SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[UglyCasanova]

Are you guys really struggling with what he meant?

I mean, no. I get what he meant, it’s just bs. Sadly I think he might actually believe it to be true though.

 

[fskimospy]

I mean, no. I get what he meant, it’s just bs. Sadly I think he might actually believe it to be true though.

You are in fact struggling with what I meant then, haha.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Back to the topic I’m an atheist and find all religion to be backwards and incompatible with modern society, this is one of those times. I don’t think someone should have to create a wedding cake if it goes against their backwards beliefs though. If they refused to sell the gay couple a generic cake that would be one thing, but refusing to create a very symbolic cake used in a celebration of something they are religiously opposed to is quite different.

Easy answer is just go get your cake elsewhere to someplace that wants your money, give them the business. Everybody wants to be a warrior though.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You are in fact struggling with what I meant then, haha.

The person you quoted said that people find ways to hide their bigotry through less blatant means. You then responded that blacks still have trouble being seated at restaurants in the south, as if the place all of the sudden becomes too full or something else used to hide their bigotry but effectively refusing service. What am I struggling with.

 

[fskimospy]

The person you quoted said that people find ways to hide their bigotry through less blatant means. You then responded that blacks still have trouble being seated at restaurants in the south, as if the place all of the sudden becomes to full or something else used to hide their bigotry but effectively refusing service. What am I struggling with.

That the sarcasm in my post was not only incredibly obvious, I even I directly stated as much a few posts later:

Oh, I was being sarcastic. Public accommodation laws, while not perfect, have been broadly effective in curbing this sort of discrimination.

I mean come on, guys.

 

[ivwshane]

The person you quoted said that people find ways to hide their bigotry through less blatant means. You then responded that blacks still have trouble being seated at restaurants in the south, as if the place all of the sudden becomes too full or something else used to hide their bigotry but effectively refusing service. What am I struggling with.

So do you agree or disagree with his point? Whether or not that particular thing happens is immaterial to the point being made.

So when you ask if he believes it, what part of his point are you struggling with?

 

[UglyCasanova]

I’m not sure he actually had a point. He claimed something that doesn’t happen, so what is there to agree or disagree with.

 

[brycejones]

I’m not sure he actually had a point. He claimed something that doesn’t happen, so what is there to agree or disagree with.

Lordy

 

[Starbuck1975]

They chickened out because the country wouldn't accept a decision that allowed discrimination against gays while hiding behind religion. And they'll chicken out on abortion too, because promising bullshit to evangelicals is a whole lot easier than taking heat for its consequences.

Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Unfortunately for you, no reputable news sources are framing it this way, and if anything, the justices struck a reasonable balance in their decision. That Kennedy wrote the majority opinion is icing on the cake, pun intended.

 

[realibrad]

I have thought about it. The fact that the baker would in other circumstances be ‘equally’ discriminatory doesn’t change the unequal treatment I outlined above. So I do not find your position compelling.

I’ve spelled out my position and provided the logic behind it.

I don’t think SCOTUS missed anything. Quite the contrary. I think the 7-2 decision shows they deliberately chose to avoid making a broad ruling either against or for the baker. This was basically a political statement by the court that they wanted to leave this mess to the states and lower courts for the time being.

I find your unwillingness to admit you are wrong telling. It is not sex discrimination. If it had been then the judges would have said the baker had discriminated. They instead said that because gay marriage was not yet the law of the land that legally discrimination. Sex discrimination was the law of the land, but, you just think they ignored that.

I wish they had made a broader ruling but they did not. That does not change anything in terms of your position.

 

[fskimospy]

I’m not sure he actually had a point. He claimed something that doesn’t happen, so what is there to agree or disagree with.

You clearly commented on my post without reading the thread so you could just say that, haha.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good to know that Christian hate is supported by the government. Kudos to you, USA.

 

[glenn1]

The person you quoted said that people find ways to hide their bigotry through less blatant means. You then responded that blacks still have trouble being seated at restaurants in the south, as if the place all of the sudden becomes too full or something else used to hide their bigotry but effectively refusing service. What am I struggling with.

He's conflating two very different use cases of discrimination. The one he's citing relatively good success for is equal accommodation laws which do effectively curb discrimination that can't possibly be hidden such as at a restaurant - unsurprisingly since you can't really tell a black couple "we can't serve you" when they can plainly see dozens of unoccupied tables in the café. He seems to be implying that model would fit something like taking an advance order for a wedding cake, which IMHO will much more closely mirror other future point-in-time types of transactions where discrimination can be disguised quite a bit easier than the equal accommodation use case he's pointing to. How well have Equal Opportunity laws been at curbing discrimination when the good or service isn't being immediately rendered, for example discrimination for hiring, housing, lending, et cetera? In those cases you can't point to the café full of open tables and it's pretty easy to develop a business rationale to justify a decision which is effectively discriminatory but is couched in a reasonable sounding objection - see my prior examples of "sorry, I can't accommodate your same-sex wedding cake order since I'm going on vacation that month" with the unsaid part being "a vacation which I decided to take five seconds ago when you told me when your planned wedding is." The café owner can't realistically use the same option and say "sorry but I can't serve you as I'm going on vacation" the moment a gay couple walks in. Unless the baker has premade wedding cakes ready to sell on demand I can't see how you can effectively force them to accept a future order to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. It's tragic and immoral for people to do that but it happens all the time. One would hope the Golden Rule would be applied by Christians but it seems like that is very much conditional with lots of caveated exceptions in practice.

