SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[Starbuck1975]

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?

Assuming intent based on generalizations about religion while serving as an unbiased arbitrator is a sure way to undermine a decision. Also, cake is not a civil right.

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

The current SCOTUS is fairly ideologically balanced, and the liberal justices who sided with the majority had no compelling reason to do so. This was not a Dred Scott scenario. Just more alarmism.

 

[umbrella39]

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

Which, of course, is 100% bullshit... Stop taking everyone's tax dollars and then trying to select which taxpayers you can deny service to...

Simple math and the law of the land.

 

[MrSquished]

Also, cake is not a civil right.

Sure then neither was drinking from the same water fountain, I mean they can use their own water fountains right? Or just getting served a root beer float at any establishment you wanted to. All those sounded just as mundane back then I'm sure. But they matter.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

I'm afraid his point was correct. Referring to this as "slavery" implies that all regulations are slavery. Above, you try to equate "taking away some liberty" with "slavery" which tortures the definitional boundaries of that word beyond recognition.

 

[realibrad]

I'm afraid his point was correct. Referring to this as "slavery" implies that all regulations are slavery. Above, you try to equate "taking away some liberty" with "slavery" which tortures the definitional boundaries of that word beyond recognition.

No because some regulation prohibits you from doing something. Compelling someone to do something they do not want to do would fit.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Which, of course, is 100% bullshit... Stop taking everyone's tax dollars and then trying to select which taxpayers you can deny service to...

Simple math and the law of the land.

Haven’t read through the thread so fill me in, what tax dollars is a baker taking?

 

[woolfe9998]

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.


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.


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.

I don't think you understand his point about how the Court of Appeals heard the case de novo. When a court hears a case de novo, it means that they are treating the case as if there had been no prior rulings. They are viewing all the evidence and making their own ruling. This is in contrast to the usual status on an appeal, where they are reviewing a prior court or other legal body's decision for error. When reviewing for error in a typical appeal, an appellate court has to accept the lower court or body's factual findings, and can only overturn the ruling if there was a legal error. With a de novo review, the appellate court looks at all the evidence all over again, and determines the facts on its own. The prior ruling is irrelevant and may as well not even exist. The litigants go into it with a totally blank slate.

The legal significance of this is that it invalidates the majority's argument, which is that comments from one commissioner suggesting animus toward religion deprived the baker of his right to a neutral and impartial decision. Because he did in fact receive just that, both before and after the commission's decision. The majority's contention that these comments suggested bias on the part of the commission is the stated rationale behind the decision. Yet it makes no sense that you can look at a history of several different body's making a decision and point to some evidence suggesting bias on the part of one body is a basis to overturn the decision. The Commission's decision was reviewed de novo by an appellate court, meaning the Commission's prior decision was given no deference whatsoever, yet the Court of Appeal independently reached the same decision. Hence, the comments from this commissioner were not relevant.

 

[woolfe9998]

No because some regulation prohibits you from doing something. Compelling someone to do something they do not want to do would fit.

So if a safety regulator says, "every store or place of public accommodation must put up a sign that says 'slippery when wet' if the condition of the floor is in fact wet" that is "slavery"? I'm afraid your use of that word here is either flatly incorrect or is essentially hyperbole. I lean towards the former:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slave

1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.

The reason I don't think this is a nitpick like so many semantic disagreements tend to be is that this sort of language is often used to describe government conduct, i.e. like the notion that taxation is "theft" as Eski previously mentioned. Government gets plenty of negative press as it is, some of it even earned, without people resorting to calling every regulation that requires action an attempt to enslave people.

 

[realibrad]

So if a safety regulator says, "every store or place of public accommodation must put up a sign that says 'slippery when wet' if the condition of the floor is in fact wet" that is "slavery"? I'm afraid your use of that word here is either flatly incorrect or is essentially hyperbole. I lean towards the former:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slave

The reason I don't think this is a nitpick like so many semantic disagreements tend to be is that this sort of language is often used to describe government conduct, i.e. like the notion that taxation is "theft" as Eski previously mentioned. Government gets plenty of negative press as it is, some of it even earned, without people resorting to calling every regulation that requires action an attempt to enslave people.

My dear boy, you must look up slavery not slave.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slavery?s=t

noun

1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave
4. severe toil; drudgery.

