefs and how it impacted his business.  Homosexuality isn't the only topic he uses to limit his business where it conflicts with his beliefs.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 11:14:22 AM
We should go find gay bakers and ask each of them to produce a cake for successful gay conversion therapy.  A celebration type thing.

Better not do that in California.  Gay conversion therapy is illegal there.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 11:19:51 AM
Really?  Then you should have no problem showing that ad that shows that Masterpiece Bakery sells off-the-shelf wedding cakes.  Been waiting months to see it.  You continue to claim it.  Yet no ad.  Go figure.


I told you more than once - take a look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop website.   The gallery of items for sale and the instruction to choose from the items in the gallery or request a custom order.   If you don't like my term "off-the-shelf", then use the term "gallery" of items for sale that Phillips uses on his website.  These are non-custom designs, as per the website.   

Where we disagree is the record before the Court.  You apparently believe that Phillips would have provided a non-custom wedding cake to his gay customers.   I am not convinced of that.   

And as for your insinuation about my integrity - just like the inscription says on the cakemobile in Animal House:  <<Nope>>.   

 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 11:21:46 AM
Notice the difference here.  I backed up my claim with the actual court decision.  Contrast that with what you backed your claims with - nothing.

It is clear you have integrity issues, Jazzhead.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why.  Seriously, why is it so important for you to reiterate the same false narrative again and again?  What do you gain from it?

He left the realm of proper debate a long time ago.  He now uses the "Three Pounds" realm.

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If the facts are not on your side, pound the law.
If neither the facts or the law are not on your side, pound the table.

He's been pounding the table on this issue (and other liberal issues) ever since I first saw him here.  Ignoring points you make, even if you post a cite, is the name of the game.  It's part of the table-pounding.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Wingnut on June 06, 2018, 11:24:36 AM
He left the realm of proper debate a long time ago.  He now uses the "Three Pounds" realm.

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If the facts are not on your side, pound the law.
If neither the facts or the law are not on your side, pound the table.



#4  Tell him to go Pound Sand.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 11:26:51 AM
It is clear you have integrity issues, Jazzhead.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why.  Seriously, why is it so important for you to reiterate the same false narrative again and again?  What do you gain from it?

It is what people do that are pushing agendas antithetical to the constitutions of a people they want to subjugate them to.

Convincing people that ideas and behaviors anathema to their principles and faith are morally superior is what he and his Leftist pals are engaged in.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: goatprairie on June 06, 2018, 11:34:28 AM
I told you more than once - take a look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop website.   The gallery of items for sale and the instruction to choose from the items in the gallery or request a custom order.   If you don't like my term "off-the-shelf", then use the term "gallery" of items for sale that Phillips uses on his website.  These are non-custom designs, as per the website.   

Where we disagree is the record before the Court.  You apparently believe that Phillips would have provided a non-custom wedding cake to his gay customers.   I am not convinced of that.   

And as for your insinuation about my integrity - just like the inscription says on the cakemobile in Animal House:  <<Nope>>.   
I reiterate.....where in the constitution does it say a customer has the right to order a business person to make a certain kind product?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 06, 2018, 11:39:10 AM
We should go find gay bakers and ask each of them to produce a cake for successful gay conversion therapy.  A celebration type thing.

There's been cases where a Muslim bakery has refused to make a cake for a gay "wedding".

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)

No outrage from the left on this one...no civil rights violation charges being filed.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 06, 2018, 11:41:39 AM
I wonder if there is a way to put a term on ignore?  Something like "Colorado baker" or "gay wedding cake"?  I know, it's my fault for ever having commented on this thread.   

11513
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 06, 2018, 11:51:18 AM
@IsailedawayfromFR
In general the civil rights commissions around the country were not put in place to ensure all people were treated equal.
That may be so, but that is not the question.

The Supreme Court determined that the Commission violated the civil rights of a the baker.

There should be some punishment.

That Commission enacted punishment to the baker for certain, so how does the Commission get punished for the crime the court found it executed?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 11:57:09 AM
That may be so, but that is not the question.

The Supreme Court determined that the Commission violated the civil rights of a the baker.

There should be some punishment.

That Commission enacted punishment to the baker for certain, so how does the Commission get punished for the crime the court found it executed?

