Author Topic: Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado baker  (Read 1398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado baker
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/argument-analysis-conservative-majority-leaning-toward-ruling-colorado-baker/
 December 5th, 2017

...An appeals court in Colorado rejected Phillips’ argument that forcing him to make a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to free speech and to practice his religion freely, but his argument found more traction at the Supreme Court today. At first, Kennedy seemed to acknowledge the impact that a ruling for the baker could have for gays and lesbians. He told Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the United States in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop, that if the baker were to win, he could put up a sign indicating that he would not bake cakes for same-sex couples. That, Kennedy suggested, would be “an affront to the gay community.”

But later, Kennedy asked Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, representing the state, about a statement by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who noted that religious beliefs had in the past been used to justify other forms of discrimination, like slavery and the Holocaust. It is, the commission member contended, “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use their religion to hurt others.” If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand? Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case.

The other conservative justices who spoke during the argument – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – also seemed to favor Masterpiece’s arguments, while the court’s four more liberal justices largely supported the state and the same-sex couple. But even if there are five votes in favor of Masterpiece, it’s not clear how or whether the justices will draw a line that respects the religious beliefs of people like Phillips without opening up a Pandora’s box that, as Justice Stephen Breyer put it, could “undermine every civil rights law since year 2.”...
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Justices Sharply Divided in Wedding Cake Case
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html

...The Colorado case arose from a brief encounter in 2012, when Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig visited Mr. Phillips’s bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colo. The couple were looking for a wedding cake, and Mr. Phillips turned them down.

“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies,” Mr. Phillips recalled saying. “I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.”

Mr. Mullins remembered being stunned. “We were mortified and just felt degraded,” he said. The couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.

Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment — its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion — overrode a Colorado antidiscrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake. But he has focused most of his argument on his free speech claim, relying on Supreme Court decisions forbidding the government from compelling people to say things they do not believe.....
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
Anyone who thinks they can divine how Kennedy will vote is a fool.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 07:15:11 pm by SirLinksALot »

Oceander

  • Guest
I wager the baker loses 5-4

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado baker
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/argument-analysis-conservative-majority-leaning-toward-ruling-colorado-baker/
 December 5th, 2017

...An appeals court in Colorado rejected Phillips’ argument that forcing him to make a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to free speech and to practice his religion freely, but his argument found more traction at the Supreme Court today. At first, Kennedy seemed to acknowledge the impact that a ruling for the baker could have for gays and lesbians. He told Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the United States in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop, that if the baker were to win, he could put up a sign indicating that he would not bake cakes for same-sex couples. That, Kennedy suggested, would be “an affront to the gay community.”


Just once, I'd like to see what happens if one of these couples goes to a halal bakery and demands wedding muhallebi.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment — its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion — overrode a Colorado antidiscrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake. But he has focused most of his argument on his free speech claim, relying on Supreme Court decisions forbidding the government from compelling people to say things they do not believe.....

And he's right to do so.  The free exercise of religion argument is nonsense.  The free speech argument is stronger, but I still say the fatal flaw is Phillips' refusal to even listen to what his customers were looking for with respect to the design and message on the cake.   He simply refused service based on who his customers were - and that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws are intended to proscribe.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
And he's right to do so.  The free exercise of religion argument is nonsense.  The free speech argument is stronger, but I still say the fatal flaw is Phillips' refusal to even listen to what his customers were looking for with respect to the design and message on the cake.   He simply refused service based on who his customers were - and that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws are intended to proscribe.   

Phillips' account differs from what you claim above.

Why do you choose to believe the plaintiffs' account and not Phillips' account? Given that the couple have an obvious agenda Phillips is more credible.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 05:58:11 pm by skeeter »

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
And he's right to do so.  The free exercise of religion argument is nonsense.  The free speech argument is stronger, but I still say the fatal flaw is Phillips' refusal to even listen to what his customers were looking for with respect to the design and message on the cake.   He simply refused service based on who his customers were - and that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws are intended to proscribe.   

False.  He refused to make the specific product.  He did not refuse service based upon who his customers were.

Quote
“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies,” Mr. Phillips recalled saying. “I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.”
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies,” Mr. Phillips recalled saying. “I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.”




Actually, I find this baby shower cake more disturbing than a couple plastic dudes on top of one.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,756
Phillips' account differs from what you claim above.

