SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[Noah Abrams]

Same court that rules along party lines most of the time.

You might be surprised to know that the above is factually incorrect. But that is how the media makes you think about these things. Oh it is all partisan, to arouse the passions of people. Majority (or a very large percentage) of SC cases go 9-0.

 

[Noah Abrams]

you aren't fooling anyone.

A fool can't be fooled. So you are correct 🙂

 

[Atreus21]

A quote from the case by Kennedy regarding the nastiness of the commission:

"To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere. . . . This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation."

 

[theeedude]

You might be surprised to know that the above is factually incorrect. But that is how the media makes you think about these things. Oh it is all partisan, to arouse the passions of people. Majority (or a very large percentage) of SC cases go 9-0.

Not politically important cases. Those are usually 5:4 strict party lines. Enjoy being forced into arbitration as condition of employment.

 

[OutHouse]

Has the baker ever objected to couples who had pre-marital sex? If not the religious objection is pure bullshit

yea im sure that personal info is on the cake order form

🙄🙄

 

[Noah Abrams]

Not politically important cases. Those are usually 5:4 strict party lines. Enjoy being forced into arbitration as condition of employment.

A very important political case recently was decided in favor of left and illegal immigrants by the deciding vote of the much maligned Gorsuch.

But if you are pre-programmed to see everything through a certain lens, there is nothing I can do. Only you can do something about it.

 

[theeedude]

A quote from the case by Kennedy regarding the nastiness of the commission:
"To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere. . . . This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation."

Snowflake feigning offence to avoid making hard decisions because he is afraid of the consequences of them.

 

[theeedude]

A very important political case recently was decided in favor of left and illegal immigrants by the deciding vote of the much maligned Gorsuch.

But if you are pre-programmed to see everything through a certain lens, there is nothing I can do. Only you can do something about it.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Noah Abrams]

The Bible says people who divorce cannot remarry. That is adultery. Did the baker check whether it was first marriage for all the marriage cakes he made? I am sure that is not hard to do. By the way, he was not asked to participate in the wedding, only make a goddman cake. Having said that, the gay couple had a bug up their ass too. Its really a non issue as far as I am concerned, and the ruling made sure it remains a non issue, since it has no wider implication. So good work by the SC

 

[Noah Abrams]

Why are Christians so hung up on gays? There is not a single word by Jesus on gays in the New Testament. There are many many other things said by Jesus. Including divorce. How come they don't campaign in favor or against of all those deeply spiritual things.

 

[theeedude]

The Bible says people who divorce cannot remarry. That is adultery. Did the baker check whether it was first marriage for all the marriage cakes he made? I am sure that is not hard to do. By the way, he was not asked to participate in the wedding, only make a goddman cake. Having said that, the gay couple had a bug up their ass too. Its really a non issue as far as I am concerned, and the ruling made sure it remains a non issue, since it has no wider implication. So good work by the SC

It's good political work.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why are Christians so hung up on gays? There is not a single word by Jesus on gays in the New Testament. There are many many other things said by Jesus. Including divorce. How come they don't campaign in favor or against of all those deeply spiritual things.

Most of modern Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with Christ or his teachings.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Most of modern Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with Christ or his teachings.

American Christianity would be the right term. Christianity was not meant to be a faith for rich, comfortable people with mega churches and all that. Its decline therefore started when it was made state religion by Constantine. It was meant for the week and oppressed. That is why it is thriving in Latin America. Blessed are the meek.....

 

[realibrad]

I'm following what you're saying, but the SCOTUS didn't really weigh in on that. They merely defined a case where the Colorado anti-discrimination law conflicts with the first amendment freedoms of the store owner because, owing to gay marriage not being legal at the time, making the cake would represent speech indicating the position of the baker in conflict with his religious expression. Without the CO law, it's my impression that they could discriminate against serving them any way they wished for any reason. Which poses an interesting question. In the absence of legal protection, are there people who cannot find services from anyone? Is that ok? Imagine this were 20 years earlier in the South. Would it be acceptable for them to be able to find no one to make them a cake at all?

Oh for sure they kicked the can here. I also don't blame them. I would much rather wait until people hopefully calm down before taking on issues like this. Right now things are far more hyperbolic than they were the past 7 or so years.

I think what is hard is finding the balance of leading social progress, and not relying on the state to establish all morality. Giving the state too much power is bad, and, allowing groups with less power to try and get services from groups that would like them to have nothing is also bad. We live in a nation of Christians which still very much do not like homosexuality. Its massively better than it was even 10 years ago never mind 20+, but, we are still rooted in some old school beliefs that need to change. I think the state has a role in helping us cast off those old bad ideas, but I do not for one second believe it should be the primary force here.

 

[hal2kilo]

Most of modern Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with Christ or his teachings.

Yep, fire and brimstone have nothing to do with the "Good News".

 

[realibrad]

How would all regulations not be slavery then? I doubt a coal plant wants to install CO2 scrubbers yet as a condition of doing business the government forces them to. I doubt big banks want to comply with the host of regulations the government places on them. Are they similarly enslaved?

Your analogy sucks. Pollution is force upon people. In the cake situation, who is being forced other than the baker?

And yes, in some way all regulation is taking away some liberty. The reality of modern life is that must happen so no reasonable person would argue for anarchy. On one end there is slavery, and the other is anarchy, so the reasonable solution would be something in between where you balance liberty and limitations.

 

[realibrad]

This is a false analogy. No one forced him to open up a cake shop and provide cakes to the public. It’s not like he’s making cakes for friends and acquaintances - he has a public facing commercial entity and as such it is reasonable to require him to comply with regulations applicable to public facing commercial entities. He has every right to quit or cease serving the public if he chooses not to do so.