It's a government agency so chances are - not a damned thing.

My guess is nothing happens and Phillips is no better than he was before, except maybe the fines that were imposed will not have to be paid.

But it will be interesting to see if the government sues him again for failure to comply with all the 'training' and reports he was ordered to force his staff to undergo.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 06, 2018, 12:04:48 PM
I told you more than once - take a look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop website.   The gallery of items for sale and the instruction to choose from the items in the gallery or request a custom order.   If you don't like my term "off-the-shelf", then use the term "gallery" of items for sale that Phillips uses on his website.  These are non-custom designs, as per the website.   

Where we disagree is the record before the Court.  You apparently believe that Phillips would have provided a non-custom wedding cake to his gay customers.   I am not convinced of that.   

And as for your insinuation about my integrity - just like the inscription on the cakemobile in Animal House:  <<Nope>>.   

This is the same website and picture from before the lawsuit.  The difference you are ignoring is at the top of the wedding page it states:

Masterpiece Cakeshop is not currently accepting requests to create custom wedding cakes. Please check back in the future.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 12:17:17 PM
That may be so, but that is not the question.

The Supreme Court determined that the Commission violated the civil rights of a the baker.

There should be some punishment.

That Commission enacted punishment to the baker for certain, so how does the Commission get punished for the crime the court found it executed?

For a good indication of this, it's instructive to look at another case that was decided that same day.  The court mooted a case by the government that challenged an attempt to get a minor illegal immigrant an abortion.  It was moot because the ACLU got the illegal an abortion while the case was pending.  The government asked the SCOTUS to sanction the ACLU for throwing a monkey wrench in the process and it refused.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 12:26:58 PM
That may be so, but that is not the question.

The Supreme Court determined that the Commission violated the civil rights of a the baker.

There should be some punishment.

That Commission enacted punishment to the baker for certain, so how does the Commission get punished for the crime the court found it executed?

@IsailedawayfromFR
The city should pay all of his legal costs and damages for starters.   Then they should be thrown out of office and prosecuted in criminal and civil court.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 12:28:10 PM
I wonder if there is a way to put a term on ignore?  Something like "Colorado baker" or "gay wedding cake"?  I know, it's my fault for ever having commented on this thread.   

11513

@Sanguine
Down at the bottom of the thread there is an 'unnotify' button.   But don't use it.  There's a 50/50 chance it could start a nuclear war.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 12:32:55 PM
I told you more than once - take a look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop website.

I have.  Several times.


The gallery of items for sale

No, the gallery is of items already created and sold.  Seriously, do you really expect some mom-and-pop baker to make wedding cakes in advance and store them in a cooler just hoping that someone walks in and buys it for a wedding taking place at that time?  Think, man.  Would a baker really invest that substantial amount of time and money to create something that would most likely spoil because people who have weddings plan ahead and order their cakes weeks in advance?

Good luck in finding someone whose last name starts with the letter 'P' and who needs a wedding cake tomorrow.  Maybe then you can unload this "off-the-shelf" cake for some buyer?  LMAO

(http://masterpiececakes.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Wedding_Cake_2.jpg)

And THIS is why you can't produce the evidence that backs up your claim.  It is because your claim is asinine to begin with.  But hey, it fits your narrative, which is why you even now continue to cling to it.  You clearly do not care how dishonest and stupid it makes you look.


These are non-custom designs, as per the website.

Still waiting on that link.  Because the Masterpiece Bakery website says no such thing.  You made it up.


Where we disagree is the record before the Court.  You apparently believe that Phillips would have provided a non-custom wedding cake to his gay customers.

If it was a gay man marrying a gay woman, then yes.  But of course that has nothing at all with what the court documents say.  They are clear.  The baker offered to bake any other cake for the customers.  But he does not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.  If you are the lawyer you claim to be, then you should have zero problem understanding the wording of the ruling.  But I suspect that you really aren't interested in truth here, but are only interested in pushing an agenda, and will tell any lie you can come up with to support it.


And as for your insinuation about my integrity -   

Your posts speak for themselves.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 12:36:47 PM
@Sanguine
Down at the bottom of the thread there is an 'unnotify' button.   But don't use it.  There's a 50/50 chance it could start a nuclear war.

