SCOTUS to take the cake

[coloradoatheist]

Kinda like abortion that isn't guaranteed either but they found an a reach of a right to protect it even though it would fall under the same lack of protection this baker has?

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

 

[Playball40]

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

No I am not, because there is all types of discrimination and there is definitely discrimination against short people and especially the even shorter people. So if it's a harm to be discriminated against, be consistaent and stop all forms of discrimination. But we know we can't or won't.

You don't understand a word I wrote, do you?

The "big and tall" store CAN NOT refuse to sell their "big and tall" clothing to a particular person, no matter how short that person is.

Likewise, a wedding cake baker CAN NOT refuse to sell a wedding cake to a particular person, no matter how gay that person is.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

You don't understand a word I wrote, do you?

The "big and tall" store CAN NOT refuse to sell their "big and tall" clothing to a particular person, no matter how short that person is.

Likewise, a wedding cake baker CAN NOT refuse to sell a wedding cake to a particular person, no matter how gay that person is.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

to answer your question. Yes. if they don't want to sell a suit to someone they should have the right not to.

 

[RavenSky]

to answer your question. Yes. if they don't want to sell a suit to someone they should have the right not to.

wrong

 

[coloradoatheist]

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

You don't understand a word I wrote, do you?

The "big and tall" store CAN NOT refuse to sell their "big and tall" clothing to a particular person, no matter how short that person is.

Likewise, a wedding cake baker CAN NOT refuse to sell a wedding cake to a particular person, no matter how gay that person is.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

It's the same belief I have on this case, Constitutional the right for the baker to say no is constitutionally protected and that the government has overstepped their bounds.

- - - Updated - - -

to answer your question. Yes. if they don't want to sell a suit to someone they should have the right not to.

wrong

And our fundamental difference. I believe they should be able to.

 

[James Madison]

According to the brief in support of granting cert., the CRA (civil rights commission) issued conflicting rulings.

"In contrast, while this case was still ongoing, the Commission found that three secular bakeries did not discriminate based on creed when they refused a Christian customer’s request for custom cakes that criticized same-sex marriage on religious grounds. App. 293-327a. And it did so despite “creed” under CADA encompassing “all aspects of religious beliefs, observances, and practices ... [including] the beliefs or teachings of a particular religion,” 3 C.C.R. 708- 1:10.2(H) (emphasis added), App. 96a. The Commission reasoned that—like Phillips—(1) the bakeries declined the request because they objected to the particular message of the cake and (2) the bakeries were willing to create other items for Christians. App. 297-331a. Unlike Phillips, the Commission exempted these secular bakeries from CADA’s scope."

Yeah, according to them. But the first case I looked at, where the customer wanted a bible shaped cake with specific verses, the baker agreed to make a bible shaped cake, but would not put the writing on it, but would give the customer icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever message he wanted.

Doesn't those facts support petitioner's argument? After all, the petitioner is alleging the baker you reference was determined not to violate the public accommodation law on the basis the baker was exercising their free speech right. Petitioner reasons their example is parallel, as expressive conduct has long been recognized as speech under the 1st Amendment, and petitioner acted on the basis of his free speech right, just like the baker you reference.

That's the argument Petitioner is making when relying upon the example of the Bible baker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

And our fundamental difference. I believe they should be able to.

You can "believe" it all you want, but you have no legal or moral/ethical basis for your belief

 

[blastula]

Yeah, according to them. But the first case I looked at, where the customer wanted a bible shaped cake with specific verses, the baker agreed to make a bible shaped cake, but would not put the writing on it, but would give the customer icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever message he wanted.

Doesn't those facts support petitioner's argument? After all, the petitioner is alleging the baker you reference was determined not to violate the public accommodation law on the basis the baker was exercising their free speech right. Petitioner reasons their example is parallel, as expressive conduct has long been recognized as speech under the 1st Amendment, and petitioner acted on the basis of his free speech right, just like the baker you reference.

That's the argument Petitioner is making when relying upon the example of the Bible baker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In this case, the customers didn't request any message on the cake. They were denied before even discussing the cake design.

 

[James Madison]

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

You don't understand a word I wrote, do you?

The "big and tall" store CAN NOT refuse to sell their "big and tall" clothing to a particular person, no matter how short that person is.

Likewise, a wedding cake baker CAN NOT refuse to sell a wedding cake to a particular person, no matter how gay that person is.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

To answer your query, a big n' tall store may lawfully refuse to sell to someone because of eye color or lack of hair, because at this moment no law protects eye color or balding from discrimination.

The default is for the business to have the liberty to discriminate for whatever reason until the law takes the liberty away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Playball40]

And do you think this should be perfectly legal?

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

to answer your question. Yes. if they don't want to sell a suit to someone they should have the right not to.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And our fundamental difference. I believe they should be able to.

