SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[Atreus21]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/sup...ake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

Early yet. Still developing,though the decision is in the link.

This was the right call. Found that the Colorado Commission's decision violated the Free Exercise clause.

 

[deathBOB]

Very limited decision. Doesn’t address limit between religious exercise and anti-discrimination regulation.

They punted.

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/sup...ake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

Early yet. Still developing,though the decision is in the link.

This was the right call. Found that the Colorado Commission's decision violated the Free Exercise clause.

While it's a bad ruling it could have been way worse. At least the court hasn't carved out any additional areas where religious people get to decide what laws apply to them.

 

[K1052]

lol...noted lawyer Don Jr. has signed on

 

[fskimospy]

lol...noted lawyer Don Jr. has signed on

I wonder how long until he deletes this tweet because it makes him look like a moron.

 

[Commodus]

lol...noted lawyer Don Jr. has signed on

Not too surprisingly, I think he's misinterpreting it. It's not "narrowly" in terms of numbers, it's "narrowly" in terms of what it actually affords to people like that baker.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's very confusing to see the court decide in favor of discrimination in this case, but punt of wanting their decision to actually stick.

Why make a decision if you are embarrassed by / do not agree with it in a broader sense?

 

[K1052]

It's very confusing to see the court decide in favor of discrimination in this case, but punt of wanting their decision to actually stick.

From what I'm reading their primary issue seems to be that the CO commissioners were kinda dicks about it. Hence the very narrow decision.

Not like they can be forced into a landmark decision if they aren't interested in doing so. SCOTUS gonna do SCOTUS.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Christians have the financial, legal, political and other kinds of power to take an issue like this all the way to SC. If this were a Buddhist or Muslim baker, he wouldn’t dared have defied. And had he, there would be no machine to defend him from the government. That is one main reason religious minorities get discriminated against

 

[interchange]

Looking at it a little bit, it seems the decision hinged on the fact that gay marriage was still not legal in Colorado when the request for the cake was made. Thus, that meant that making a wedding cake for the couple represented the cake maker's endorsement of the marriage which violated his religious practice. I believe the corollary now is that, since gay marriage is legal, the anti-discrimination law in Colorado would hold up against the 1st amendment since the baker's product would not reflect his own personal religious views.

That's an interesting view. And, honestly, I agree with it despite it being counter to my moral sense of right for the couple. However, it raises the question of where the limit lies on the basis of the 1st. My sense is that it would still be legal to refuse in CO despite gay marriage now being legal except for the anti-discrimination law.

 

[deathBOB]

It's very confusing to see the court decide in favor of discrimination in this case, but punt of wanting their decision to actually stick.

Why make a decision if you are embarrassed by / do not agree with it in a broader sense?

They didn’t decide in favor of discrimination. They simply said that the state’s decision in his particular case was unfair. They didn’t rule on whether the basis of that decision (the state anti discrimination statute) was okay or on whether his religious rights were violated simply because of the anti discrimination statute.

 

[umbrella39]

lol...noted lawyer Don Jr. has signed on

I've read countless posts on news sites already by other low information right wing fucktards that don't understand what a "narrow" ruling means...

Pst, fucktards... it doesn't have to do with the vote count. Just a hint...

 

[fskimospy]

I've read countless posts on news sites already by other low information right wing fucktards that don't understand what a "narrow" ruling means...

Pst, fucktards... it doesn't have to do with the vote count. Just a hint...

Without checking I'm going to guess that they have decided this is an example of librul media bias against conservatives instead of their own stupidity.

 

[interchange]

Christians have the financial, legal, political and other kinds of power to take an issue like this all the way to SC. If this were a Buddhist or Muslim baker, he wouldn’t dared have defied. And had he, there would be no machine to defend him from the government. That is one main reason religious minorities get discriminated against

This is a pretty extreme stance. It is not as if other religions hold no resources and fight no legal battles. Aside from that, a relative difference in power/resources is definite, but its scope here is in establishment of law and on an individual basis for much more common discrimination. It's the little guy who faces discrimination that's hard to prove and not socially compelling who gets screwed. There still is legal recourse, and organizations like the ACLU would absolutely work with a Muslim for an important case. Doubtful they'd be on the side of the store owner here, though.