That button doesn't start a nuclear war.  It lights up the Christmas Tree on the White House lawn (at least that is what I think it does.  It doesn't get you off the "Latest Posts" hook.)
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 12:43:02 PM
Still waiting on that link.  Because the Masterpiece Bakery website says no such thing.  You made it up.

Your posts speak for themselves.

Since he seems reluctant to post a link, here it is:

http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/ (http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/)

It says in bold type at the top:
Quote
Wedding

Masterpiece Cakeshop is not currently accepting requests to create custom wedding cakes. Please check back in the future.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 12:47:34 PM
That button doesn't start a nuclear war.  It lights up the Christmas Tree on the White House lawn (at least that is what I think it does.  It doesn't get you off the "Latest Posts" hook.)

If you stop visiting the thread it will stop notifying you.

Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 01:05:51 PM
If you stop visiting the thread it will stop notifying you.

No, it will not.  If you have one post in a thread from months ago, you will be notified of unread posts whenever you click "Show new replies to your posts."  I've had to go back into threads and delete my posts to get those threads to stop showing up on that page.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: mystery-ak on June 06, 2018, 01:08:23 PM
I think it's about time to lock this thread...

 11513
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 01:11:45 PM
I think it's about time to lock this thread...

 11513

nooooo!  let it die a natural death
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: mystery-ak on June 06, 2018, 01:13:02 PM
nooooo!  let it die a natural death

LOL....okay but there is other news out there.. :shrug:
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 01:15:15 PM
LOL....okay but there is other news out there.. :shrug:

...and there are better things to do that circling the drain entertaining circular arguments. 9999hair out0000
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 01:16:41 PM
...and there are better things to do that circling the drain entertaining circular arguments. 9999hair out0000

@Cyber Liberty   @mystery-ak
Well I can stay here at my desk and write security policies for a healthcare organization or I can go put the finishing touches on my kayak.

hmmmm
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Since he seems reluctant to post a link, here it is:

http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/ (http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/)

It says in bold type at the top:


Jazzhead is talking about the gallery.  If you scroll through the gallery photos, you will see cakes that Jazzhead insists are sitting on the shelf waiting for a buyer.  And it is these ficticious cakes that Jazzhead insists were denied to the plaintiffs.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 06, 2018, 01:20:26 PM
@Sanguine
Down at the bottom of the thread there is an 'unnotify' button.   But don't use it.  There's a 50/50 chance it could start a nuclear war.

I'm tempted, DD.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 06, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
nooooo!  let it die a natural death

There's nothing natural about this thread.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 01:22:32 PM

Jazzhead is talking about the gallery.  If you scroll through the gallery photos, you will see cakes that Jazzhead insists are sitting on the shelf waiting for a buyer.  And it is these ficticious cakes that Jazzhead insists were denied to the plaintiffs.

I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 01:24:37 PM
@Cyber Liberty   @mystery-ak
Well I can stay here at my desk and write security policies for a healthcare organization or I can go put the finishing touches on my kayak.

hmmmm

I vote "Kayak" if the policy writing is low-paying.  Either would be a welcome relief from this thread.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 06, 2018, 01:25:24 PM
I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

And as per the website they weren't making any wedding cakes.

As per testimony and court records...and despite your perfidy about what actually happened...the baker didn't make gay "wedding" cakes even if a straight person requested it...he didn't make Halloween cakes or divorce celebration cakes or any type of cake that violated his religious convictions.

Why are you so loathe to accept and admit the facts right there in black and white.

Quote
Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?

Physician heal thyself.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 01:25:58 PM
I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?

Can you at least make a token effort to read the materials we did hard work to fish up and hand to you on a silver platter?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 01:28:22 PM
I vote "Kayak" if the policy writing is low-paying.  Either would be a welcome relief from this thread.

its pays ok but oh so boring, I shouldnt have fired my technical writer.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 01:28:43 PM

Jazzhead is talking about the gallery.  If you scroll through the gallery photos, you will see cakes that Jazzhead insists are sitting on the shelf waiting for a buyer.  And it is these ficticious cakes that Jazzhead insists were denied to the plaintiffs.

