SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[Darwin333]

On topic, part of my almost wishes that the ruling would have gone farther just so I could see the same conservatives in here with their heads spinning when a Muslims started using the ruling.

 

[Noah Abrams]

On topic, part of my almost wishes that the ruling would have gone farther just so I could see the same conservatives in here with their heads spinning when a Muslims started using the ruling.

All hell would break loose in the country if a Muslim did something like this. Already we are told that Shariah law is encroaching on the country's laws. That we need to fight it tooth and nail. The wails and howls of the right would reach up to the farthest galaxies

Ah..the never ending hypocrisy in this country. It is not hard to see almost no one has any principles, only prejudices. The ones who do have principles, the rare few, are not popular or powerful. And being principled in the reason for that. Lowest common denominator is perhaps another name for modern democracy

 

[ivwshane]

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".

I think the issue stems from your incorrect use of the term slavery. Being paid for your product (at a rate that you set, no less), is not in any shape or a form of slavery.

I'd tell you to find a different word but then your whole argument would fall apart and that's kind of the point

 

[zinfamous]

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.

yeah, but I want realibrad to address why he thinks that comparing homosexuals as a group to organized child molesters and white supremacists is a proper analogy. Surely, he must think there is some sort of similarity in these groups?

 

[realibrad]

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.

But you are side stepping the issue there. I know you and I both agree that there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, but there are people that believe being gay is horribly immoral. I have no problems with calling those people idiots, but, this is the position they find themselves in.

I think where I sit on this, is, if I now know that this baker has bigoted ideas then I would not do business there, and others would likely not as well. We far too often rely on the state to try and force us to be good which is sometimes needed, but real growth in society comes when it decides to become better.

 

[realibrad]

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.

I think ill just pass. Him and I were not friends, but I know I respected him and he said equally as much about me. I don't pretend to know him on any level to be able to say if he ever was what I thought, and its not really an important thing in either of our lives in terms of my view of him. Things come and things go. Its a tech forum where I talk to people about politics.

 

[ivwshane]

But you are side stepping the issue there. I know you and I both agree that there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, but there are people that believe being gay is horribly immoral. I have no problems with calling those people idiots, but, this is the position they find themselves in.

I think where I sit on this, is, if I now know that this baker has bigoted ideas then I would not do business there, and others would likely not as well. We far too often rely on the state to try and force us to be good which is sometimes needed, but real growth in society comes when it decides to become better.

In theory you'd be correct but history tells us that you are wrong and that government does indeed need to step in.

The reality of your opinion is that there are places where bigoted views were not the minority and it led to policies that negatively impacted people and it no longer became a matter of simply taking your business elsewhere.

I think your faith in society is misplaced.

 

[realibrad]

yeah, but I want realibrad to address why he thinks that comparing homosexuals as a group to organized child molesters and white supremacists is a proper analogy. Surely, he must think there is some sort of similarity in these groups?

There is only insofar as many Christians see being a homosexual as equal. It seems like you are trying to give me the benefit of the doubt, and if that's true thank you.

I was trying to give the perspective of their position.

In no way is being gay bad.

 

[realibrad]

In theory you'd be correct but history tells us that you are wrong and that government does indeed need to step in.

The reality of your opinion is that there are places where bigoted views were not the minority and it led to policies that negatively impacted people and it no longer became a matter of simply taking your business elsewhere.

I think your faith in society is misplaced.

I think you missed the part where I said sometimes the state is needed when dealing with things in terms of morality. I just feel that its used too often when we as a society need to internalize it.

As for having too much faith in society... I disagree. Generally people come to the right side on their own. The majority of people end up trying to do the right thing. Further, if society does not fix its problems, the state which is empowered by society surly will have little effect in the long run.

But, make no mistake, I am not saying the state plays no positive role in things like this. I just think people need to take more ownership of society and stop expecting others to cause the change they want. People need to live the change they want to see.

 

[realibrad]

I think the issue stems from your incorrect use of the term slavery. Being paid for your product (at a rate that you set, no less), is not in any shape or a form of slavery.

I'd tell you to find a different word but then your whole argument would fall apart and that's kind of the point

Slaves were given compensation in the US. As for a rate you set, if you tried to jack up the price that too would be discrimination too and that rate would be adjusted. So it still fits in terms of the argument made.

 

[sportage]

Yeah this is funny.
Anti-gay righties will assume they can deny cakes for gay weddings, and they will be wrong.
And I can just hear that cake maker saying "BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT, THE COURT SAID I CAN REFUSE."
And someone will have to tell the baker, NO, THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE RULING SAID.
This is just starting to get interesting.....