You can "believe" it all you want, but you have no legal or moral/ethical basis for your belief

Except I have both, Constitutional and it's originality not the changes enacted after the 20s. And morality wise yes too.

 

[Playball40]

Do you think anti-discrimination laws are 'taking away ones liberty'?

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

To answer your query, a big n' tall store may lawfully refuse to sell to someone because of eye color or lack of hair, because at this moment no law protects eye color or balding from discrimination.

The default is for the business to have the liberty to discriminate for whatever reason until the law takes the liberty away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Doesn't those facts support petitioner's argument? After all, the petitioner is alleging the baker you reference was determined not to violate the public accommodation law on the basis the baker was exercising their free speech right. Petitioner reasons their example is parallel, as expressive conduct has long been recognized as speech under the 1st Amendment, and petitioner acted on the basis of his free speech right, just like the baker you reference.

That's the argument Petitioner is making when relying upon the example of the Bible baker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In this case, the customers didn't request any message on the cake. They were denied before even discussing the cake design.

Understood. May not make any difference because:

1. Expressive conduct is considered speech for 1st Amendment purposes and
2. If the Court accepts the premise their is expensive conduct here, the fact it isn't "written" speech will not defeat petitioner's claim.

Hence, petitioner invokes expressive conduct since expressive conduct is speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

You can "believe" it all you want, but you have no legal or moral/ethical basis for your belief

Except I have both, Constitutional and it's originality not the changes enacted after the 20s. And morality wise yes too.

Except you don't. You just saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except I have both, Constitutional and it's originality not the changes enacted after the 20s. And morality wise yes too.

Except you don't. You just saying so doesn't make it so.

One of them will be debated the Supreme Court. The other we'll argue about for far longer.

 

[blastula]

In this case, the customers didn't request any message on the cake. They were denied before even discussing the cake design.

Understood. May not make any difference because:

1. Expressive conduct is considered speech for 1st Amendment purposes and
2. If the Court accepts the premise their is expensive conduct here, the fact it isn't "written" speech will not defeat petitioner's claim.

Hence, petitioner invokes expressive conduct since expressive conduct is speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I know that's their argument, but it's a bad argument considering the difference in facts.

 

[James Madison]

And do you think this should be perfectly legal?

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

to answer your question. Yes. if they don't want to sell a suit to someone they should have the right not to.

Yes! I favor liberty and freedom as opposed to such a broad and vast notion of equality that the flame of liberty is extinguished by a tidal wave of equality.

In this context, liberty and freedom shouldn't be limited without a compelling reason and no compelling reasons exist to preclude big n' tall stores from discriminating on the basis of eye color or balding. There isn't a societal or nationwide epidemic of people of a certain eye color effectively relegated to the status of second class citizens and the same is true of bald people. Hence, I cannot conceive of any compelling reason to extinguish this liberty to remedy a non-problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Understood. May not make any difference because:

1. Expressive conduct is considered speech for 1st Amendment purposes and
2. If the Court accepts the premise their is expensive conduct here, the fact it isn't "written" speech will not defeat petitioner's claim.

Hence, petitioner invokes expressive conduct since expressive conduct is speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I know that's their argument, but it's a bad argument considering the difference in facts.

The difference in facts doesn't address whether the conduct is expressive. If there is expressive speech, then there is a first amendment free speech interest, as with the Bible baker, and an ostensible paradox as one baker's conduct was allowed on the basis of their free speech rights but the other wasn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Do you think anti-discrimination laws are 'taking away ones liberty'?

He refused to answer my question.

Can the BIG N TALL store refuse to sell BIG N TALL clothes to you because you are bald or gay or blue eyed?

Yes, the BIG N TALL store is under no obligation to carry clothing that are sized 29SHORT, just like a baker can refuse to bake cookies if they so desire.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the right to a perfectly safe medical procedure had NO BUSINESS ever being illegal in the first place. The Constitution simply rectified/clarified that oversight.

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion never should have been 'illegal' in the first place.

It was never a protected constitutional right and to protect they put in a huge stretch to try and make it stay legal. Because of the interstate commerce law and that abortion exchanges either money or gifts, congress would have the Constitutional power to limit it or get rid of it.

To answer your query, a big n' tall store may lawfully refuse to sell to someone because of eye color or lack of hair, because at this moment no law protects eye color or balding from discrimination.

The default is for the business to have the liberty to discriminate for whatever reason until the law takes the liberty away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In some instances, yes, public accommodation laws do limit/take away a specific liberty. But I think in some of those instances, the limit on the liberty can be justified by a compelling governmental interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In some instances, yes, public accommodation laws do limit/take away a specific liberty. But I think in some of those instances, the limit on the liberty can be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

Yes. I believe this is how you cannot discriminate on the basis of race.