Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This is, let's not forget, all about baking a lousy cake.   Better to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court rather than bake a cake for a homosexual couple.   

Do folks outside the cocoon of discussion boards like this realize how petty and mean this baker appears?

If this was just about 'baking a lousy cake', then why then did the couple, who went elsewhere to get their cake baked, like they properly should, choose to make this a topic before the state entity?

I cannot find exactly when their complaint was lodged, but it appears to be months after they had already found their cake and had their reception.

Reason:  It was not about the cake.  They are the ones who without a doubt appear petty and mean, certainly not the guy who in 20 seconds with them told them he could not bake the cake.

And why is the baker taking this up to get this decided before the courts and public opinion?

Because this is the order which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission thrust like a bully down his throat:

the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop

You think it mean and petty for the baker to take 'em on with some help?

I think it mean and petty for Colorado Civil Rights Commission to make someone grovel before them like that.

It is high time we the people expose the belligerent government's abuse of citizens.

[RoosGirl]

My only purpose here is to engage in dialogue with bright folks on political issues of the day.  I've always been a politico;  I read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative when I was in junior high school.  I remember on a family visit to Massachusetts I insisted on stopping and browsing around in an American Opinion bookstore.   I was far more ideological and confrontational in my younger days.   With age has come the crucial insight that most all of us, regardless of political label, want what's best for the nation.  There's nothing wrong with pragmatism, and compromise and conciliation.  Nor with being decent and accommodating to others, which is why that baker annoys me - would it have hurt him to just bake the cake he said he would?  Since when is a cake shop the proper forum for a religious crusade?   

I've gained a lot of insight from the numerous intelligent and, yes, diverse posters here.   I'm of the view that "conservatism" comes in a variety of forms,  and that the current Republican coalition is an uneasy one,  especially following the recent rise of the TEA party and the even more recent insurgency by the Trump nationalists.  Neither of these recent strains particularly speaks to me - I'm too old school for that -  but that's not what's important.    I want to see the center/right coalition that is the GOP hang together, unlike many who want to take their marbles and go a third party that adheres more closely to their view of ideological purity.   Because if it doesn't,  the path will be clear for the liberals to have their way.

Seems to me the current republican brand is doing that currently.

[INVAR]

Oh - and just a hint: you might want to drop all of the "intolerance and bigotry" talk.  It makes it sound like you are calling other people here that, and it makes you sound very intolerant and a bit of a bigot.

Not to sound like I am excusing your admonition to Jazzhead, but I openly confess and have admitted that I am proudly intolerant of wickedness and firmly bigoted and prejudiced against those pushing acceptance of deviant behavior by putting a gun to our heads to force compliance.

The difference is that my definition of wickedness and evil is from the bible, and his definition of wickedness are those who reference and abide by what the bible teaches.

[Sanguine]

Not to sound like I am excusing your admonition to Jazzhead, but I openly confess and have admitted that I am proudly intolerant of wickedness and firmly bigoted and prejudiced against those pushing acceptance of deviant behavior by putting a gun to our heads to force compliance.

The difference is that my definition of wickedness and evil is from the bible, and his definition of wickedness are those who reference and abide by what the bible teaches.

That's correct and I would extend that admonition to you also.

[Oceander]

Question:  should your ISP be able to unilaterally decide that it will no longer allow content from right of center political websites to travel across its network, thereby cutting you off from TBR (or FR or any other site you can think of)?  Should google be able to unilaterally decide that right of center political views will no longer show up in searches or advertisements?   Should the companies that run the DNS name servers that keep the internet working be able to unilaterally decide that they will no longer provide DNS services for right of center political websites?

[roamer_1]

Question:  should your ISP be able to unilaterally decide that it will no longer allow content from right of center political websites to travel across its network, thereby cutting you off from TBR (or FR or any other site you can think of)?  Should google be able to unilaterally decide that right of center political views will no longer show up in searches or advertisements?   Should the companies that run the DNS name servers that keep the internet working be able to unilaterally decide that they will no longer provide DNS services for right of center political websites?

Yes, and they already are - At least google is, Demonetizing right-facing and Christian groups on youtoob. Which is fine - Alternatives rise up.

[Oceander]

Yes, and they already are - At least google is, Demonetizing right-facing and Christian groups on youtoob. Which is fine - Alternatives rise up.

Fair enough.  Haven't seen too many of those alternatives, though, and if the companies that run name servers decide to cut off right of center sites, that's the end of it all, including alternatives. 

[truth_seeker]

It serves as a reminder of the fight we are up against, and shows how perverted some can be when it comes to interpretation of what is within the Constitution.

Could YOU point to the sections in the Constitution, covering marriage, cakes, homosexuality, religion?

According to my copy of said document, there are few phrases covering those topics, leaving a lot up to future court opinions, and interpretation.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Question:  should your ISP be able to unilaterally decide that it will no longer allow content from right of center political websites to travel across its network, thereby cutting you off from TBR (or FR or any other site you can think of)?  Should google be able to unilaterally decide that right of center political views will no longer show up in searches or advertisements?   Should the companies that run the DNS name servers that keep the internet working be able to unilaterally decide that they will no longer provide DNS services for right of center political websites?

I don't know how the law works, but I suspect once they take an action based on content (other than something like a DCRM infringement or by court order) it puts them in the position that they have some responsibility for ALL content.  As far as the RIGHT to do so....

