SCOTUS to take the cake

[untermensche]

Justice Kennedy wasn't engaged in any "twisting." Justice Kennedy's distinction is certainly existential.

Their sexual orientation, which is protected under the Colorado law, is different from what they are doing, getting married. The law protects a characteristic associated with the person, in this instance sexual orientation, and does not protect something they wanted to do at the time, get married, or what they eventually did do, were married.

It is like saying you won't serve blacks because they are uppity and have a lot of nerve mingling with whites.

You are not against them. You are against their uppity behavior.

Absolute nonsense.

No, your example isn’t parallel to these facts. First, the word “uppity” is ambiguous, certainly less discernible as an activity whereas the act of getting married is more concrete.

Second, the requested service here was in regards to specific activity, whereas “uppity” isn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It could be any activity the store owner claims is objectionable to them. Those black people they talk too loud. They move too fast. They don't bathe.

But really the only reason the store owner doesn't like the activity is because black people are doing it.

Just like this baker has no problem with marriage, only when certain types do it.

It is as pure a case of discrimination as there could be.

Unfortunately Republican leaning judges have no problem with this type of discrimination.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And to the customer there is absolutely no difference. A store has your product/service in the matter you want, if it doesn't you go somewhere else. There is no guarantee if any product/service that every store has what you want when you want it.

To the customer there is a huge difference; and your *argument* was soundly defeated the first dozen times you tried it. I'm not doing it again.

Try reading the transcript from the hearing, or any article related to the actual case before the USSC before you try to post anything else.

No it wasn't, only on the left leaning part of this board. From a constitutional perspective it's an easy answer, but its where constitutional rights get overwritten that are in question here.

 

[RavenSky]

And to the customer there is absolutely no difference. A store has your product/service in the matter you want, if it doesn't you go somewhere else. There is no guarantee if any product/service that every store has what you want when you want it.

To the customer there is a huge difference; and your *argument* was soundly defeated the first dozen times you tried it. I'm not doing it again.

Try reading the transcript from the hearing, or any article related to the actual case before the USSC before you try to post anything else.

No it wasn't, only on the left leaning part of this board.

In other words, it was soundly defeated but you went

OK

From a constitutional perspective it's an easy answer, but its where constitutional rights get overwritten that are in question here.

Yes, it is an easy answer...

Baker doesn't get to discriminate against a protected class of people while trying to hide behind "free speech" or "freedom of religion"

 

[untermensche]

And to the customer there is absolutely no difference. A store has your product/service in the matter you want, if it doesn't you go somewhere else. There is no guarantee if any product/service that every store has what you want when you want it.

To the customer there is a huge difference; and your *argument* was soundly defeated the first dozen times you tried it. I'm not doing it again.

Try reading the transcript from the hearing, or any article related to the actual case before the USSC before you try to post anything else.

No it wasn't, only on the left leaning part of this board. From a constitutional perspective it's an easy answer, but its where constitutional rights get overwritten that are in question here.

From what I can see the right is filled with people lost in religious delusions, like this baker.

It is only because so many on the right are so deluded and living on another planet that this stupidity ever saw a court room.

Our legal system is completely polluted with religious delusions of this kind. Mainly from the right. Mainly from Republican leaning judges.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No it wasn't, only on the left leaning part of this board. From a constitutional perspective it's an easy answer, but its where constitutional rights get overwritten that are in question here.

From what I can see the right is filled with people lost in religious delusions, like this baker.

It is only because so many on the right are so deluded and living on another planet that this stupidity ever saw a court room.

Our legal system is completely polluted with religious delusions of this kind. Mainly from the right. Mainly from Republican leaning judges.

Funny coming from you said it was immoral to dictate to a worker what they could or couldn't do, but here you are dictating what a worker can do. You should at least admit you are the biggest fascist on the board.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No it wasn't, only on the left leaning part of this board.

In other words, it was soundly defeated but you went

OK

From a constitutional perspective it's an easy answer, but its where constitutional rights get overwritten that are in question here.

Yes, it is an easy answer...

Baker doesn't get to discriminate against a protected class of people while trying to hide behind "free speech" or "freedom of religion"

Where in the Constitution does it define protected classes?

