The Morals & Principles of Cake: Derail from SCOTUS to take the cake

[untermensche]

And the baker says he has moral positions too. A lot of morality is subjective and we agree on only a few things.

No.

Harming others for no sane reason is immoral.

Always.

 

[fromderinside]

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.

Money and speech linked. Restrictions on money unlawfully restrict speech.

Did you read your own link?

"The major holdings were as follows:

The Court upheld limits on contributions to candidates.
The Court struck down limits on expenditures by candidates.
The Court struck down limits on independent expenditures (i.e., expenditures by other groups or individuals than candidates and political parties).
The Court upheld mandatory disclosure and reporting provisions, but it narrowed the types of speech to which they could apply.
The Court upheld a system of voluntary government funding of campaigns, including limits on spending by candidates who choose to accept government subsidies.
The Court struck down the system by which members of Congress directly appointed Federal Election Commission commissioners."​

They upheld limits on contributions to candidates. You have a right to give a candidate as much of your speech as you please, but the government may limit how much money you can give her. If the USSC had been ruling money was speech then they would have imposed the same restrictions on money laws as on speech laws.

They upheld mandatory disclosure and reporting provisions. You have a right to speak anonymously for a candidate, but the government may prohibit you from funding her anonymously. If the USSC had been ruling money was speech then they would have imposed the same restrictions on money laws as on speech laws.

Buckley v. Valeo is an example of the USSC ruling that money is not speech.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations

Yeah, and? So the USSC ruled that the government labeling what people say "corporate speech" doesn't mean it can get away with fining or jailing people for speaking without permission. Whoop de do. They already crossed that bridge. They already committed that crime against humanity in New York Times Co. v. United States. They already destroyed democracy by ruling that the New York Times had a First Amendment right to publish the Pentagon Papers, and Richard Nixon had no right to stop them. The New York Times is a corporation, but that doesn't magic its employee's First Amendment rights away. Do you feel that Nixon should have been allowed to censor the New York Times because money is not speech?

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse."^[

I don't care how you peel it. If the court rules that if money is restricted it limits speech. It is speech by extension.

What the heck kind of reasoning is that?

Suppose Congress passed a law saying to all the Jews in America, "The 1st Amendment promises you freedom of religion, so you have a right to put up a menorah in your house. But you may not spend more than $100 on menorahs. If you want to spend $10,000 and put up a dozen menorahs in every room in your house and out in the front yard too, that's just going too far. Enough is enough. A hundred dollars worth of them should be plenty for one Jew." Do you imagine for one second that the USSC would uphold such a law?

So when a Jew who really really liked menorahs challenged the law, and the USSC overturned it, you would describe that event as "Hey. USSC ruled money was religion."?

My view is that she can buy as large a megaphone as she can afford. However she must do the speaking and be recognized as the one speaking. If she wants to be part of a group getting a megaphone then she must accept the necessity of actually creating and delivering her speech though it. No one's political speech should be for sale to another.

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone wants to scrawl "Vote against Donald" onto a thousand pieces of paper and hand them out to passersby, she has a right to do it, but if her hand gets tired after the first 50 so she takes her leaflet off to Kinko's and pays them to run off another 950 copies for her, then Congress should be allowed to put her and the Kinko's manager in jail for that, because that makes it Kinko's political speech, which shouldn't be for sale?

Lot's of words for little substance on both our parts. BTW paper is a megaphone too 'cause the little old lady surely didn't make it herowndamsef.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And the baker says he has moral positions too. A lot of morality is subjective and we agree on only a few things.

No.

Harming others for no sane reason is immoral.

Always.

And just to clarify....is it the dicrimination that was the harm? or was it not giving them a cake?

 

[untermensche]

And the baker says he has moral positions too. A lot of morality is subjective and we agree on only a few things.

No.

Harming others for no sane reason is immoral.

Always.

And just to clarify....is it the dicrimination that was the harm? or was it not giving them a cake?

If you allow any one person to discriminate like this then you allow everybody to do it.

I do not think allowing everyone to discriminate against innocent people is a good idea.

That is immorality encapsulated in law.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And just to clarify....is it the dicrimination that was the harm? or was it not giving them a cake?

If you allow any one person to discriminate like this then you allow everybody to do it.

I do not think allowing everyone to discriminate against innocent people is a good idea.

That is immorality encapsulated in law.

But I am trying to understand which discrimination matters. We discriminate against other things and it's fine. Do you outlaw any discrimination?

 

[untermensche]

If nobody is allowed to ignorantly discriminate in business then there is no discrimination.

The same rules apply to everyone.

Calling that discrimination is to not understand the word.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If nobody is allowed to ignorantly discriminate in business then there is no discrimination.

The same rules apply to everyone.

Calling that discrimination is to not understand the word.

Huh? We allow discrimination on a lot of things, but we've created certain groups where it's protected. I think we would say that someone who believes the Earth is flat is stupid, but that's discrimination. Is it okay to believe that about some who thinks the Earth is flat?