 

[ivwshane]

Slaves were given compensation in the US. As for a rate you set, if you tried to jack up the price that too would be discrimination too and that rate would be adjusted. So it still fits in terms of the argument made.

Sorry no. Slavery has a very specific meaning and compensation as in room and board on a property you are not freely able to leave is not compensation, its required maintenance. Compensation is paying someone for their time and labor on the open market. Slaves were not free to choose who their masters were or leave to find a better master therefore the value of their labor was not determined by the market.

I'm not following what your point is about price discrimination as its not related to the topic at hand.

 

[realibrad]

Sorry no. Slavery has a very specific meaning and compensation as in room and board on a property you are not freely able to leave is not compensation, its required maintenance. Compensation is paying someone for their time and labor on the open market. Slaves were not free to choose who their masters were or leave to find a better master therefore the value of their labor was not determined by the market.

I'm not following what your point is about price discrimination as its not related to the topic at hand.

I think you believe that the definition of slavery is the type of slavery known during the civil war. That was one type of slavery (probably the worst), but its not the definition. Slavery as a term is much broader than that. I understand that in this context its at the very line of the spectrum, but its still right inside even if just barely.

But, I don't want to get bogged down in the definition.

As for the price part, you said he was getting paid at a rate he agreed upon, and, its not like custom cakes are at a flat rate.


Either way, the guy is an idiot for having such beliefs, but, as I said before I would rather the state not be involved and let society grow out of this type of stupid beliefs. I think people are far more accepting of homosexuality than they were of equal rights during the Civil Rights Era. I think we would be far better off letting society correct itself here. I could be utterly wrong and the state could have to step in, but, I feel like we have turned the corner on this and the momentum is on our side for progress.

 

[ivwshane]

I think you believe that the definition of slavery is the type of slavery known during the civil war. That was one type of slavery (probably the worst), but its not the definition. Slavery as a term is much broader than that. I understand that in this context its at the very line of the spectrum, but its still right inside even if just barely.

But, I don't want to get bogged down in the definition.

As for the price part, you said he was getting paid at a rate he agreed upon, and, its not like custom cakes are at a flat rate.


Either way, the guy is an idiot for having such beliefs, but, as I said before I would rather the state not be involved and let society grow out of this type of stupid beliefs. I think people are far more accepting of homosexuality than they were of equal rights during the Civil Rights Era. I think we would be far better off letting society correct itself here. I could be utterly wrong and the state could have to step in, but, I feel like we have turned the corner on this and the momentum is on our side for progress.

Pre trump I might have agreed. I'm not so sure right now.

 

[MrSquished]

On topic, part of my almost wishes that the ruling would have gone farther just so I could see the same conservatives in here with their heads spinning when a Muslims started using the ruling.

nah what would be great is if a muslim baker brought the same type of case up to the supreme court and lost definitively

I think you believe that the definition of slavery is the type of slavery known during the civil war. That was one type of slavery (probably the worst), but its not the definition. Slavery as a term is much broader than that. I understand that in this context its at the very line of the spectrum, but its still right inside even if just barely.

But, I don't want to get bogged down in the definition.

As for the price part, you said he was getting paid at a rate he agreed upon, and, its not like custom cakes are at a flat rate.


Either way, the guy is an idiot for having such beliefs, but, as I said before I would rather the state not be involved and let society grow out of this type of stupid beliefs. I think people are far more accepting of homosexuality than they were of equal rights during the Civil Rights Era. I think we would be far better off letting society correct itself here. I could be utterly wrong and the state could have to step in, but, I feel like we have turned the corner on this and the momentum is on our side for progress.

I think with the election of Trump those who would discriminate based upon these protected classes are now far more 'enthused', to put it lightly. We were trending in the right direction, I mean it was glorious - but it turns out Obama came two to three decades too early. The blowback from his 8 year term has been stunning. Look where we are now. The corner we turned was the one in the wrong direction.

 

[realibrad]

Pre trump I might have agreed. I'm not so sure right now.

I think Trump won due to a big part of stupid people, but, It's also from a movement of people wanting use the state to enforce their morals on people. That is an incredibly simple way of trying to explain it, but I think you understand.

Remember though, Trump did not get the popular vote.

 

[1prophet]

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.

Why is his interpretation of his sky-fairy religion wrong and your interpretation right?

 

[Paratus]

@realibrad

I think where you and I differ on this topic, (and what I believe Fski Is trying to get at), is the cake shops owners responsibility to follow the laws he agreed to at the time the business started vs any government infringement on his 1st amendment rights.

In any city or town, there are limited locations for businesses so most places require licensing. Licensing means abiding by the laws required to gain those licenses.