Why do you choose to believe the plaintiffs' account and not Phillips' account? Given that the couple have an obvious agenda Phillips is more credible.
One word:  BIAS
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Emjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,687
  • Gender: Female
  • Womp, womp
And he's right to do so.  The free exercise of religion argument is nonsense.  The free speech argument is stronger, but I still say the fatal flaw is Phillips' refusal to even listen to what his customers were looking for with respect to the design and message on the cake.   He simply refused service based on who his customers were - and that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws are intended to proscribe.   

You do not know that, @Jazzhead  You know nothing about the actual conversation between the customers and the baker.

I am sorry to be cynical but I think the Couple targeted the Baker to test him, and see what he would do, while visions of lawsuits danced in their heads.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado baker


No brainer.   Lower courts should be found in contempt for not issuing a summary judgment for the Defendant the minute such a stupid case was filed. 


The people who filed this case need to be fined for contempt.   
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
Anyone who thinks they can divine how Kennedy will vote is a fool.


Well this fool thinks Kennedy is going to vote in favor of the Homosexuals.   
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
I wager the baker loses 5-4


Years ago when proposition 8 was passed in California a perceptive fellow on Instapundit said:



Why don't we all just save a lot of time and  ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks? 


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,756
You do not know that, @Jazzhead  You know nothing about the actual conversation between the customers and the baker.

I am sorry to be cynical but I think the Couple targeted the Baker to test him, and see what he would do, while visions of lawsuits danced in their heads.
They got what they wanted from another baker, so that is a fact.  Another fact is they do not like a person of a particular religion that actually stands up for his beliefs, so they sought out a way to punish that individual.  If they had tried this on a Muslim baker, they would likely not even now be alive.

Either we are free to exercise our beliefs or we are not.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Phillips' account differs from what you claim above.

Why do you choose to believe the plaintiffs' account and not Phillips' account? Given that the couple have an obvious agenda Phillips is more credible.

The plaintiffs' and Phillips' accounts are consistent -  the design and message on the cake were irrelevant - he was not going to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple, period.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
And he's right to do so.  The free exercise of religion argument is nonsense.  The free speech argument is stronger, but I still say the fatal flaw is Phillips' refusal to even listen to what his customers were looking for with respect to the design and message on the cake.   He simply refused service based on who his customers were - and that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws are intended to proscribe.   


I have no problem with customers being refused service  for any reason whatsoever.   It's called "freedom."   


Forced compulsion is the foundation of slavery.   


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
The plaintiffs' and Phillips' accounts are consistent -  the design and message on the cake were irrelevant - he was not going to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple, period.   


And he is within his rights to do so.    There is no legal basis to force people to serve others that they do not wish to serve. 


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
I am sorry to be cynical but I think the Couple targeted the Baker to test him, and see what he would do, while visions of lawsuits danced in their heads.

I suspect that he was specifically targeted.  The baker is fairly "extreme" in the practice of his beliefs in his business.  He refuses any baked goods in a Halloween theme, with Alcohol, or to celebrate divorce.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
The plaintiffs' and Phillips' accounts are consistent -  the design and message on the cake were irrelevant - he was not going to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple, period.   

He refused to provide a same-sex wedding cake.  He offered the gay couple other products.  He refused to sell a same-sex wedding cake to a heterosexual woman.  He was not against who was buying; he was against what they wanted him to make.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
The plaintiffs' and Phillips' accounts are consistent -  the design and message on the cake were irrelevant - he was not going to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple, period.   

Sigh. The design and message on the cake are exactly the issue, according to Phillips.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,889
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
He refused to provide a same-sex wedding cake.  He offered the gay couple other products.  He refused to sell a same-sex wedding cake to a heterosexual woman.  He was not against who was buying; he was against what they wanted him to make.

He also refuses to make anti-gay message cakes. While he disagrees with them he doesn't allow his talents to be used to target them. Hard to call him a bigot in that case.
The Republic is lost.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
He also refuses to make anti-gay message cakes. While he disagrees with them he doesn't allow his talents to be used to target them. Hard to call him a bigot in that case.



Why is there not a legal right to be a "bigot"?    Since when did we get an official morality imposed upon us by the Fedgov that tells us who we must serve?   



"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,756


Why is there not a legal right to be a "bigot"?    Since when did we get an official morality imposed upon us by the Fedgov that tells us who we must serve?   



"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Call me a bigot whenever I frequent Walmart rather than Target, or buying a house in the neighborhood I now live in rather that somewhere else.

We are all bigots and discriminate.

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