 

[lopri]

Thomas and Gorsuch would gut nation's (states and federal) public accommodation laws at the first chance they get. I do not know how Gorsuch joined with a straight face the Kennedy opinion that reaffirmed the validity of public accommodation laws while joining Thomas' opinion. Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence for himself and Alito. So he signed onto 3 different opinions with different dispositions in a single case.

 

[lopri]

The baker had no problem serving gay clients, as he had served them in the past. He wished not to be part of a gay wedding.

The record is mixed on that front. There is an evidence that he also refused to bake for a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony(not marriage). Besides, if it's wedding that he has issue with, what about wedding anniversary? Or adoption/baby-shower, birthday celebration of same-sex couple's children?

 

[fskimospy]

The record is mixed on that front. There is an evidence that he also refused to bake for a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony(not marriage). Besides, if it's wedding that he has issue with, what about wedding anniversary? Or adoption/baby-shower, birthday celebration of same-sex couple's children?

It’s also irrelevant. You cannot get around public accommodation laws by selectively providing services. For example it would be illegal to say ‘we serve black people at our restaurant but only in the back room’.

 

[lopri]

This ruling has very little to do with free speech or religious freedom.

It has everything to do with flaws in the proceedings presided by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is why the ruling is so narrow.

Correct. Although it is questionable (to say the least) to call the proceeding biased or improper, when:

1. There is nothing disrespectful about the commissioner's statement about those who use religion to oppress (hello, Al-Qaeda). He simply recounted what is common knowledge about some who attempted to use God's authority to justify discrimination and persecution.
2. The commission is a 7-member board and the "disrespectful" comment was made by one of them.
3. The case went through multi-tiered review process, including Colorado court of appeals as well as Colorado Supreme Court, which considered the case de-novo. (that is, without consideration of the Commission's prior determination)

 

[brycejones]

Correct. Although it is questionable (to say the least) to call the proceeding biased or improper, when:

1. There is nothing disrespectful about the commissioner's statement about those who use religion to oppress (hello, Al-Qaeda). He simply recounted what is common knowledge about some who attempted to use God's authority to justify discrimination and persecution.
2. The commission is a 7-member board and the "disrespectful" comment was made by one of them.
3. The case went through multi-tiered review process, including Colorado court of appeals as well as Colorado Supreme Court, which considered the case de-novo. (that is, without consideration of the Commission's prior determination)

This was a tough case for Kennedy since it does touch on two areas he really seems to care about as a jurist and he punted and the majority went along with him. Its obvious he couldn't really decide which way to go on a broader precedent.

 

[Paratus]

I find your unwillingness to admit you are wrong telling.

I’m not sure what you find telling other than you have not convinced me I’m wrong.

It is not sex discrimination. If it had been then the judges would have said the baker had discriminated.

It is sex discrimination and the federal government (EEOC) and other courts have argeed that sex discrimination is fundamental to sexual orientation discrimination

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ion-based-on-sexual-orientation-idUSKCN1GA201

They instead said that because gay marriage was not yet the law of the land that legally discrimination.

However, according to wiki, sex discrimination AND sexual orientation discrimination was illegal in Colorado at the time.

Sex discrimination was the law of the land, but, you just think they ignored that.

I specifically said they didn’t ignore it. I said they avoided making a broad ruling.

If I had to guess I’d say Kennedy who has defended religious freedom in the past refused to allow a broad judgement protecting the customers but infringing the cake shop owner. Kennedy was also the critical vote in affirming gay marriage so he probably also wasn’t willing to support a broad ruling that would treat them as second class citizens.

If Kennedy refused to support either potential broad ruling we were left with what we got, this extremely narrow ruling supporting the owner and castigating the Colorado commission for not taking his religious objections impartially but then stating religious objections do not allow protected classes to be denied equal access to goods and services.

I wish they had made a broader ruling but they did not. That does not change anything in terms of your position.

I too wish they had chosen a broader ruling. And no the ruling doesn’t change my position especially since they specifically avoided addressing it.

Now I would appreciate it if you would address what you think I’m wrong about because I’m not seeing it.

Was it that you think sexual orientation discrimination is fundamentally separate from sex discrimination or that in 2012 sexual orientation discrimination laws were not in effect?

 

[deathBOB]

*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.

Racists and pedophiles aren’t protected by state anti discrimination statutes like the one at issue here, so no that wouldn’t be a problem. And they aren’t protected classes because being a racist or a pedophile isn’t an inherent and unchangeable characteristic.

I’m not aware that the message is an issue in this case, just that he won’t make one for a homosexual couple because that would be some kind of participation in their marriage.