 

[Noah Abrams]

There still is legal recourse, and organizations like the ACLU would absolutely work with a Muslim for an important case. Doubtful they'd be on the side of the store owner here, though.

That is the point. ACLU would not work for a Muslim in a case like this

 

[brycejones]

That is the point. ACLU would not work for a Muslim in a case like this

Wut

 

[interchange]

That is the point. ACLU would not work for a Muslim in a case like this

https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/anti-muslim-discrimination

 

[umbrella39]

Just how many sock puppet accounts does Riprorin need before he is assured we know just how persecuted and discriminated white, Christian males are in this country. Especially in Texas...

 

[Noah Abrams]

https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/anti-muslim-discrimination

Do you actually believe that ACLU would work against what is perceived as gay rights? I do admire a lot of work that they do.

 

[theeedude]

Conservatives are scared because they lost the culture war. They know if they rule for religious exemptions, there is going to be "Got hates f**s, get your @SS out of here" cases that they will be held responsible for. So they are trying to hang onto some technicalities, like commission hurt someone's feelings.

 

[interchange]

Do you actually believe that ACLU would work against what is perceived as gay rights? I do admire a lot of work that they do.

I don't think they would work against gay rights, as I said in my first post about this. But that has everything to do with their position on protecting gay rights and nothing to do with the religion of the store owner. That's where I take exception to your words. I don't think the ACLU would take the case of a Muslim store owner, but I don't think they would take the case of a Christian store owner also. Your phrasing suggests that Muslims have unequal rights, and that the public organizations which exist to protect rights are biased toward representing Christians. Those are not true. In this case, I'm not sure how the store owner amassed resources to take the case this far, but I do think that it would be harder for a Muslim to obtain those resources externally than a Christian.

 

[Nashemon]

lol...noted lawyer Don Jr. has signed on

HAHAHAHAHA! Incredible.

 

[realibrad]

Looking at it a little bit, it seems the decision hinged on the fact that gay marriage was still not legal in Colorado when the request for the cake was made. Thus, that meant that making a wedding cake for the couple represented the cake maker's endorsement of the marriage which violated his religious practice. I believe the corollary now is that, since gay marriage is legal, the anti-discrimination law in Colorado would hold up against the 1st amendment since the baker's product would not reflect his own personal religious views.

That's an interesting view. And, honestly, I agree with it despite it being counter to my moral sense of right for the couple. However, it raises the question of where the limit lies on the basis of the 1st. My sense is that it would still be legal to refuse in CO despite gay marriage now being legal except for the anti-discrimination law.

That was the original debate I tried to have. Should you be forced to provide service if you do not want to.

The argument boiled down to two positions.

You must provide the service to anyone that is in the protected group if you offer your service to the general public. You cannot decide to not provide that service no matter how limited based on that protected group regardless of your personal views. You are allowed to have your opinion, but, as a business owner, you cannot do anything based on those views if you offer the service to the public. If you dont want to offer your services to everyone, you dont get to offer your services.

The other side is that forcing people to provide a service that they do not want to provide equates to slavery. Even though the cake maker offered the couple to purchase anything from the bakery, they wanted the baker to be forced to make cakes for gay couples. While there can be reasonable limitations on the expression of beliefs, in this case simply telling someone no seems to be justified.

The first camp sees it as necessary to force social progress. The 2nd side says that taking away the ability to choose is more of a regression overall.

 

[Perknose]

Irreverence Alert!

Masterpiece Cakeshop? Do they know how that can come across in certain circles? Master Piece was my porn name, and I once starred with Cake Shop. I licked her icing all over and then dove right in.

 

[Vic]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/sup...ake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

Early yet. Still developing,though the decision is in the link.

This was the right call. Found that the Colorado Commission's decision violated the Free Exercise clause.

The baker did the one of the most un-Christian acts there is, which is to be inhospitable to his neighbors, under the false pretense that his Christian faith required it.
This court may have forgiven him, but there is a higher court still that awaits him.