Again, regulation such as requiring a sign is different then requiring you preform labor for someone when you do not want to. Also, you are lost if you believe that I was trying to label the government as anything. I simply presented the two arguments that had happened.

 

[Incorruptible]

fuck you, indigestible. if it was a muslim bakery not wanting to make something due to their beliefs you'd be all over them. you're so fucking transparent

Fuck you pathetic excuse for a human being, You have no respect for religious liberty and the Constitution. If it was a Muslim baker would he have the right to refuse service?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Fuck you pathetic excuse for a human being, You have no respect for religious liberty and the Constitution. If it was a Muslim baker would he have the right to refuse service?

your lack of grammatical skills has me confused as to the exact meaning of the first statement

Your first statement "Fuck you pathetic excuse for a human being" did you mean to put a comma after "Fuck" which would properly break up the sentence and you'd express some exacerbation with that structure. OR, did you forget a second "you" and a comma, thusly: "Fuck you, you pathetic excuse for a human being" which would have been probably the most succinct way to express your anger and displeasure. Either would have worked, but I feel the subtlety of the first statement is lost on you. Also probably a period between "being and You", it's not a comma kinda of place. Two independent... well they're not thoughts, so, blatherings will do.

Now, about me not having any respect for religious liberty, that's patently false, I pretty much loathe all religions, some more than others due to my direct interactions with them over my lifetime.
BUT, if it's ok for christians to do or not do something based on some work of fiction, I feel it's equally fair to let muslims, buddhists, jews, hindus, etc behave in the same exact manner, without any bullshit from you. But, since we all know how fucking transparent your motivations are, we all know you're full of shit no matter what you say.
And finally, as farr as the constitution goes, our founding fathers were wise enough to know it was a living document, that would need to be changed to adapt to the times it was in. It's not infallible and not without need for modernization. But since I'm not even a constitutional student, let alone scholar, I'll leave that to the pros.
And your last statement, little buckeroo, was the scenario I put out there for you, and you spinning it around and asking it to me, well, is typical from you, and nobody would expect any better from you.

Your pal
Sheiky.

 

[umbrella39]

Haven’t read through the thread so fill me in, what tax dollars is a baker taking?

Everyone tax dollars pays for the roads, sidewalks, etc... from their residence leading up to every business and every other thing along the way and every tax break a business gets... GYHOOYA with your semantics...

Again, you want to deny service be our guest. Just buy an island. You can pick and choose your customers...

 

[MrSquished]

My dear boy, you must look up slavery not slave.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slavery?s=t

noun

1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave
4. severe toil; drudgery.

Again, regulation such as requiring a sign is different then requiring you preform labor for someone when you do not want to. Also, you are lost if you believe that I was trying to label the government as anything. I simply presented the two arguments that had happened.

I mean regulation to put up a sign that the floor is wet is forcing you to work enough to make the money to buy the damn sign and then the constant labor to put it up and take it down. Is it slavery? If not then how do you determine what rule/law/regulation is slavery vs one not so much?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Everyone tax dollars pays for the roads, sidewalks, etc... from their residence leading up to every business and every other thing along the way and every tax break a business gets... GYHOOYA with your semantics...

Again, you want to deny service be our guest. Just buy an island. You can pick and choose your customers...

Ah ok. That logic extends to the government virtually unlimited power then.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I mean regulation to put up a sign that the floor is wet is forcing you to work enough to make the money to buy the damn sign and then the constant labor to put it up and take it down. Is it slavery? If not then how do you determine what rule/law/regulation is slavery vs one not so much?

That hair I’m sure could be split a million ways. The creation of a wedding cake - this very specific symbolic thing - is different than refusal to sell them a generic off the shelf cake. Hell even a generic off the shelf wedding cake. In this case I think the issue is forcing the creation of said symbolic thing. What if someone compelled a Muslim baker to bake a cake that’s the caricature of Muhammad for instance? Extreme example but I would think we’d all agree that they shouldn’t be compelled to do so. Same with a wedding cake for a same sex couple imo, if the baker finds it sinful and against their religion then who are we to force them to do it anyways? Doesn’t mean I agree with them but forcing them to create something they find sinful doesn’t really seem like the right thing to do.