 

[realibrad]

I’m not sure what you find telling other than you have not convinced me I’m wrong.



It is sex discrimination and the federal government (EEOC) and other courts have argeed that sex discrimination is fundamental to sexual orientation discrimination

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ion-based-on-sexual-orientation-idUSKCN1GA201



However, according to wiki, sex discrimination AND sexual orientation discrimination was illegal in Colorado at the time.



I specifically said they didn’t ignore it. I said they avoided making a broad ruling.

If I had to guess I’d say Kennedy who has defended religious freedom in the past refused to allow a broad judgement protecting the customers but infringing the cake shop owner. Kennedy was also the critical vote in affirming gay marriage so he probably also wasn’t willing to support a broad ruling that would treat them as second class citizens.

If Kennedy refused to support either potential broad ruling we were left with what we got, this extremely narrow ruling supporting the owner and castigating the Colorado commission for not taking his religious objections impartially but then stating religious objections do not allow protected classes to be denied equal access to goods and services.



I too wish they had chosen a broader ruling. And no the ruling doesn’t change my position especially since they specifically avoided addressing it.

Now I would appreciate it if you would address what you think I’m wrong about because I’m not seeing it.

Was it that you think sexual orientation discrimination is fundamentally separate from sex discrimination or that in 2012 sexual orientation discrimination laws were not in effect?

Again, at the federal level there are no such protections for homosexuals.

A U.S. appeals court in Manhattan on Monday ruled that a federal law banning sex bias in the workplace also prohibits discrimination against gay employees, becoming only the second court to do so.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female)* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

Why would the court not find discrimination if you believe it was so clearly discrimination? Were they so stupid as to miss that there was sexual discrimination, or, do they believe there is a difference between sexual orientation and sex? Gender is not sex and sex is the protected class. So I must ask you, why are you using those things interchangeably here?

 

[realibrad]

Racists and pedophiles aren’t protected by state anti discrimination statutes like the one at issue here, so no that wouldn’t be a problem. And they aren’t protected classes because being a racist or a pedophile isn’t an inherent and unchangeable characteristic.

I’m not aware that the message is an issue in this case, just that he won’t make one for a homosexual couple because that would be some kind of participation in their marriage.

Being a pedophile is inherent and unchangeable. Show me one study that says that pedophilia is something that can be treated and cured. If you do look it up, you will find no such study as its generally accepted that as of right now there seems to be no way to convert people. Racism sure, but not pedophilia.

The point was that businesses will discriminate and there is nothing inherently wrong with it, but that it can be wrong depending. The baker did not break the law and so by your definition did nothing wrong. I am arguing from a moral position and say that he did something wrong, just not illegal.

 

[theeedude]

Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Unfortunately for you, no reputable news sources are framing it this way, and if anything, the justices struck a reasonable balance in their decision. That Kennedy wrote the majority opinion is icing on the cake, pun intended.

Kennedy couldn't reconcile non-discrimination vs so called freedom of religion to exempt itself from laws that apply to everyone else. So he punted and left the important question unresolved. Insted he focused on "feelings," that he didn't like what a comissioner said. This is right wing dogma hitting reality, and reverting to it's comfort zone of never ending grievance and offense.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Correct. Although it is questionable (to say the least) to call the proceeding biased or improper, when:

1. There is nothing disrespectful about the commissioner's statement about those who use religion to oppress (hello, Al-Qaeda). He simply recounted what is common knowledge about some who attempted to use God's authority to justify discrimination and persecution.

It is not common knowledge and very much open to discussion. On one end of the spectrum, there is no compelling argument to deny basic services to a protected class. On the other end of the spectrum, the government cannot compel citizens to endorse something that contradicts their religious convictions. The baker in this case was willing to sell the couple baked goods, he was not willing to produce something that endorses gay marriage. The nuance while small is a collision of two liberties.

2. The commission is a 7-member board and the "disrespectful" comment was made by one of them.

All it takes is one bad apple to taint a decision. That one felt comfortable enough to make sweeping generalizations around religion is enough to bring the commission under scrutiny.

3. The case went through multi-tiered review process, including Colorado court of appeals as well as Colorado Supreme Court, which considered the case de-novo. (that is, without consideration of the Commission's prior determination)

Yes it did, and the baker has every right to appeal those decisions, with the buck ultimately stopping at SCOTUS.

If this was a 5/4 partisan split decision, I would perhaps question the ruling, but it was a 7/2 decision and I thought a very nuanced way to handle the case, and quite appropriate for Kennedy to be the justice to write the majority decision.

 

[theeedude]

It was a 7 to 2 non-decision. What are lower courts to do with it? Try to decide if all bureaucrats were nice enough to religious people when telling them that they have to obey the law like everyone else? And if some bureaucrat said something "mean" along the way, the law is irrelevant? That's arbitrary and capricious way to run a legal system, ripe for abuse. In Russia they have a law against "offending feelings of believers", mostly used by the government to silence political opponents. And now our SCOTUS is starting to establish offended feelings as more important than substance of the law.