Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado baker

[SirLinksALot]

Anyone who thinks they can divine how Kennedy will vote is a fool.

Here are some excerpts from Statements that Kennedy made during Oral Arguments:

“Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

“And — because accommodation is, quite possible, we assume there were other shops that — other good bakery shops that were available.”

“Part of that speech is that state law, in this case, supersedes our religious beliefs, and he has to teach that to his family. He has to speak about that to his family.”

“Well, but this whole concept of identity is a slightly — suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against — against gay people. He says but I just don’t think they should have a marriage because that’s contrary to my beliefs. It’s not -­ It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.”

For someone who actually DECIDED FOR the legalization of gay marriage, Kennedy sounds quite coherent here.
Whether it translates to the right decision is another thing.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here's what the absence of freedom gets you:
France: Halal Shop Forced to Close for Refusing to Sell Pork and Alcohol
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/05/french-halal-shop-faces-closure-not-selling-pork-alcohol/

[mountaineer]

Why The Cake-Baking Cases Are Really About Courts Deciding What Americans Can Believe
Most justices first frame the issue by using judicial discretion of one kind or another to remove from consideration the nature of the product requested for a same-sex wedding.
Jeremiah Keenan
Dec. 5, 2017

...  Thus, each case begins with a law which, when spelled out explicitly, forbids refusing service to someone on account of his or her “propensity” to experience same-sex attraction (SSA). The next step, of course, is to ask whether the Christian business refused service to a homosexual on account of his propensity to experience SSA or on account of the nature of the product the homosexual wanted the Christian to design.

So, in Phillip’s case, for example, the key question is whether Phillips refused service to Craig and Mullins because he did not want to make a cake with a pair of amorous male figurines on top (or some other “objectionable” symbol), or because he did not want to do business with the pair of men in his shop.

While the court is always forced to grapple with this question in some form, most justices first frame the issue by using judicial discretion of one kind or another to remove from consideration the nature of the product requested for a same-sex wedding. In Phillips’ case, Judge Taubman refused to consider whether the same-sex wedding cake Craig and Mullins wanted might have required Phillips to design symbols (like those male figurines) with which he disagreed. Taubman justified this by pointing to the fact that Phillips turned the homosexual couple down before either of them “conveyed any details of their desired cake to Masterpiece.”

This argument, of course, relies on the assumption that Phillips could not have reasonably anticipated that taking an order for a custom same-sex wedding cake would likely require him to design symbols or express messages with which he strongly disagreed.   ...

Full article at The Federalist

[Free Vulcan]

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."

'Bigot' in the leftist sense of the word. He doesn't have an active, hateful, broad brushed prejudice against gays. They are trying to base their claim on that, but it doesn't hold water.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

At the time of the incident, Colorado did not recognize same-sex 'weddings'. The plaintiffs were 'united' out of State. If the State did not recognize the "marriage" why should the baker be held to a different standard?

That does not even address the issues of compelling someone to create something 'celebrating' something they have a deep religious objection to.

[Bigun]

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.

I will continue to discriminate against any one or anything I choose for any reason I choose! Why?  Because it is the only method I have for surviving on this planet!

[txradioguy]

I will continue to discriminate against any one or anything I choose for any reason I choose! Why?  Because it is the only method I have for surviving on this planet!

Remember when the term "discriminating taste" was a good thing to be described as having?

[RetBobbyMI]

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don't allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.” But nothing says an owner has to violate his or her own principles and faith.

[Bigun]

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don't allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.” But nothing says an owner has to violate his or her own principles and faith.

Yep and nothing says we can't get a little creative either as long as we don't run our mouths about it!
!

[INVAR]

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.

You keep repeating this bullshit lie of yours over and over on one thread after another.  The fact Philips REFUSED to create a cake for a same-sex wedding is proof of the fact he listened to what the customers said they wanted.

He refused to sell a same-sex wedding cake to one of the homo's heterosexual mother.  He was not against who was buying; he was against what they wanted him to make.

A fact you discard and ignore because it doesn't fit the Leftist/Hedonist narrative you push here.

[Bigun]

Remember when the term "discriminating taste" was a good thing to be described as having?

Yep!  Discrimination is still a very good thing!  Essential in fact!

[RetBobbyMI]

[INVAR]

[Smokin Joe]

Remember when the term "discriminating taste" was a good thing to be described as having?

YES!  (another word they ruined)