 

[Paratus]

That hair I’m sure could be split a million ways. The creation of a wedding cake - this very specific symbolic thing - is different than refusal to sell them a generic off the shelf cake. Hell even a generic off the shelf wedding cake. In this case I think the issue is forcing the creation of said symbolic thing. What if someone compelled a Muslim baker to bake a cake that’s the caricature of Muhammad for instance? Extreme example but I would think we’d all agree that they shouldn’t be compelled to do so. Same with a wedding cake for a same sex couple imo, if the baker finds it sinful and against their religion then who are we to force them to do it anyways? Doesn’t mean I agree with them but forcing them to create something they find sinful doesn’t really seem like the right thing to do.

If he’s unable to follow the laws he agreed to when he started his business he’s shouldn’t have started his business.

The city would be better off with a business that can follow the law.

 

[UglyCasanova]

What law did he break

 

[Starbuck1975]

Sure then neither was drinking from the same water fountain, I mean they can use their own water fountains right? Or just getting served a root beer float at any establishment you wanted to. All those sounded just as mundane back then I'm sure. But they matter.

I defer to SCOTUS, they seem to understand the nuance between your analogy and what happened in this particular case.

 

[brycejones]

What law did he break

None it seems if someone says something mean to him according to Kennedy's opinion. If they were nicer it would appear he would have violated Colorado's anti-discrimination statute.

 

[Paratus]

What law did he break

Public accommodation laws that he agreed to when he received his license to open his business.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't think you understand his point about how the Court of Appeals heard the case de novo. When a court hears a case de novo, it means that they are treating the case as if there had been no prior rulings. They are viewing all the evidence and making their own ruling. This is in contrast to the usual status on an appeal, where they are reviewing a prior court or other legal body's decision for error. When reviewing for error in a typical appeal, an appellate court has to accept the lower court or body's factual findings, and can only overturn the ruling if there was a legal error. With a de novo review, the appellate court looks at all the evidence all over again, and determines the facts on its own. The prior ruling is irrelevant and may as well not even exist. The litigants go into it with a totally blank slate.

The legal significance of this is that it invalidates the majority's argument, which is that comments from one commissioner suggesting animus toward religion deprived the baker of his right to a neutral and impartial decision. Because he did in fact receive just that, both before and after the commission's decision. The majority's contention that these comments suggested bias on the part of the commission is the stated rationale behind the decision. Yet it makes no sense that you can look at a history of several different body's making a decision and point to some evidence suggesting bias on the part of one body is a basis to overturn the decision. The Commission's decision was reviewed de novo by an appellate court, meaning the Commission's prior decision was given no deference whatsoever, yet the Court of Appeal independently reached the same decision. Hence, the comments from this commissioner were not relevant.

I appreciate you writing all of this. I am not a lawyer and often find the intricate web of legal maneuvering unecessarily complex. I can only point to what legal experts write as a gauge.

What I am reading is that this decision wasn’t really a victory for anyone, but that there is a lot of nuance to read between the lines.

 

[fskimospy]

That hair I’m sure could be split a million ways. The creation of a wedding cake - this very specific symbolic thing - is different than refusal to sell them a generic off the shelf cake. Hell even a generic off the shelf wedding cake. In this case I think the issue is forcing the creation of said symbolic thing. What if someone compelled a Muslim baker to bake a cake that’s the caricature of Muhammad for instance? Extreme example but I would think we’d all agree that they shouldn’t be compelled to do so. Same with a wedding cake for a same sex couple imo, if the baker finds it sinful and against their religion then who are we to force them to do it anyways? Doesn’t mean I agree with them but forcing them to create something they find sinful doesn’t really seem like the right thing to do.

People thought that serving black people and white people in the same place wasn’t the right thing to do. Was it wrong to force them to do so?

Creating a cake in the image of Muhammad would be an artistic expression that’s protected by the first amendment. Simply creating a cake, any cake, is not artistic expression.

 

[umbrella39]

And this guy just won't go away, how much has he made through fundraising efforts already... Yet another Christian victim...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/politics/masterpiece-cakeshop-colorado-governor-lawsuit/index.html

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner sues Colorado governor, claiming religious 'persecution'

 

[zinfamous]

Hey, White Male Christians can't be the real victims if they aren't out publicly, loudly, and hilariously claiming it so!

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, he was asked to bake a cake that's blue on the outside and pink on the inside, and refused on "religious" grounds because Jesus obviously was against mismatched cake colors.