SCOTUS to take the cake

[ZiprHead]

"We don't serve yur kind her."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Likewise, no baker is required to bake wedding cakes for anyone, but if they DO bake wedding cakes for sale, then they can not discriminate against any particular customer by refusing to bake the wedding cake.

I think that the argument would go that by it being for a gay couple it changes the nature of the cake as a work of art. The cake can be argued as an expression of support for the wedding. Yes, I'm stretching with that, but I think that is the logic. And an easy workaround would be just to not tell them it is for a gay wedding. They instead appear to have done the opposite, and gone out of their way to do so, just to make a point.

Other forms of 3rd party expression may also change based on who the project/work is for. For example, imagine a woman's rights group buying a cake shaped like a woman (presumably to celebrate women), and then imagine a group of misogynists buying the exact same cake (presumably to "eat" a woman). Who buys it changes the nature of the work.

 

[bilby]

Likewise, no baker is required to bake wedding cakes for anyone, but if they DO bake wedding cakes for sale, then they can not discriminate against any particular customer by refusing to bake the wedding cake.

I think that the argument would go that by it being for a gay couple it changes the nature of the cake as a work of art. The cake can be argued as an expression of support for the wedding. Yes, I'm stretching with that, but I think that is the logic. And an easy workaround would be just to not tell them it is for a gay wedding. They instead appear to have done the opposite, and gone out of their way to do so, just to make a point.

Other forms of 3rd party expression may also change based on who the project/work is for. For example, imagine a woman's rights group buying a cake shaped like a woman (presumably to celebrate women), and then imagine a group of misogynists buying the exact same cake (presumably to "eat" a woman). Who buys it changes the nature of the work.

Once you sell something, you no longer own it. What use the buyer puts it to is none of your business.

 

[laughing dog]

Likewise, no baker is required to bake wedding cakes for anyone, but if they DO bake wedding cakes for sale, then they can not discriminate against any particular customer by refusing to bake the wedding cake.

I think that the argument would go that by it being for a gay couple it changes the nature of the cake as a work of art. The cake can be argued as an expression of support for the wedding. Yes, I'm stretching with that, but I think that is the logic. And an easy workaround would be just to not tell them it is for a gay wedding. They instead appear to have done the opposite, and gone out of their way to do so, just to make a point.

Other forms of 3rd party expression may also change based on who the project/work is for. For example, imagine a woman's rights group buying a cake shaped like a woman (presumably to celebrate women), and then imagine a group of misogynists buying the exact same cake (presumably to "eat" a woman). Who buys it changes the nature of the work.

In each case, the nature of the work is unchanged - it is cake in the shape of a woman.

 

[laughing dog]

Your many queries regarding what speech would qualify for 1st Amendment protection from public accommodation laws is illustrative of the need for clarification.

The fact you can't or will not perceive any potential free speech issue to be resolved by the Court, despite the plethora of questions you asked about the free speech issue, is your problem and yours alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought the plaintiff was arguing that his religious beliefs were being violated not his free speech rights.

 

[James Madison]

Your many queries regarding what speech would qualify for 1st Amendment protection from public accommodation laws is illustrative of the need for clarification.

The fact you can't or will not perceive any potential free speech issue to be resolved by the Court, despite the plethora of questions you asked about the free speech issue, is your problem and yours alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought the plaintiff was arguing that his religious beliefs were being violated not his free speech rights.

He has argued both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

I thought the plaintiff was arguing that his religious beliefs were being violated not his free speech rights.

He has argued both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the news articles I have seen describing this case focus solely on the religious beliefs part. But, that doesn't mean they are accurate.

Here is another question. Suppose the plaintiff argues his case solely on the religious belief angle. May the court decide the case on the free speech issues even if they are not brought up?

 

[James Madison]

He has argued both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the news articles I have seen describing this case focus solely on the religious beliefs part. But, that doesn't mean they are accurate.

Here is another question. Suppose the plaintiff argues his case solely on the religious belief angle. May the court decide the case on the free speech issues even if they are not brought up?

Typically they wouldn't. I personally believe the religious claims are legally untenable under the Employment Division v Smith case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

But they don't have to make a suit for me. I can't go in there and say make me a suit that fits my size. They can refuse that.

If they sell suits off the peg then of course the shop can refuse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I think that the argument would go that by it being for a gay couple it changes the nature of the cake as a work of art. The cake can be argued as an expression of support for the wedding. Yes, I'm stretching with that, but I think that is the logic. And an easy workaround would be just to not tell them it is for a gay wedding. They instead appear to have done the opposite, and gone out of their way to do so, just to make a point.

Other forms of 3rd party expression may also change based on who the project/work is for. For example, imagine a woman's rights group buying a cake shaped like a woman (presumably to celebrate women), and then imagine a group of misogynists buying the exact same cake (presumably to "eat" a woman). Who buys it changes the nature of the work.

Once you sell something, you no longer own it. What use the buyer puts it to is none of your business.

