SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[ImpulsE69]

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

Hey, we were founded on christian hate, but where do you think we got the idea from??

 

[pete6032]

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?

Just curious if you were a baker and a brother who wanted to marry his sister came in and asked for a wedding cake, or if a father wanted to marry his daughter, would you make them a wedding cake?

 

[theeedude]

So if another gay couple walks into the same shop, and commission issues same decision with no "mean" commentary, he has to bake the cake? What is the law? Strict Constructionists are now telling us that the law depends not on the letter of it, but on whether a judge decides that a bureaucrat said something mean somewhere in the process. It's a joke.

 

[Atreus21]

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’.

To quote (paraphrase?) Gorsuch and Thomas:

"Although public-accommodations laws generally regulate conduct, particular applications of them can burden protected speech. When a public-accommodations law "has the effect of declaring ... speech itself to be the public accommodation," the First Amendment applies with full force. In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., for example, a Massachusetts public-accommodations law ... required the sponsor of a St. Patrick's Day parade to include a parade unit of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish-Americans[. T]he Court unanimously held that the law violated the sponsor's right to free speech. Parades are "a form of expression," this Court explained, and the application of the public-accommodations law "alter[ed] the expressive content" of the parade by forcing the sponsor to add a new unit."

 

[brycejones]

To quote (paraphrase?) Gorsuch and Thomas:

"Although public-accommodations laws generally regulate conduct, particular applications of them can burden protected speech. When a public-accommodations law "has the effect of declaring ... speech itself to be the public accommodation," the First Amendment applies with full force. In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., for example, a Massachusetts public-accommodations law ... required the sponsor of a St. Patrick's Day parade to include a parade unit of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish-Americans[. T]he Court unanimously held that the law violated the sponsor's right to free speech. Parades are "a form of expression," this Court explained, and the application of the public-accommodations law "alter[ed] the expressive content" of the parade by forcing the sponsor to add a new unit."

We're discussing cakes not parades here. Maybe you can see the difference.

 

[fskimospy]

To quote (paraphrase?) Gorsuch and Thomas:

"Although public-accommodations laws generally regulate conduct, particular applications of them can burden protected speech. When a public-accommodations law "has the effect of declaring ... speech itself to be the public accommodation," the First Amendment applies with full force. In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., for example, a Massachusetts public-accommodations law ... required the sponsor of a St. Patrick's Day parade to include a parade unit of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish-Americans[. T]he Court unanimously held that the law violated the sponsor's right to free speech. Parades are "a form of expression," this Court explained, and the application of the public-accommodations law "alter[ed] the expressive content" of the parade by forcing the sponsor to add a new unit."

Sure, that's why had they been asked to decorate the cake in some way with a pro-gay message or whatever that would have violated their rights to free speech. Instead, they categorically refused to supply a cake regardless of message because of their irrational animus towards gay people. Making a cake people will eat at a wedding is no more an endorsement of that wedding than making the appetizers that are served at the cocktail hour.

It's pretty easy to see that Roberts/Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito are pushing towards a theory of law where religious people only follow the laws they want to. (see Hobby Lobby) The idea that making a cake is participating in a gay wedding is ludicrous and we all know it. What's next, will paper companies be able to refuse to provide napkins to gay people because they might be used at a gay wedding?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Hey, we were founded on christian hate, but where do you think we got the idea from??

Haters gonna hate. It's in the back of Bible, true story

 

[theeedude]

The court basically ruled that equal protection of an in force law that it did not invalidate can be taken away from gay couples simply based on comments made by a third party bureaucrat. It's an embarrassment. Democrats better reform the courts when they eliminate legislative filibuster.

 

[dainthomas]

It's pretty easy to see that Roberts/Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito are pushing towards a theory of law where religious people only follow the laws they want to. (see Hobby Lobby) The idea that making a cake is participating in a gay wedding is ludicrous and we all know it. What's next, will paper companies be able to refuse to provide napkins to gay people because they might be used at a gay wedding?

And ironically, the people who support this would be against a separate sharia law system. They can't comprehend how this would open the door for something like that.

 

[Blackjack200]

And ironically, the people who support this would be against a separate sharia law system. They can't comprehend how this would open the door for something like that.

It doesn't open the door for something like that at all. If anything, it's moving in the direction of recognizing a "Christian" theocracy, because if you think Muslims could get this kind of ruling you're out of your mind.

 

[theeedude]

What happens if a bureaucrat says something good about religion when making a decision, should legal rights of Christians be taken away based on that alone? Or is it only rights of gay people that can be invalidated by what some third party says? We are either a nation of laws, or we are not. Our SCOTUS has decided we are a nation of whatever the fvck a judge finds offensive.