ISP?  Probably not.  Too close to, in some cases, and effective monopoly in others.

Google?  Yes.

DNS?  Not the root servers, but if you have a third party administer DNS for your domain then yes.

However, I don't think this is a proper analogy. The question would be, IMO, should a website designer be able to refuse to create a right of center website?  And my answer is absolutely.

[Oceander]

Could YOU point to the sections in the Constitution, covering marriage, cakes, homosexuality, religion?

According to my copy of said document, there are few phrases covering those topics, leaving a lot up to future court opinions, and interpretation.

Could you point me to the section of the Constitution that deals with commercial activities. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Fair enough.  Haven't seen too many of those alternatives, though, and if the companies that run name servers decide to cut off right of center sites, that's the end of it all, including alternatives.

Google itself is an alternative to Yahoo which once ruled search.

[Oceander]

Google itself is an alternative to Yahoo which once ruled search.

Yes, but yahoo had more or less the same politics.  I don't see googles market share losing out to a right-wing friendly system any time soon.

[roamer_1]

Fair enough.  Haven't seen too many of those alternatives, though, and if the companies that run name servers decide to cut off right of center sites, that's the end of it all, including alternatives.

A lot of Youtube providers are moving off, or being kicked off... A lot are moving to steem because it is distributed in block-chain fashion. Dailymotion, of course, GodTube...

And dns is just a name... a simple website or IRC with links to IP gets around... That's how hackers publish already. 'Deep web' LOL!

And one thing about our wildly liberal IT fellows. Nearly every single one will fight to his last breath to keep the net open and free. I will hang a lot on that.

[truth_seeker]

Could you point me to the section of the Constitution that deals with commercial activities.

"Commerce Clause" and "Necessary and Proper Clause."

[Oceander]

A lot of Youtube providers are moving off, or being kicked off... A lot are moving to steem because it is distributed in block-chain fashion. Dailymotion, of course, GodTube...

And dns is just a name... a simple website or IRC with links to IP gets around... That's how hackers publish already. 'Deep web' LOL!

And one thing about our wildly liberal IT fellows. Nearly every single one will fight to his last breath to keep the net open and free. I will hang a lot on that.

If experience is any guide, they'll happily support anything that cuts off non-liberals. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Could YOU point to the sections in the Constitution, covering marriage, cakes, homosexuality, religion?

According to my copy of said document, there are few phrases covering those topics, leaving a lot up to future court opinions, and interpretation.

No, I do not wish to leave it up to future court opinions and interpretation.

The Constitution is fundamentally not a 'rights' document.  It is instead a 'limiting' document towards the federal government and to how much of the power inherent within the people is extended to the government.

As such, the people are the fundamental interpreter of the Constitution, not some court.  Can YOU point where in the Constitution the power to interpret the Constitution resides?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Yes, but yahoo had more or less the same politics.  I don't see googles market share losing out to a right-wing friendly system any time soon.

I don't either (maybe bing, I don't use it), but then I didn't see anyone taking out yahoo at the time.  A guy can hope.

[roamer_1]

If experience is any guide, they'll happily support anything that cuts off non-liberals.

Hard to do as long as Conservative sites physically exist - Too many folks like you and me out there that will know how to get there. And ISP filters and backbone routers don't work against an onion router (as you know)... Everything upstream from that can be handled otherwise.

And again, block chain. Pretty hard to manipulate that. It works for more than electronic money.

[roamer_1]

I don't either (maybe bing, I don't use it), but then I didn't see anyone taking out yahoo at the time.  A guy can hope.

Startpage rakes google results without filters and injections. You'll be surprised how different the data return is.

[roamer_1]

If experience is any guide, they'll happily support anything that cuts off non-liberals.

And btw, I do recognize that what you say is coming... But I think you'll be surprised which side the hackers fall on - Hacker in the classical sense...

[Oceander]

No, I do not wish to leave it up to future court opinions and interpretation.

The Constitution is fundamentally not a 'rights' document.  It is instead a 'limiting' document towards the federal government and to how much of the power inherent within the people is extended to the government.

As such, the people are the fundamental interpreter of the Constitution, not some court.  Can YOU point where in the Constitution the power to interpret the Constitution resides?

Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.

[roamer_1]

Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.

Almost, but not quite true. All it would take is a Congress jealous of it's duty and power. But yeah... That's a pipe dream.

[Bigun]

Unless "the people" are going to take it upon themselves to enforce their view of the Constitution against those who disagree with them - which is just mob justice - then the courts will always have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.

Under our Constitution,  courts render opinions and have exactly zero power to enforce any of them on anyone.

[Oceander]

Almost, but not quite true. All it would take is a Congress jealous of it's duty and power. But yeah... That's a pipe dream.

Nope.  You still need the courts.  The job of Congress is to legislate, not to enforce or adjudicate.   Therefore, Congress can only interpret the Constitution through enacting legislation, and that legislation can only be enforced against people who disagree with it through the courts - technically, through a case brought when the executive tries to enforce against someone who disagrees.  At that point, it is, again, the court that has the final say over what the Constitution means. 

[Oceander]

Under our Constitution,  courts render opinions and have exactly zero power to enforce any of them on anyone.

No, courts decide how the law applies to the facts of a particular case, and that means they determine what the law is.  Any member of the executive who refuses to carry out a lawful order of a court is himself breaking the law.