 

[untermensche]

No it wasn't, only on the left leaning part of this board. From a constitutional perspective it's an easy answer, but its where constitutional rights get overwritten that are in question here.

From what I can see the right is filled with people lost in religious delusions, like this baker.

It is only because so many on the right are so deluded and living on another planet that this stupidity ever saw a court room.

Our legal system is completely polluted with religious delusions of this kind. Mainly from the right. Mainly from Republican leaning judges.

Funny coming from you said it was immoral to dictate to a worker what they could or couldn't do, but here you are dictating what a worker can do. You should at least admit you are the biggest fascist on the board.

Yes. I am telling all workers not to discriminate based on nothing but serious delusions.

Just like I am telling them all not to murder.

What a crazy dictator I am.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Funny coming from you said it was immoral to dictate to a worker what they could or couldn't do, but here you are dictating what a worker can do. You should at least admit you are the biggest fascist on the board.

Yes. I am telling all workers not to discriminate based on nothing but serious delusions.

Just like I am telling them all not to murder.

What a crazy dictator I am.

But you are dictating to the worker what he or she shouldn't do. You said that was immoral. As long as it agrees with your morals, it's okay.

 

[untermensche]

Funny coming from you said it was immoral to dictate to a worker what they could or couldn't do, but here you are dictating what a worker can do. You should at least admit you are the biggest fascist on the board.

Yes. I am telling all workers not to discriminate based on nothing but serious delusions.

Just like I am telling them all not to murder.

What a crazy dictator I am.

But you are dictating to the worker what he or she shouldn't do. You said that was immoral. As long as it agrees with your morals, it's okay.

Is telling a worker they cannot rape their fellow worker being a dictator or a leader of all?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How to create AnarchoCommunism:

Step 1: Create a state
Step 2: Say it isn't a state

 

[untermensche]

How to create AnarchoCommunism:

Step 1: Create a state
Step 2: Say it isn't a state

I assure you rape will not be allowed to occur without consequences in an Anarchist system, not a huge state, a bunch of autonomous connected small societies.

The idea of society is not in the minds of capitalists.

That is one reason they are so destructive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some of this is making me laugh out loud:

JUSTICE ALITO: What would you say about an architectural design; is that entitled to -- not entitled to First Amendment protection because one might say that the primary purpose of the design of a building is to create a place where people can live or work?

MS. WAGGONER: Precisely. In the context of an architect, generally that would not be protected because buildings are functionable, not communicative.

JUSTICE ALITO: You mean an architectural design is not protected?

MS. WAGGONER: No. Architect -* generally speaking, architectural would not be protected.

JUSTICE BREYER: So in other words, Mies or Michelangelo or someone is not protected when he creates the Laurentian steps, but this cake baker is protected when he creates the cake without any message on it for a wedding? Now, that -- that really does baffle me, I have to say.

But if they just wanted a cake why didn't they go to the multitude of other places that make cakes? They could have gone to Dairy Queen, Albertsons, King Soopers, etc any of which have a variety of cakes.

They wanted a pretty cake.

 

[scombrid]

McDonalds doesn't sell tacos, so if you want to buy tacos, you don't go to McDonalds.

If you want a wedding cake you go to a baker that makes wedding cakes.

Baker can refuse to write a custom message for you just like a restaurant doesn't have to modify its menu for you.

McDonalds doesn't get to refuse to sell you a large order of French Fries because you are gay and it doesn't want to provide you with sustenance to support your gay lifestyle.

Change the cake to tuxedo or wedding ring. Vendor can't refuse to sell you those because they'll be used in a gay ceremony or because vendor doesn't want the product worn by a black person.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

McDonalds doesn't sell tacos, so if you want to buy tacos, you don't go to McDonalds.

If you want a wedding cake you go to a baker that makes wedding cakes.

Yeah, what type of stupid argument is McDonalds and tacos have to do with a couple going to buy a wedding cake at a bakery that sells wedding cakes?!

McDonalds doesn't get to refuse to sell you a large order of French Fries because you are gay and it doesn't want to provide you with sustenance to support your gay lifestyle.

Because fries aren't "expressive".

Change the cake to tuxedo or wedding ring. Vendor can't refuse to sell you those because they'll be used in a gay ceremony or because vendor doesn't want the product worn by a black person.