 

[untermensche]

You have stopped making any sense.

The moral position is to allow no discrimination of innocent people based merely on delusions.

For some reason you want an exception for this baker.

You want to allow discrimination in favor of this baker.

Why should we do that?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You have stopped making any sense.

The moral position is to allow no discrimination of innocent people based merely on delusions.

For some reason you want an exception for this baker.

You want to allow discrimination in favor of this baker.

Why should we do that?

I believe your positions are delusion but you have the right to speak them. I believe in the rights guaranteed in the Constitution even if they are delusional.

 

[untermensche]

Your comment has no connection to anything.

It is an empty rant.

You want to allow this baker to legally discriminate.

You are in favor of discrimination.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your comment has no connection to anything.

It is an empty rant.

You want to allow this baker to legally discriminate.

You are in favor of discrimination.

The answer is yes I do. Just like I give you the right to discriminate against people. I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

 

[Juma]

Your comment has no connection to anything.

It is an empty rant.

You want to allow this baker to legally discriminate.

You are in favor of discrimination.

The answer is yes I do. Just like I give you the right to discriminate against people. I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

Your right to be an asshole?
So a town where everyone discriminate gats and thereby banish them from society, is totally ok?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your comment has no connection to anything.

It is an empty rant.

You want to allow this baker to legally discriminate.

You are in favor of discrimination.

The answer is yes I do. Just like I give you the right to discriminate against people. I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

Your right to be an asshole?
So a town where everyone discriminate gats and thereby banish them from society, is totally ok?

The city government itself can't, but yes. You can move.


And this was in Denver. You want me to list some of the businesses here that cater to to gays, lesbians, and others. There are a few here.

 

[ruby sparks]

We had a very similar case here too, last year. Baker lost.

'Gay cake' row: born-again Christian bakers lose court appeal

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...hers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row

 

[Elixir]

I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that YOU should lose YOUR rights when you go into business. You are equivocating a business with a person.
I'll believe that businesses are people when Texas puts one to death.
Much of our current problem is that businesses are considered "people" under the law for various purposes - like making campaign contributions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that YOU should lose YOUR rights when you go into business. You are equivocating a business with a person.
I'll believe that businesses are people when Texas puts one to death.
Much of our current problem is that businesses are considered "people" under the law for various purposes - like making campaign contributions.

But in the case of the baker he did lose rights and was forced to do something he wouldn't normally do as an individual since he was doing it as a business. And the Supreme Court got Citizens United correct.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that YOU should lose YOUR rights when you go into business. You are equivocating a business with a person.
I'll believe that businesses are people when Texas puts one to death.
Much of our current problem is that businesses are considered "people" under the law for various purposes - like making campaign contributions.

But in the case of the baker he did lose rights and was forced to do something he wouldn't normally do as an individual since he was doing it as a business. And the Supreme Court got Citizens United correct.

No he didn't. A person who incorporates gains a boatload of privileges, such as reduced liability. The accommodation is a price for those privileges. So no, the baker didn't lose rights.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that YOU should lose YOUR rights when you go into business. You are equivocating a business with a person.
I'll believe that businesses are people when Texas puts one to death.
Much of our current problem is that businesses are considered "people" under the law for various purposes - like making campaign contributions.

But in the case of the baker he did lose rights and was forced to do something he wouldn't normally do as an individual since he was doing it as a business. And the Supreme Court got Citizens United correct.

If you assume that SCOTUS got CU "right" your thesis follows logically from that. I vehemently disagree with that assertion, though, and believe that the CU ruling is destroying our democratic republic.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But in the case of the baker he did lose rights and was forced to do something he wouldn't normally do as an individual since he was doing it as a business. And the Supreme Court got Citizens United correct.

No he didn't. A person who incorporates gains a boatload of privileges, such as reduced liability. The accommodation is a price for those privileges. So no, the baker didn't lose rights.

And that just deals with liability for a group of people. How many priviledges do you you have to get before you lose a right? Can you please point me where in the Constitution that says if you gain X privileges you lose rights?

- - - Updated - - -

But in the case of the baker he did lose rights and was forced to do something he wouldn't normally do as an individual since he was doing it as a business. And the Supreme Court got Citizens United correct.

If you assume that SCOTUS got CU "right" your thesis follows logically from that. I vehemently disagree with that assertion, though, and believe that the CU ruling is destroying our democratic republic.

And I think we made a really bad turn for government in the 30s when the government decided to get involved in everything and now's its governments job to get involved in every small piece of issue. The only thing they haven't told us yet is which hand to wipe with, though that may come sometime.

 

[untermensche]

Your comment has no connection to anything.

It is an empty rant.

You want to allow this baker to legally discriminate.

You are in favor of discrimination.

The answer is yes I do. Just like I give you the right to discriminate against people. I don't think you lose your rights just because you go into business.

So anybody running a restaurant should be allowed to refuse service to black people?

This is the great society you desire?

A society that most people understand is immoral. They understood it decades ago.