U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[Jolly_Penguin]

Breaking news is that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled in favour of the cake maker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So now there is legal precedent from them that both money and cakes are speech. Methinks they like to talk.

 

[marc]

Will we need to bring back the Green Book for gay people now?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Elections have consequences.

 

[steve_bank]

I agree with the ruling. If I had a bakery business I want the right to refuse custom service to a neo Nazi event. They can walk in and buy anything off the shelf.

If I were a sculptor and a neo Nazi wanted me to create a statue of Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels I would decline.

It is a wider issue of the right to not be compelled by govt and the right of free association. A restaurant owner may be racist, but can not refuse to serve blacks. He can not be compelled to cater a black wedding. A black restaurant owner can not refuse service to people wearing Nazi clothes, but can not be compiled to cater a racists event.

It cuts both ways.

 

[James Madison]

Breaking news is that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled in favour of the cake maker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So now there is legal precedent from them that both money and cakes are speech. Methinks they like to talk.

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Keith&Co.]

Will this eventually mean that gender is speech?

That the owners of bathrooms need to respect the free gender identity of anyone using the facility?

 

[James Madison]

I agree with the ruling. If I had a bakery business I want the right to refuse custom service to a neo Nazi event. They can walk in and buy anything off the shelf.

If I were a sculptor and a neo Nazi wanted me to create a statue of Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels I would decline.

It is a wider issue of the right to not be compelled by govt and the right of free association. A restaurant owner may be racist, but can not refuse to serve blacks. He can not be compelled to cater a black wedding. A black restaurant owner can not refuse service to people wearing Nazi clothes, but can not be compiled to cater a racists event.

It cuts both ways.

You do realize your example is outside of what the Court decided and the decision is rooted in a different rationale than what you offered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Will this eventually mean that gender is speech?

That the owners of bathrooms need to respect the free gender identity of anyone using the facility?

That’s not this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Keith&Co.]

The decision is more nuanced.

Well, that's good to know, but it will take quite a while to convince people like my coworkers that it does not mean they can kick anyone with a lisp to the curb...

 

[ZiprHead]

The legal journalist I just watched, after reading the decision, said the decision is still very ambiguous as far as the lower courts go in referencing this decision. It provides no insight to them.

 

[steve_bank]

I agree with the ruling. If I had a bakery business I want the right to refuse custom service to a neo Nazi event. They can walk in and buy anything off the shelf.

If I were a sculptor and a neo Nazi wanted me to create a statue of Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels I would decline.

It is a wider issue of the right to not be compelled by govt and the right of free association. A restaurant owner may be racist, but can not refuse to serve blacks. He can not be compelled to cater a black wedding. A black restaurant owner can not refuse service to people wearing Nazi clothes, but can not be compiled to cater a racists event.

It cuts both ways.

You do realize your example is outside of what the Court decided and the decision is rooted in a different rationale than what you offered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but there is a wider issue to consider before you jump on SCOTUS.

The challengers took a partculat legal path. SCOTUS respomded in context. It is a long standing issue of how far you can go expressing a morality at the expense of others, albeit primarily Chtistians. For those who disaprove of the ruling consider the examples.

 

[Playball40]

Sad, considering it's June.

 

[ronburgundy]

Breaking news is that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled in favour of the cake maker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So now there is legal precedent from them that both money and cakes are speech. Methinks they like to talk.

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.

The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civilrights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage areprotected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products andservices on the same terms and conditions as are offered to othermembers of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that isneutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artisticskills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement inhis own voice and of his own creation, has a significant FirstAmendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincerereligious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, whichwas before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performedin the State and before this Court issued United States v.Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position atthe time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was notunreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the timealso afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specificmessages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcementproceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Divisionconcluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in decliningto create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons orgay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectfulconsideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

...

That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’streatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clearand impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivatinghis objection. As the record shows, some of the commissionersat the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view thatreligious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphereor commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable andcharacterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation ofhis sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were theymentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefsfiled here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartialityof the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

Breaking news is that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled in favour of the cake maker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So now there is legal precedent from them that both money and cakes are speech. Methinks they like to talk.

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

 

[laughing dog]

From what I have read on this ruling, it does not address the core issue of the state law, but the particular misuse of the process by the state civil rights commission. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this ruling is based on a procedural error not an fundamental constitutional issue. So, there is some hope that the SCOTUS will not enable these bigots to expand their constitutional right to be assholes.

 

[ronburgundy]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

Breaking news is that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled in favour of the cake maker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So now there is legal precedent from them that both money and cakes are speech. Methinks they like to talk.

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

That's almost more absurd that they would confound the issue of whether the Colorado commission applied the law properly (the only thing they should have been ruling on) with whether one of the board members was sufficiently polite when telling the bakers that their "faith" is not an acceptable excuse for being a discriminatory bigot.

 

[James Madison]

The legal journalist I just watched, after reading the decision, said the decision is still very ambiguous as far as the lower courts go in referencing this decision. It provides no insight to them.

There’s some truth to this, and IIRC, Kennedy’s opinion alludes to this point. But this isn’t an opinion leaving the lower courts entirely in the dark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

Breaking news is that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled in favour of the cake maker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So now there is legal precedent from them that both money and cakes are speech. Methinks they like to talk.

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

From what I have read on this ruling, it does not address the core issue of the state law, but the particular misuse of the process by the state civil rights commission. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this ruling is based on a procedural error not an fundamental constitutional issue. So, there is some hope that the SCOTUS will not enable these bigots to expand their constitutional right to be assholes.

The case was decided on, specifically, the free exercise clause and free speech clause. The former having a no hostility principle towards a religious belief and the latter forbidding viewpoint discrimination. Kennedy found both applicable here (viewpoint discrimination maybe accredited to Alito since he spent some time on this point in oral argument).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.

SCOTUS voided the decision simply because they think the board was 'hostile'. And the news media isn't doing a good job at making this substantial distinction. That isn't helped with SCOTUS taking up a huge case of religious rights v civil rights and botching the punt, in an oddly nearer unanimous decision than these decisions would expectedly be held at.