The link I posted has a slide show of the Gallery.  They are examples of previous work, not advertisements to create duplicate work.  In fact, on the home page Phillips specifically states his cakes are custom works.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 01:29:29 PM
Can you at least make a token effort to read the materials we did hard work to fish up and hand to you on a silver platter?

@Cyber Liberty @HoustonSam
I don't believe @Jazzhead argues in good faith.    He simply has his agenda and pushes it.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 01:32:12 PM
The are pictures of custom cakes previously made.  Not stock photos of their standard products.

The website states:  "Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design".   

The galleries, by implication, illustrate non-custom wedding cake designs.   I assume the consensus here is that Phillips will sell these non-custom designs to all customers.  After all, he obeys the law, right?    Phillips won't, however,  take custom wedding cake orders because he won't do those for gay customers.  And I predict he still won't following the SCOTUS decision, because the opinion provides him with no guidance about whether his "expressive conduct" is protected speech.

He was ill-served by this decision.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 01:33:19 PM
@Cyber Liberty @HoustonSam
I don't believe @Jazzhead argues in good faith.    He simply has his agenda and pushes it.

Yup!  And if enough of us start ignoring this two-days old thread to start looking at more important news that's out there, he'll be arguing in bad faith by himself.  Again.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: TomSea on June 06, 2018, 01:33:59 PM
I don't think there should be any laws on a business in this matter. I think one should try to persuade the baker.

Say something like this:

"Hey, I know you don't approve of our lifestyle but this is just a one time deal. We'll never bother you again and we aren't bad people".
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: thackney on June 06, 2018, 01:34:13 PM
The website states:  "Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design".   

The galleries, by implication, illustrate non-custom wedding cake designs.   I assume the consensus here is that Phillips will sell these non-custom designs to all customers.  After all, he obeys the law, right?    Phillips won't, however,  take custom wedding cake orders.  And I predict he still won't following the SCOTUS decision, because the opinion provides him with no guidance about whether his "expressive conduct" is protected speech.

He was ill-served by this decision.

@Jazzhead

I found what you quoted here just a bit ago.  I agree with your interpretation.  I had already deleted my post while you were typing this response.  Sorry for adding to the confusion.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 01:35:04 PM
Yup!  And if enough of us start ignoring this two-days old thread to start looking at more important news that's out there, he'll be arguing in bad faith by himself.  Again.

Hey I posted two new stories and hardly anyone commented on them.   Starting to feel left out here.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 01:36:10 PM
And as per the website they weren't making any wedding cakes.


No.  It says they aren't taking any custom orders for wedding cakes.  And the website continues to show a gallery of wedding cakes, which by implication represent non-custom designs that he (so folks here insist) will sell/make for any customer.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 01:36:56 PM
I don't think there should be any laws on a business in this matter. I think one should try to persuade the baker.

Say something like this:

"Hey, I know you don't approve of our lifestyle but this is just a one time deal. We'll never bother you again and we aren't bad people".
@TomSea
Yeah just this one time ignore your devout faith and do something your creator considers to be sinful.   Don't worry you probably won't spend an eternity in hell for this one action.   We could go down the street to another merchant but we'd rather pressure you to violate your faith.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: driftdiver on June 06, 2018, 01:38:16 PM
No.  It says they aren't taking any custom orders for wedding cakes.  And the website continues to show a gallery of wedding cakes, which by implication represent non-custom designs that he (so folks here insist) will sell/make for any customer.

@Jazzhead
Have you been retained by someone?  There has to be money in it for  you.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: txradioguy on June 06, 2018, 01:39:30 PM
No.  It says they aren't taking any custom orders for wedding cakes.  And the website continues to show a gallery of wedding cakes, which by implication represent non-custom designs that he (so folks here insist) will sell/make for any customer.

You clearly haven't dealt much with a small independent bakery have you?

Either that or you're purposely being obtuse because you absolutely refuse to let go of your erroneous set of facts related to this case.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 03:39:46 PM
I never said they were "sitting on a shelf waiting for a buyer".   I said they were non-custom designs, as per the website.

Could you at least make a token effort to be honest?

Is this not your post here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318874.msg1702591.html#msg1702591)?

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?

And again here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318874.msg1702607.html#msg1702607):

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.   

And here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318874.msg1702638.html#msg1702638):

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?