 

[Atreus21]

Sure, that's why had they been asked to decorate the cake in some way with a pro-gay message or whatever that would have violated their rights to free speech. Instead, they categorically refused to supply a cake regardless of message because of their irrational animus towards gay people.

Ironic that Kennedy criticized the Colorado Commission for an irrational animus against religious people, particularly Christians.

Making a cake people will eat at a wedding is no more an endorsement of that wedding than making the appetizers that are served at the cocktail hour.

Would you say that this is just lighting, or does it send a particular message?

It's pretty easy to see that Roberts/Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito are pushing towards a theory of law where religious people only follow the laws they want to. (see Hobby Lobby) The idea that making a cake is participating in a gay wedding is ludicrous and we all know it. What's next, will paper companies be able to refuse to provide napkins to gay people because they might be used at a gay wedding?

They're pushing towards a theory of law where speech cannot be compelled under the veneer of public accommodation laws.

 

[glenn1]

So if another gay couple walks into the same shop, and commission issues same decision with no "mean" commentary, he has to bake the cake? What is the law? Strict Constructionists are now telling us that the law depends not on the letter of it, but on whether a judge decides that a bureaucrat said something mean somewhere in the process. It's a joke.

SCOTUS isn't obliged to issue an opinion ruling on the constitutionality of a law if they can resolve the case in a different way; for example lack of standing. And this is completely logical, courts don't throw out otherwise valid laws because the government errs in how it handles violators; for example a criminal conviction of theft may be vacated if evidence was improperly gathered without a warrant and yet the court doesn't throw out larceny laws because of the warrant issue. In this case the court may not throw out the ant-gay discrimination law and yet hold the commission was wrong and vacate the punishment for the baker in this case.

 

[Atreus21]

It doesn't open the door for something like that at all. If anything, it's moving in the direction of recognizing a "Christian" theocracy, because if you think Muslims could get this kind of ruling you're out of your mind.

If this had involved a Muslim baker, it never would've gone to the Colorado commission in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

Ironic that Kennedy criticized the Colorado Commission for the exact opposite - an irrational animus against religious people.

Sure, but that's relevant to the court ruling on their conduct, not to what's permissible for businesses under the law.

Would you say that this is just lighting, or does it send a particular message?

That shows support for LGBT people. Why is that relevant? There is no constitutional prohibition on the government speaking in favor of LGBT rights. Ironically there is a prohibition on government speaking in favor of Christianity but that's done pretty frequently anyway.

They're pushing towards a theory of law where speech cannot be compelled under the veneer of public accommodation laws.

No they are not, they are pushing for widespread exemptions from laws for Christians. Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with speech or public accommodation laws.

 

[fskimospy]

If this had involved a Muslim baker, it never would've gone to the Colorado commission in the first place.

Can you point to cases where Muslims are denying service to protected classes based on their religious beliefs that regulators are ignoring?

Don't pull this 'Christians are the real oppressed' nonsense. There is no religious group in the country that receives more favorable treatment from the government than Christians and everyone knows it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So if another gay couple walks into the same shop, and commission issues same decision with no "mean" commentary, he has to bake the cake? What is the law? Strict Constructionists are now telling us that the law depends not on the letter of it, but on whether a judge decides that a bureaucrat said something mean somewhere in the process. It's a joke.

That’s not what this decision means.

The bureaucrat exists to make an unbiased determination as to whether or not someone’s civil rights were violated. The bureaucrat, in saying something completely irrelevant to that determination, expressed a bias that undermines the process.

The law is clear. The joke is the alarmism around a nuanced decision

 

[Atreus21]

That shows support for LGBT people. Why is that relevant? There is no constitutional prohibition on the government speaking in favor of LGBT rights. Ironically there is a prohibition on government speaking in favor of Christianity but that's done pretty frequently anyway.

It's relevant in that it points out that the wedding cake is not just a cake, just as the rainbow lights are not simply intended for illumination.

No they are not, they are pushing for widespread exemptions from laws for Christians. Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with speech or public accommodation laws.

It seems to me the more malicious party in this contest is progressives who seek to compel Christians (particularly) to violate religious convictions or face penalties. Furthermore, I think progressives hold the whole notion of religious convictions in utter contempt, as though it's just a ruse used to superficially hide their true hateful motivations. That's why I quoted Kennedy's explicit rebuke of such hostility. It was sorely needed, and had anyone else but the man who legalized gay marriage expressed it it would've had much less meaning.

A refusal to respect a person's beliefs, an absolute certainty that someone is acting in bad faith when in fact they are not, is a very good definition of bigotry. He's citing his religion, therefore he can't possibly be serious.

Tolerance is a two-way street. The baker in this case refused other orders for cakes that ran counter to his religious convictions, to his financial detriment. I don't think tolerance is such a high price to pay for the couple who brought this case against him.