Local and state governments cannot discriminate against citizens so for public facing business licenses they cannot hand them out to those who would discriminate.

If they could a local government who shows to discriminate would simply hand out business licenses to those would discriminate against the desired minority.

So if the government hypothetically had a choice between one potential business owner who agrees to follow the law and one who doesn’t, the former should be given the license.

In this case my view is the owner of the cake shop violated the laws he agreed too when he opened his shop. I don’t feel that it’s acceptable to allow an American citizen to enter into an agreement, obtain something of value, (a business license), and then renege on their part of the agreement by citing deeply held religious beliefs.

If the bakers deeply held religious beliefs preclude him from following a law he should not have agreed to follow the law in the first place.

 

[Starbuck1975]

They chickened out on making the ruling they wanted to make, because they know it's a lost cause. The two liberals were nice enough to give them a fig leaf so they could punt it.

They didn’t need the liberal justices to do anything. The conservative majority could have made a sweeping decision in favor of religion, putting major wind in the sails of evangelicals heading into the midterms.

Instead, they gave a slap to an oversight organization that overstepped its mandate. Two liberal judges sides with what was the right decision.

I am sorry the conservative justices didn’t feed the authoritarian narrative.

 

[OutHouse]

Two liberal judges sides with what was the right decision.

in your opinion....

 

[MrSquished]

I think Trump won due to a big part of stupid people, but, It's also from a movement of people wanting use the state to enforce their morals on people. That is an incredibly simple way of trying to explain it, but I think you understand.

Remember though, Trump did not get the popular vote.

That's exactly the problem. This movement's members, while they didn't win the popular vote, still won the presidency. And that is one of their goals, to discriminate - based on sexual orientation and race, and on a deeper level class, even if it's their own class, but that gets complicated. Let's just leave it at they want to discriminate against the gays and the black and brown people. So that's why I don't think I trust this society to make these kind of rulings all by itself. It will need the prodding of the stat now that we have taken a major step backward.

 

[Starbuck1975]

in your opinion....

Technically it was in their opinion

 

[realibrad]

@realibrad

I think where you and I differ on this topic, (and what I believe Fski Is trying to get at), is the cake shops owners responsibility to follow the laws he agreed to at the time the business started vs any government infringement on his 1st amendment rights.

In any city or town, there are limited locations for businesses so most places require licensing. Licensing means abiding by the laws required to gain those licenses.

Local and state governments cannot discriminate against citizens so for public facing business licenses they cannot hand them out to those who would discriminate.

If they could a local government who shows to discriminate would simply hand out business licenses to those would discriminate against the desired minority.

So if the government hypothetically had a choice between one potential business owner who agrees to follow the law and one who doesn’t, the former should be given the license.

In this case my view is the owner of the cake shop violated the laws he agreed too when he opened his shop. I don’t feel that it’s acceptable to allow an American citizen to enter into an agreement, obtain something of value, (a business license), and then renege on their part of the agreement by citing deeply held religious beliefs.

If the bakers deeply held religious beliefs preclude him from following a law he should not have agreed to follow the law in the first place.

Except he did not break the law right? As of right now homosexuality is not a protected class. I am purposely keeping the discussion in the moral arena for that reason.

Thus the baker is morally wrong to hold his views and society should work on dealing with this. Depending on the state will grant those discriminated in the short run, but society well benefit more if we don't use the state.

 

[MrSquished]

Except he did not break the law right? As of right now homosexuality is not a protected class. I am purposely keeping the discussion in the moral arena for that reason.

Thus the baker is morally wrong to hold his views and society should work on dealing with this. Depending on the state will grant those discriminated in the short run, but society well benefit more if we don't use the state.

That may not be the case. This will make its way up to the Supreme Court where it will probably get shot down, but for now...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/appeals-court-homosexuality-is-a-protected-class-like-race-and-sex

"
NEW YORK, February 26, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a law prohibiting discrimination based on one’s sex also applies to “sexual orientation.”

The case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., was over whether homosexuality is a protected class under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

 

[realibrad]

That's exactly the problem. This movement's members, while they didn't win the popular vote, still won the presidency. And that is one of their goals, to discriminate - based on sexual orientation and race, and on a deeper level class, even if it's their own class, but that gets complicated. Let's just leave it at they want to discriminate against the gays and the black and brown people. So that's why I don't think I trust this society to make these kind of rulings all by itself. It will need the prodding of the stat now that we have taken a major step backward.

But society at large is not dealing with this when it's handed off to the state. They are making others fight their battles. When one side loses, it's not because they were wrong, but because either their party failed or the other party was so devious and did anything to win.