SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,508
17,002
136
Yep you sure got me, after you hire and spend several thousands on a lawyer and months of time, eventually I might be forced to make a $50 cake for you long after your event has taken place. Presuming the jury agrees with you. That will really learn me if you were to do that.

Lol you think discrimination suites cost $50 if one loses?

Why you are just an adorable little bigot!
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Yep, because all the banks who redline and refuse loans to minorities today are consistently having people "take all their stuff." Must be why they have such large buildings in every city. And obviously the Masterpiece cakeshop owner had all his stuff taken and doesn't even have a store to sell baked goods anymore also.
You misunderstand. This is about you personally.

All the people you fear are going to come and take all your stuff.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Not at all like that. I mean they're going to come to your house and take your stuff.

I highly doubt some LBGTQ person is going to come to my house and take my stuff, although I'll be happy to share my closet with them in case they like rocking my style.

 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
I highly doubt some LBGTQ person is going to come to my house and take my stuff, although I'll be happy to share my closet with them in case they like rocking my style.

I know they're not the only out-group you are afraid of.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Yep you sure got me, after you hire and spend several thousands on a lawyer and months of time, eventually I might be forced to make a $50 cake for you long after your event has taken place. Presuming the jury agrees with you. That will really learn me if you were to do that.

Uhmm, that's not how it works. I would make a complaint to the government and the government goes after you, it doesn't cost me a dime! So yeah, I get to sit around and even if the jury agrees with you you're still out thousands for lawyers. And then yes, if you haven't gone out of business from legal fees you'll make me that cake, haha.

Again it's kind of amazing you have such strong opinions about this when it's obvious you have no idea how any of it works.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Perhaps but beside the point. The left wants to basically decide after the fact whether refusing to provide a cake is lawful or not based upon the "artistic expression" rationale. If you told me that you wanted a pink cake with blue icing for a little girl and refused to do so because it offended your artistic sensibilities you could, but if it's later found out that little girl was a transgender and the cake colors had deeper meaning to them signifying their gender transition then you could be forced under penalty of law to make that cake. I refuse to believe that "thoughtcrime" could be the basis for legal decisions.
That's a perverse way of looking at it. His artistic sensibilities weren't offended, he himself admits that he refused do make the cake because it was transgender person asking for one.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Do you feel same way about Youtube and Twitter banning conservatives?

It's about consistency. If they can ban conservatives then there shouldn't be any complaining when someone else bans a progressive and their status as a protected class shouldn't matter. That's why this whole thing is a pointless exercise anyway, once folks who are inclined to discriminate figure out the "legally correct" way to discriminate they'll just switch to doing that and presumably with the blessing of folks like @fskimospy You just need to wrap your bigotry in a plausible sounding excuse about how what you "really" object to (*cough cough*) is the content you're being asked to express and not that you're gay/black/whatever. Or they'll just conveniently "be on vacation that day" or any one of a thousand other reasons. It's not about stopping discrimination in any practical sense, it's just about forcing those who would discriminate to lie about why they're discriminating. I'd much prefer to just have the discrimination out in the open rather than be exercised in stealth mode where you have less recourse to fight it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
It's about consistency. If they can ban conservatives then there shouldn't be any complaining when someone else bans a progressive and their status as a protected class shouldn't matter.

What do you mean 'status as a protected class'? That's not a thing. Like for example you realize 'being black' is not a protected class and that all Americans have identical protections against discrimination based on race, right?

Every private business can discriminate against someone based on their conduct because conduct is not protected under public accommodation laws. If any business wants to kick someone out for acting shitty that's their choice. Same thing if Twitter tomorrow wants to ban all conservatives. If some other company wanted to ban all progressives they are free to do so as well! After all we should always judge people on what they DO, not what they were born as. It's an affirmatively positive thing!

That's why this whole thing is a pointless exercise anyway, once folks who are inclined to discriminate figure out the "legally correct" way to discriminate they'll just switch to doing that and presumably with the blessing of folks like @fskimospy You just need to wrap your bigotry in a plausible sounding excuse about how what you "really" object to (*cough cough*) is the content you're being asked to express and not that you're gay/black/whatever. Or they'll just conveniently "be on vacation that day" or any one of a thousand other reasons.

Like I said before (and like you had no answer to), this strategy of yours relies on the courts being staffed entirely with morons who can't tell the difference. You realize that everyone who loses these judgments does exactly what you suggest, tries to come up with an innocent excuse. Sometimes it works, but a lot of the time it doesn't.

It's not about stopping discrimination in any practical sense, it's just about forcing those who would discriminate to lie about why they're discriminating. I'd much prefer to just have the discrimination out in the open rather than be exercised in stealth mode where you have less recourse to fight it.

Yes, because we all know public accommodation laws were totally ineffective in combating segregation in public businesses in the south. Wait what.

Again I have to ask why you seem to have such strong opinions about an issue you clearly know absolutely nothing about. I'm not even talking about how we disagree but you seem to have a large number of basic facts wrong. For example you thought that the complainant was the one that had to shoulder the legal burden of bringing a case when it is in fact the state. You thought people could get around it by refusing service to someone's parents instead of the child. You appear to think some people are part of 'protected classes' instead of understanding those 'classes' are attributes that all humans share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,866
3,297
136
This is a big fuck you to the leftist scum, It's his business and he decides who he serves.

Oh really?


lol, looks like the real scumbag can't discriminate so easily.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,039
136
Oh really?


lol, looks like the real scumbag can't discriminate so easily.


Is there any reason why this won't again go to the Supreme Court (which is of course now even more partisan far-right than it was when this thread started)?
Quite amusing how the US got rid of a monarch in order to replace it with a panel of 9 monarchs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,820
136
Oh really?


lol, looks like the real scumbag can't discriminate so easily.

There's not really such a thing as karma, but if there was...

As it is, something tells me Incorruptible isn't coming back (if he wasn't permanently banned). He was that angry breed of hard-right conservative that's particularly scary, the sort who's one conspiracy video away from a rampage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Is there any reason why this won't again go to the Supreme Court (which is of course now even more partisan far-right than it was when this thread started)?
Quite amusing how the US got rid of a monarch in order to replace it with a panel of 9 monarchs.
This will 100% go to the supreme court and I expect more Calvinball.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,726
11,348
136
Waiting to see how SCOTUS twists this to say that states don't have the right to do this after Dobbs ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

eelw

Lifer
Dec 4, 1999
10,334
5,487
136
Scardina, an attorney, tried to order her cake the same day the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017 agreed to hear Phillips’ challenge to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conclusion he discriminated against a gay couple for whom he had refused to make a wedding cake.

Ah I was wondering why anyone would still go to this bakery today.