 

[theeedude]

That’s not what this decision means.
The bureaucrat exists to make an unbiased determination as to whether or not someone’s civil rights were violated. The bureaucrat, in saying something completely irrelevant to that determination, expressed a bias that undermines the process.
The law is clear. The joke is the alarmism around a nuanced decision

Saying, accurately, that religion has been used to discriminate against homosexuals and violate their civil rights in the past is irrelevant to the process of determining whether religion is being used to discriminate and violate a homosexual couple's civil rights?

 

[theeedude]

SCOTUS isn't obliged to issue an opinion ruling on the constitutionality of a law if they can resolve the case in a different way; for example lack of standing. And this is completely logical, courts don't throw out otherwise valid laws because the government errs in how it handles violators; for example a criminal conviction of theft may be vacated if evidence was improperly gathered without a warrant and yet the court doesn't throw out larceny laws because of the warrant issue. In this case the court may not throw out the ant-gay discrimination law and yet hold the commission was wrong and vacate the punishment for the baker in this case.

If the law is constitutional, then the baker is still violating it, and the court is denying the gay couple its equal protection, because someone along the way said the truth about religion, which is that it has been used to discriminate about homosexuals in the past.

 

[dainthomas]

Saying, accurately, that religion has been used to discriminate against homosexuals and violate their civil rights in the past is irrelevant to the process of determining whether religion is being used to discriminate and violate a homosexual couple's civil rights?

It is in "white Christians are like totally the most oppressed group evar" land where conservatives live.

 

[theeedude]

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.

Dred Scott was also 7/2 decision. 7/2 doesn't make it right.

 

[glenn1]

If the law is constitutional, then the baker is still violating it, and the court is denying the gay couple its equal protection, because someone along the way said the truth about religion, which is that it has been used to discriminate about homosexuals in the past.

The court can't go backwards in time to compel performance to produce a wedding cake (the ceremony already happened in 2012) and the baker has evidently stopped making wedding cakes altogether so I'm unsure how you feel "the baker is still violating it." Do you think forcing a baker to make a cake 6 years after the wedding is something the plaintiffs really care about at this point? Indeed I'm unsure what you expect SCOTUS to do at this point - the court isn't "denying the gay couple its equal protection" since that's a matter of past history at this point. The court left in place the framework for equal protection to be compelled going forward and laid out markers for how commissions can avoid sabotaging the own objectives. Different circumstances may have produced a different ruling but that's arguing counterfactuals.

 

[fskimospy]

It's relevant in that it points out that the wedding cake is not just a cake, just as the rainbow lights are not simply intended for illumination.

Rainbow lights are speech explicitly intended to show support for LGBT rights. Making a cake for a wedding no more endorses their union than supplying cocktail weenies, napkins for the drinks, or silverware. That's absurd.

It seems to me the more malicious party in this contest is progressives who seek to compel Christians (particularly) to violate religious convictions or face penalties. Furthermore, I think progressives hold the whole notion of religious convictions in utter contempt, as though it's just a ruse used to superficially hide their true hateful motivations. That's why I quoted Kennedy's explicit rebuke of such hostility. It was sorely needed, and had anyone else but the man who legalized gay marriage expressed it it would've had much less meaning.

What planet are you living on? Do you not realize that tons of progressives are religious themselves? Where do Christians get this bizarre persecution complex? It says a lot that you feel the truly aggrieved party is the one that has to abide by the same laws everyone else has to abide by and not the people singled out and refused service to because of who they are. Isn't that kind of nuts?

A refusal to respect a person's beliefs, an absolute certainty that someone is acting in bad faith when in fact they are not, is a very good definition of bigotry. He's citing his religion, therefore he can't possibly be serious.

This is a straw man. It is irrelevant if he is serious or not, he opened a business and agreed to serve the public as part of the requirements for his license. He now wants to violate that agreement and selectively serve the public. He's welcome to his religious convictions but no one's religious convictions come with an exemption from generally applicable laws. He's welcome not to make wedding cakes, he's welcome to open a stationary store, etc. What he's not welcome to do is serve some people but not others based on who they are.

Tolerance is a two-way street. The baker in this case refused other orders for cakes that ran counter to his religious convictions, to his financial detriment. I don't think tolerance is such a high price to pay for the couple who brought this case against him.

This identical reasoning could be used to discriminate against black people. Tolerance is a two way street, if someone thinks that the Sons of Ham are cursed by God with dark skin for their sinful nature and wishes no black people to be in his restaurant then I don't think it's too high a price for black people to pay to allow him to discriminate against them.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Just curious if you were a baker and a brother who wanted to marry his sister came in and asked for a wedding cake, or if a father wanted to marry his daughter, would you make them a wedding cake?

Or marry their toaster, even