Yeah, this is the most bullshit attempt to restrain gay rights. "But we are protecting the rights of people to discriminate against gays because of... expression... yeah, that's the ticket."

 

[James Madison]

No, your example isn’t parallel to these facts. First, the word “uppity” is ambiguous, certainly less discernible as an activity whereas the act of getting married is more concrete.

Second, the requested service here was in regards to specific activity, whereas “uppity” isn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It could be any activity the store owner claims is objectionable to them. Those black people they talk too loud. They move too fast. They don't bathe.

But really the only reason the store owner doesn't like the activity is because black people are doing it.

Just like this baker has no problem with marriage, only when certain types do it.

It is as pure a case of discrimination as there could be.

Unfortunately Republican leaning judges have no problem with this type of discrimination.

Citing any activity the customer is engaged in to justify a refusal of service is not parallel to these facts. The activity in this case is very closely associated with the requested product/service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Ms. Waggoner gave an answer consistent with the existing law. Generally architecture and architectural design isn’t expressive but in certain contexts and instances both can be expressive.

Breyer used specific examples that would be exceptions to a generalized rule but they do not refute the generalized rule. A generalization by its nature has exceptions.

Breyer didn’t contest her suggestion his examples were exceptions or the veracity of her generalization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then cake bakers are not an exception either

Indeed but this is a point I made earlier. I stated previously not every custom made cake will be expressive but in certain contexts a custom made cake can be and is expressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

The baker is essentially demanding control over what you do with the product after purchase.

Not really, not in this case and the facts of this case do not support your characterization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

I stated previously not every custom made cake will be expressive but in certain contexts a custom made cake can be and is expressive.

Yes, you have stated this multiple times. What you have failed to do, however, is demonstrate why; or to provide any sort of measure by which any reasonable person could say "this cake is expressive but that cake is not"; or how this elusive claim of "expression" should supercede the public good of non-discrimination at public accommodations.

 

[James Madison]

First of all, it was one sentence out of 113 pages. Justice Kennedy also said (to the attorney for the baker):

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the problem for you is that so many of these examples -- and a photographer can be included -- do involve speech. It means that there's basically an ability to boycott gay marriages.

Second, it appears to me that Kennedy was suggesting what the bakery's argument it, not stating that it is his own position regarding the merits of the case:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, but this whole concept of identity is a slightly -- suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against -- against gay people. He says but I just don't think they should have a marriage because that's contrary to my beliefs. It's not -* It's not their identity; it's what they're doing.

To which, Cole replies:

MR. COLE: Well, Justice Kennedy, this Court faced that question in Bob Jones University. Bob Jones University said we're not discriminating on the basis of race; we allow black people to come into the school. We just refuse to admit those who are engaged in interracial marriages or advocate interracial dating. And this Court said that's race discrimination. That's identity-based discrimination, even if you treat others similarly.

The number of sentences devoted to the topic by Kennedy isn’t illuminative of his view. Rather, the content of his remarks is compelling.

Labeling respondent’s argument of equivocating sexual identity under the law with the act of being married as “facile” is not a responding endorsement of their view. There were a plethora of other words in the human lexicon Kennedy could’ve chosen, and choosing a word meaning “ignoring complexities of the issue, superficial” is to expresses the view the argument made lacks merit.

Now, if some inventive argument can be made in which Kennedy’s use of the word “facile” in this context in relation to an argument, is really some euphemism or Kennedy deceptively expressing how persuasive he truly finds the argument, then I’m most interested in reading such an argument.

But Kennedy interjected to contest the view of identity as equivalent to the act of marriage under the law, and these facts, and said such a view was “facile.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

I stated previously not every custom made cake will be expressive but in certain contexts a custom made cake can be and is expressive.

Yes, you have stated this multiple times. What you have failed to do, however, is demonstrate why; or to provide any sort of measure by which any reasonable person could say "this cake is expressive but that cake is not"; or how this elusive claim of "expression" should supercede the public good of non-discrimination at public accommodations.

To the contrary, I’ve stated repeatedly how custom made cakes are expressive. Indeed, I’ve given examples of how a rainbow cake and a pink cake are expressive and how they aren’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk