SCOTUS to take the cake

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS has said they will hear arguments in the Masterpiece v Colorado case. A case that has caused rage boners to those in the right-wing, conservative wing, and Libertarian wing of the country.

People are familiar with the case:

• a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding
• couple sued
• cake shop lost
• rage boners

The state has a law that says a consumer can't be discriminated against. Right-winger/conservatives/libertarians argue that such a law discriminates against assholes and is unconstitutional, then they got rage boners. This case will be very important because it will decide whether an individual's right to not be discriminated against is superceded by an individual's right to discriminate. Now most people may remember this shit all happened before, most notably during the Civil Right's era when assholes thought they had the right to put blacks in their place. But you know, history repeats and shit...

 

[untermensche]

Gorsuch is rabidly pro-owner over employee.

He is probably rabidly pro-owner over customer too.

 

[James Madison]

SCOTUS has said they will hear arguments in the Masterpiece v Colorado case. A case that has caused rage boners to those in the right-wing, conservative wing, and Libertarian wing of the country.

People are familiar with the case:

• a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding
• couple sued
• cake shop lost
• rage boners

The state has a law that says a consumer can't be discriminated against. Right-winger/conservatives/libertarians argue that such a law discriminates against assholes and is unconstitutional, then they got rage boners. This case will be very important because it will decide whether an individual's right to not be discriminated against is superceded by an individual's right to discriminate. Now most people may remember this shit all happened before, most notably during the Civil Right's era when assholes thought they had the right to put blacks in their place. But you know, history repeats and shit...

Good. This area of the law needs some potential clarification.

 

[untermensche]

Good. This area of the law needs some potential clarification.

We know what "clarification" means.

It means to tilt the situation in favor of the owner.

To protect the prejudices of owners that some approve of.

 

[James Madison]

Good. This area of the law needs some potential clarification.

We know what "clarification" means.

It means to tilt the situation in favor of the owner.

To protect the prejudices of owners that some approve of.

Your powers of mind reading have diminished. My use of the word "clarification" doesn't include your translation.

 

[untermensche]

We know what "clarification" means.

It means to tilt the situation in favor of the owner.

To protect the prejudices of owners that some approve of.

Your powers of mind reading have diminished. My use of the word "clarification" doesn't include your translation.

Whatever argument you think you can apply to the situation my comments are about what it means to those on the right on the Court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS has said they will hear arguments in the Masterpiece v Colorado case. A case that has caused rage boners to those in the right-wing, conservative wing, and Libertarian wing of the country.

People are familiar with the case:

• a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding
• couple sued
• cake shop lost
• rage boners

The state has a law that says a consumer can't be discriminated against. Right-winger/conservatives/libertarians argue that such a law discriminates against assholes and is unconstitutional, then they got rage boners. This case will be very important because it will decide whether an individual's right to not be discriminated against is superceded by an individual's right to discriminate. Now most people may remember this shit all happened before, most notably during the Civil Right's era when assholes thought they had the right to put blacks in their place. But you know, history repeats and shit...

Good. This area of the law needs some potential clarification.

The only area that I could see needing "clarification" is regarding what some people would consider "self-identity", ie the 'you choose to be gay' sort of cop-out. I don't see a difference between refusing a Latino or Black service verses refusing a Lesbian couple service. Allowing such discrimination, I'm sorry, I mean religious freedom, can (will) create black-out areas of service.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I like who Jimmy thinks Libertarians and Conservatives have the same reasons for supporting the baker. He's never heard of a separate concurrence. As I read through recent Supreme Court decisions, I find that happens now and again, but never in Jimmy's world.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

SCOTUS has said they will hear arguments in the Masterpiece v Colorado case. A case that has caused rage boners to those in the right-wing, conservative wing, and Libertarian wing of the country.

People are familiar with the case:

• a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding
• couple sued
• cake shop lost
• rage boners

The state has a law that says a consumer can't be discriminated against. Right-winger/conservatives/libertarians argue that such a law discriminates against assholes and is unconstitutional, then they got rage boners. This case will be very important because it will decide whether an individual's right to not be discriminated against is superceded by an individual's right to discriminate. Now most people may remember this shit all happened before, most notably during the Civil Right's era when assholes thought they had the right to put blacks in their place. But you know, history repeats and shit...

I recall when this was discussed here last time around. It seems pretty straightforward with the cake case, but I am still undecided about if we should be able to force wedding photographers to photograph gay weddings or make bands play at them etc.

In the cake of the case, you also do have the free expression question. If I can force you to write whatever I want on a cake I buy from you, does that violate your free expression? How is this handled with sky writers and bus signs? I'm pretty sure we had a recent bus sign case, yes? I can't recall much about it.

 

[untermensche]

The only area that I could see needing "clarification" is regarding what some people would consider "self-identity", ie the 'you choose to be gay' sort of cop-out. I don't see a difference between refusing a Latino or Black service verses refusing a Lesbian couple service. Allowing such discrimination, I'm sorry, I mean religious freedom, can (will) create black-out areas of service.

It is a question about what things can a person open to the public refuse to do for the public.

Certainly a cake maker can refuse to make a pie.

But if they say they make all shapes can they somehow claim the shape of a cake is offensive?

What nonsense!

Can they refuse to put messages on cakes?

That is where a line may exist.

But the message has to present some harm, not just be unapproved by the person open to the public.