And here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318874.msg1702693.html#msg1702693):

I'm not making stuff up.  Look at the Masterpiece website - he clearly sells off-the-shelf wedding cakes.

So you claim with zero ambiguity that this baker makes "off-the-shelf" wedding cakes.  Here is how the dictionary defines "off-the-shelf":

off-the-shelf

adj.  -  readily available from merchandise in stock.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/off-the-shelf?s=t (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/off-the-shelf?s=t)


When asked again about proof of these "off-the-shelf" cakes, you responded with this (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318874.msg1703499.html#msg1703499):

I told you more than once - take a look at the Masterpiece Cakeshop website.   The gallery of items for sale and the instruction to choose from the items in the gallery or request a custom order.   If you don't like my term "off-the-shelf", then use the term "gallery" of items for sale that Phillips uses on his website.  These are non-custom designs, as per the website.

Looking at the link that CyberLiberty was so kind to provide on your behalf, there is indeed a "gallery" of cakes.  This is typical for any artist showcasing his/her work.  But they are still custom designs that he designed for marriages between one man and one woman (where two become one).  To describe these cakes as "off-the-shelf" is ludicrous.  Each required a substantial investment of time and money.  And each reflects the artistic anointing of the baker.

So no, just because you see a picture of a cake in what is essentially an art gallery does not disqualify its meaning, purpose, nor the labor and effort to create it.  Just because Matisse has a painting of a vase of sunflowers in his personal museum does not make it "off-the-shelf".

The bottom line here is that whether it was in the gallery or not, it still had to be created.  And the baker specifically offered to bake any other good for the plaintiffs, but would not create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 05:07:46 PM
So shoot me, @Hoodat, for using the term "off-the-shelf" rather than a "non-custom" cake design.  Of course, any quality cake, custom or non-custom, needs to be baked fresh.   You miss my point.  Go on the website.  It says one can "select" from a product in the gallery, or work with the baker to arrange for a custom design.   The baker clearly has non-custom designs for his wares, including wedding cakes.

And again, my question is - is Phillips willing to sell his non-custom wedding cakes to his gay customers?   If so, then I'll agree with you that he has obeyed the law.  But if he insists that his non-custom products are also off-limits, then the facts of the case fall squarely within that of Piggie Park.  He cannot claim religion as an excuse to avoid a law of general application.   That's clear, that's settled.  It is only with respect to a custom-made product, where his "expressive conduct" is at issue,  that he has a chance of prevailing as a Constitutional matter.   The question is whether he can turn away his gay customer on free speech grounds.  Perhaps he can, as Thomas articulates.  But not on the basis of his free exercise of religion.   Piggie Park shut that door.     
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 05:13:39 PM
For a big-city guy, you sure don't know much about how bakeries work.  The Gallery is examples of his work, to help prospective customers decide what they want.  None of those examples will ever be made again.  Thinking any of those gallery cakes is not "custom" is naive.  I think you are just trying to slice this into itty bitty pieces so you can try to buffalo us on the larger issues you've been papering over.

Done, bye.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Sanguine on June 06, 2018, 05:15:31 PM
For a big-city guy, you sure don't know much about how bakeries work.  The Gallery is examples of his work, to help prospective customers decide what they want.  None of those examples will ever be made again.  Thinking any of those gallery cakes is not "custom" is naive.  I think you are just trying to slice this into itty bitty pieces so you can try to buffalo us on the larger issues you've been papering over.

Done, bye.

Yep.  As an artist, you create a gallery of your art, and sell those as is, or use them to help a prospective customer decide what they would like to ask you to create for them.  If it is something that doesn't fit within your artistic vision, you don't agree to do it. 
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Jazzhead on June 06, 2018, 05:19:42 PM
For a big-city guy, you sure don't know much about how bakeries work.  The Gallery is examples of his work, to help prospective customers decide what they want.  None of those examples will ever be made again.  Thinking any of those gallery cakes is not "custom" is naive.  I think you are just trying to slice this into itty bitty pieces so you can try to buffalo us on the larger issues you've been papering over.

Done, bye.

Again, from the website:  "Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design"

The truth hurts; sorry.   
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 05:26:18 PM
The cakes in his gallery ARE custom designs.  Are you intentionally being obtuse?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 05:39:18 PM
So you claim with zero ambiguity that this baker makes "off-the-shelf" wedding cakes. 