*you are a baker, and a guy comes from N.A.M.B.L.A. and wants a cake that says "fucking underage boys should be legal". You making that cake?

*KKK wants a cake that says all minorities are useless and should be slaves to the mast race. You making that cake?

Do you shut down because you dont want to serve the public? None of those things are illegal by the way, and are not protected.

 

[fskimospy]

*you are a baker, and a guy comes from N.A.M.B.L.A. and wants a cake that says "fucking underage boys should be legal". You making that cake?

*KKK wants a cake that says all minorities are useless and should be slaves to the mast race. You making that cake?

Do you shut down because you dont want to serve the public? None of those things are illegal by the way, and are not protected.

deathBOB is entirely correct that as a public facing commercial entity he must comply with the applicable regulations. The applicable regulations do not require you to make those cakes however, so there's no conflict and therefore no reason to shut down.

 

[fskimospy]

Your analogy sucks. Pollution is force upon people. In the cake situation, who is being forced other than the baker?

And yes, in some way all regulation is taking away some liberty. The reality of modern life is that must happen so no reasonable person would argue for anarchy. On one end there is slavery, and the other is anarchy, so the reasonable solution would be something in between where you balance liberty and limitations.

Nah, my analogy is just fine, it's that the argument that forcing them to comply with public accommodation laws is transparently stupid. The analogy shows that, which is why I imagine you don't like it, haha. If you don't like that one though you could just as easily use the second analogy that you ignored. Banks are required to take a large number of regulatory compliance activities in order to engage in banking business. Have they been enslaved? Airlines must comply with rigorous safety regulations or they cannot operate as an airline. Are these inspections tyranny? Why not just let people fly whatever airlines they want and let the airlines decide how safe they want to be? That's true freedom.

All regulations are making people do things they don't want to do; if people wanted to do them we wouldn't need a regulation for it after all. The idea that requiring public facing businesses to follow reasonable business regulations and serve the public is somehow slavery is dumb and we all know it.

 

[realibrad]

Nah, my analogy is just fine, it's that the argument that forcing them to comply with public accommodation laws is transparently stupid. The analogy shows that, which is why I imagine you don't like it, haha. If you don't like that one though you could just as easily use the second analogy that you ignored. Banks are required to take a large number of regulatory compliance activities in order to engage in banking business. Have they been enslaved? Airlines must comply with rigorous safety regulations or they cannot operate as an airline. Are these inspections tyranny? Why not just let people fly whatever airlines they want and let the airlines decide how safe they want to be? That's true freedom.

All regulations are making people do things they don't want to do; if people wanted to do them we wouldn't need a regulation for it after all. The idea that requiring public facing businesses to follow reasonable business regulations and serve the public is somehow slavery is dumb and we all know it.

There was a time when I could have a productive conversation with you. That time has passed. All you want to do it seems is to attack people. Hell, you were even doing it to people on your "side".

 

[zinfamous]

*you are a baker, and a guy comes from N.A.M.B.L.A. and wants a cake that says "fucking underage boys should be legal". You making that cake?

*KKK wants a cake that says all minorities are useless and should be slaves to the mast race. You making that cake?

Do you shut down because you dont want to serve the public? None of those things are illegal by the way, and are not protected.

The test is whether or not NAMBLA or the KKK are protected classes that the law forbids private and public business to discriminate against. I would refuse to make cakes for those groups, let them know that I think their adult choices that they have made for their lives are utterly reprehensible, and then let the courts decide where the law sits if they choose to sue me.

 

[fskimospy]

There was a time when I could have a productive conversation with you. That time has passed. All you want to do it seems is to attack people.

Ironically, unlike this post what I wrote attacked your ideas, not you. (hint: that's how you have productive conversation) The idea that regulation is slavery is dumb, as I showed you. It's akin to the argument that taxation is theft.

Hell, you were even doing it to people on your "side".

It's weird that you think people's ideas should be attacked or not attacked based on what 'side' they are on as opposed to their merit.

 

[Noah Abrams]

All you want to do it seems is to attack people. Hell, you were even doing it to people on your "side".

It is unconscious self hate. He has been doing that to me for a long time too (which I mostly ignored previously). But then I asked him gently the other day if he thinks he has unconscious self-esteem issues. It was not meant to be a personal attack at all. But he responded in a way that only reinforced what I had thought. My advise to you is to look at it from his angle, his unconscious angle.

 

[fskimospy]

The test is whether or not NAMBLA or the KKK are protected classes that the law forbids private and public business to discriminate against. I would refuse to make cakes for those groups, let them know that I think their adult choices that they have made for their lives are utterly reprehensible, and then let the courts decide where the law sits if they choose to sue me.

There is no public accommodation law that exists anywhere in the United States that prohibits business owners refusing service based on their client's advocacy for child molestation or white supremacy. Any attempt to sue you for refusing service on those grounds would not only be immediately thrown out of court, the lawyers bringing the case would potentially face judicial sanctions for wasting the court's time with frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Darwin333]

you're not overtly saying "I'm refusing this work because you're gay." The person will just say "sorry I'm going on vacation on that period" or "I'm already booked for that day" to which discrimination laws won't apply.

It's kind of like how you aren't allowed to fire an employee for XYZ but if an employee does one of those things that pisses you off it is usually absurdly easy to find something that you can legally fire them for. You give me a few weeks and I can find cause to fire just about anyone, give me a little longer and I can make it ironclad beyond reproach.