They could also claim the shape presented potential harm as well, like a cake in the shape of a swastika.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I like who Jimmy thinks Libertarians and Conservatives have the same reasons for supporting the baker. He's never heard of a separate concurrence. As I read through recent Supreme Court decisions, I find that happens now and again, but never in Jimmy's world.

I'm sorry, did you have a point or was this one of your 'no-true Libertarian" moments?

- - - Updated - - -

The only area that I could see needing "clarification" is regarding what some people would consider "self-identity", ie the 'you choose to be gay' sort of cop-out. I don't see a difference between refusing a Latino or Black service verses refusing a Lesbian couple service. Allowing such discrimination, I'm sorry, I mean religious freedom, can (will) create black-out areas of service.

It is a question about what things can a person open to the public refuse to do for the public.

Certainly a cake maker can refuse to make a pie.

But if they say they make all shapes can they somehow claim the shape of a cake is offensive?

What nonsense!

Can they refuse to put messages on cakes?

That is where a line may exist.

But the message has to present some harm, not just be unapproved by the person open to the public.

They could also claim the shape presented potential harm as well, like a cake in the shape of a swastika.

And this is where the right-wing/Libertarian/conservative hyperbole is in effect, and I forgot to mention it in the OP. The whole hyperbole... well... if they have to make cakes for gays, what about Nazis? *godwin facepalm*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I recall when this was discussed here last time around. It seems pretty straightforward with the cake case...

It wasn't straightforward here. I think it has even become a right-wing text meme at TF.

...but I am still undecided about if we should be able to force wedding photographers to photograph gay weddings or make bands play at them etc.

In the cake of the case, you also do have the free expression question. If I can force you to write whatever I want on a cake I buy from you, does that violate your free expression? How is this handled with sky writers and bus signs? I'm pretty sure we had a recent bus sign case, yes? I can't recall much about it.

A wedding cake is a cake. It typically doesn't have much of a message. They are gaudy monstrosities that cost a lot of money.

 

[James Madison]

Good. This area of the law needs some potential clarification.

The only area that I could see needing "clarification" is regarding what some people would consider "self-identity", ie the 'you choose to be gay' sort of cop-out. I don't see a difference between refusing a Latino or Black service verses refusing a Lesbian couple service. Allowing such discrimination, I'm sorry, I mean religious freedom, can (will) create black-out areas of service.

Well, you are missing the necessity of clarifying the law of the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause in relation to public accommodation laws. This is an issue of free speech and public accommodation law existing in an antagonistic relationship. This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

 

[untermensche]

And this is where the right-wing/Libertarian/conservative hyperbole is in effect, and I forgot to mention it in the OP. The whole hyperbole... well... if they have to make cakes for gays, what about Nazis? *godwin facepalm*

The Germans have banned depictions of swastikas.

They help the cake makers and sign makers in Germany.

Without anybody who really cares about free speech minding.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only area that I could see needing "clarification" is regarding what some people would consider "self-identity", ie the 'you choose to be gay' sort of cop-out. I don't see a difference between refusing a Latino or Black service verses refusing a Lesbian couple service. Allowing such discrimination, I'm sorry, I mean religious freedom, can (will) create black-out areas of service.

Well, you are missing the necessity of clarifying the law of the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause in relation to public accommodation laws. This is an issue of free speech and public accommodation law existing in an antagonistic relationship.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake. The fear of business's advocacy of something could be used to restrict access to almost anything, including inter-racial marriage, inter-religious marriages, etc...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And this is where the right-wing/Libertarian/conservative hyperbole is in effect, and I forgot to mention it in the OP. The whole hyperbole... well... if they have to make cakes for gays, what about Nazis? *godwin facepalm*

The Germans have banned depictions of swastikas.

This is irrelevant both on the basis that Germany is not the United States and the Godwin fail of trying to compare Nazis with gays.

 

[James Madison]

Well, you are missing the necessity of clarifying the law of the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause in relation to public accommodation laws. This is an issue of free speech and public accommodation law existing in an antagonistic relationship.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

 

[untermensche]

The Germans have banned depictions of swastikas.

This is irrelevant both on the basis that Germany is not the United States and the Godwin fail of trying to compare Nazis with gays.

It never occurred to me that Germany was not the United States.

But just because a good idea comes from Germany and not the United States that is no reason to oppose it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

So it is all about the writing and merely leavening isn't an expression?

I guess we can forward the step here. "Mike + Mitch", free speech violation merely because of two names of the same gender? "Have a wonderful gay marriage", "Appease to the gay's wants establishment!"? Is merely two men atop the cake big enough of a deal that the civil rights of a couple are veto'd by the outdated a la carte religious beliefs of a baker?

Seems odd that a cake could violate Civil Rights because of "Mike + Mitch" written on it.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

Not just speech but advocation. Can a third party force a first party to share the third party's message. And perhaps we can discuss how the whole cake thing actually blesses a marriage in the first place. I don't recall that in the Tanakh.

Also will this affect rehearsal dinners? Can a restaurant refuse to provide service to a gay couple's rehearsal dinner? What about dinners celebrating a gay couple's anniversary?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is irrelevant both on the basis that Germany is not the United States and the Godwin fail of trying to compare Nazis with gays.

It never occurred to me that Germany was not the United States.

But just because a good idea comes from Germany and not the United States that is no reason to oppose it.

We shouldn't have to pass a law banning displays of Nazi symbology in order for gay couples to get a wedding cake.