Once again our resident Lefty Tyrant Wannabe is reframing the issue to comport with his particular argument of how this baker is in criminal violation of not serving homos.

Cakes have to be MADE.  If they want one of his gallery cakes 'as is' and tell him it is for a homosexual wedding ceremony, he would again refuse to make that cake - and rightfully so.  He said "I do not make cakes for same-sex weddings".

I would refuse likewise and then some.

Regardless, the mother of Craig had brought into the store with her a design book of things they wanted put on the cake, so they were not going to just buy an existing cake.


To describe these cakes as "off-the-shelf" is ludicrous. 

As has already been explained to him, and like always when it does not fit the narrative he wants to frame the argument - he ignores it.  The 'gallery' at Masterpiece is no different than a 'portfolio' of artwork created to give clients an idea of the artist's capabilities.  I know this, because as a Graphic Artist/Art Director, this is EXACTLY what my business does.  I do not have 'off-the-shelf designs' people can just buy and use for their marketing and advertising vehicles.  They showcase my abilities and often are instrumental in helping steer a client towards explaining the kind of design they would like to see for their own project.

Likewise, the gallery on the website and the fake cakes on display in the shop are a showcase of the artist's capabilities and possible design configurations a prospective client can see for their particular project.  As Phillips said to the two homos who targeted his business for precisely the punishment they intended to be visited upon it, "I don't make cakes for same sex weddings".  Period.  End of sentence.

He does not create cakes for homosexual ceremonies.  Neither does he make cakes for divorces, Halloween or demonic themed events.

But homosexuals and their perverted behavior are a protected and preferred class of peoples by decree of the courts, and one may not refuse any advance or request they make of you, lest you be charged with discrimination or a hate crime.

The bottom line here is that whether it was in the gallery or not, it still had to be created.  And the baker specifically offered to bake any other good for the plaintiffs, but would not create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

Exactly.   Which our resident tyrant wannabe has already said is criminal and should be prosecuted as discrimination, voiding this entire silly pretend argument he is making over whether free speech or artistic expression are applicable here.  His verdict is NO, the Baker has no right to refuse baking a homosexual wedding cake and can be compelled by force to make it, or lose his business and be denied the ability to operate a business. He is just playing his usual stupid silly games to hide those facts behind a bunch of legalspeak bullshit to mask what he truly is.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Suppressed on June 06, 2018, 05:45:49 PM

Why the adjective "custom," then?  Why not just say they don't make wedding cakes?

All this cake talk has set off my cravings.  Can I get a wedding cake even if I don't have wedding plans?
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: INVAR on June 06, 2018, 05:54:09 PM
Why the adjective "custom," then?  Why not just say they don't make wedding cakes?

Because they DID make wedding cakes celebrating the time and memorial institution of matrimony between a man and a woman, which at the time was the only legal definition of marriage in the state of Colorado. And they customized them, being able to craft them into works of art per the desires of the couple or wedding party.

The homosexuals destroyed all of that - which was their intention from the beginning.

Because rather than going to the bakery down the street that markets themselves as serving homosexuals - they targeted this one precisely because the owner was open about his Christianity.

They chose to make an example of him and thus create a climate of intimidation for any business daring to refuse serving homosexual celebrations as a matter of conscience and faith.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Cyber Liberty on June 06, 2018, 05:57:58 PM

All this cake talk has set off my cravings.  Can I get a wedding cake even if I don't have wedding plans?

I've been having the cake cravings since this story came out!  I remember the fellow that did a wonderful cake for my last marriage!  He would never have made one of these cakes either, and if he wasn't dead already the Lavender Mafia would be all over him, too.   **nononono*

It's killing me because I'm on a crash diet.  Down 30 Lbs since the beginning of March.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: DCPatriot on June 06, 2018, 06:00:44 PM
Again, from the website:  "Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design"

The truth hurts; sorry.

...and the "custom design" which the two gentlemen ordered, went against the Christian owner's principles.
Title: Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
Post by: Hoodat on June 06, 2018, 06:09:02 PM
All this cake talk has set off my cravings.

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2w_AZ1Mdk#)