This is true. Normally someone who buys a cake eats it unless they leave it in the fridge, forget about it and then throw it away if it's stale. Even if they did something else with the cake the retailer is not likely to know anyway unless told about it.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Just a heads up folks. Opening Arguments is a GREAT podcast for legal stuff, especially if you're not a lawyer. It features a great interviewer (Thomas Smith) and a Harvard lawyer (Andrew Torrez). They break down so many of these issues. Emoluments clause, cake baking, Muslim ban, Roe vs. Wade, 2nd amendment, Impeachment, Free speech issues. etc. They do it in a way that's fresh and interesting, I cannot recommend it enough. Try it out if you're into this type of stuff. It's really great to have a deeper understanding of all of this, especially when it's made fun.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought the plaintiff was arguing that his religious beliefs were being violated not his free speech rights.

He has argued both.

From what I read, he is stating his art / expression is violated by baking and selling the cake on religious grounds.

As I noted, allowing this just takes us back to the 50's where it becomes okay to discriminate against the right type of people, in this case people who are not heterosexual.

 

[James Madison]

He has argued both.

From what I read, he is stating his art / expression is violated by baking and selling the cake on religious grounds.

As I noted, allowing this just takes us back to the 50's where it becomes okay to discriminate against the right type of people, in this case people who are not heterosexual.

No, he is clearly asserting that making "custom" wedding cakes is an art, an art involving expressive conduct, and expressive conduct is protected by the speech clause of the 1st Amendment.

He is also making a religious freedom claim under the 1st Amendment, which I believe is legally untenable since Scalia's opinion of Employment Division v. Smith.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Likewise, no baker is required to bake wedding cakes for anyone, but if they DO bake wedding cakes for sale, then they can not discriminate against any particular customer by refusing to bake the wedding cake.

I think that the argument would go that by it being for a gay couple it changes the nature of the cake as a work of art. The cake can be argued as an expression of support for the wedding. Yes, I'm stretching with that, but I think that is the logic.

Yeah, except a cake can't talk, and if there is nothing on the cake denoting who made it, very hard for the cake to advocate anything.

And an easy workaround would be just to not tell them it is for a gay wedding. They instead appear to have done the opposite, and gone out of their way to do so, just to make a point.

Or they simply wanted a wedding a cake for their wedding.

Other forms of 3rd party expression may also change based on who the project/work is for. For example, imagine a woman's rights group buying a cake shaped like a woman (presumably to celebrate women), and then imagine a group of misogynists buying the exact same cake (presumably to "eat" a woman). Who buys it changes the nature of the work.

This is pointless extrapolation. We are talking wedding cakes here and whether a person's right to not be discriminated against is superseded by a person's right to discriminate due to "religious beliefs".

The major bullshit of this is allegedly the baker is willing to sell anything to a gay couple, but a wedding cake. As if a wedding cake is in some way a religious icon. Those supporting the baker are trying to sell the idea that either A) this is a limited case scenario (bullshit!) or B) a person can't be forced to sell to anyone by the state. B was killed a long time ago, but right-wingers/conservatives/Libertarians are optimists. A is trying to get the camel's nose under the tent.

 

[dismal]

The major bullshit of this is allegedly the baker is willing to sell anything to a gay couple, but a wedding cake.

What sucks so much about people is they have their own beliefs.

Maybe not once leftists get done telling them what they have to think.

 

[LordKiran]

The major bullshit of this is allegedly the baker is willing to sell anything to a gay couple, but a wedding cake.

What sucks so much about people is they have their own beliefs.

Maybe not once leftists get done telling them what they have to think.

Fine but 'their' beliefs have no basis in scripture and thus, are not religious in nature.

 

[dismal]

What sucks so much about people is they have their own beliefs.

Maybe not once leftists get done telling them what they have to think.

Fine but 'their' beliefs have no basis in scripture and thus, are not religious in nature.

Uh, so what? Do you have some issue that causes you to babble on about things I haven't said?

 

[coloradoatheist]

What sucks so much about people is they have their own beliefs.

Maybe not once leftists get done telling them what they have to think.

Fine but 'their' beliefs have no basis in scripture and thus, are not religious in nature.

and what test has the Supreme court used for validating whether something is a religious belief? Are they scholars on the interpretation of the different religious books?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The major bullshit of this is allegedly the baker is willing to sell anything to a gay couple, but a wedding cake.

What sucks so much about people is they have their own beliefs.

Maybe not once leftists get done telling them what they have to think.

Yeah, we've heard these exact arguments against the blacks in the 50's and 60's.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine but 'their' beliefs have no basis in scripture and thus, are not religious in nature.

and what test has the Supreme court used for validating whether something is a religious belief? Are they scholars on the interpretation of the different religious books?

The trouble is that in allowing this, it becomes legal to discriminate against interracial gay couples, but it is against the law to discriminate against interracial straight couples. Of course, the right-wing would immediately file to undo that as well.

 

[dismal]

What sucks so much about people is they have their own beliefs.

Maybe not once leftists get done telling them what they have to think.

Yeah, we've heard these exact arguments against the blacks in the 50's and 60's.

You've got the "we" part wrong because I don't remember people saying "people can have their own beliefs, but maybe not once leftists get done" back in the 50's.

Not being alive and stuff.