SCOTUS Rules About Colorodo Baker

[Nebuchadnezzar]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's only in favor of this case only. If other cases are brought under slightly different circumstances, SCOTUS may rule differently.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 01:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's only in favor of this case only. If other cases are brought under slightly different circumstances, SCOTUS may rule differently.

Kennedy essentially said that, while the state could have made a case that their interests outweigh his religious expression, the fact that the state commission was so clearly biased against his religion and didn't approach it from a place of neutrally meant that they had to reject the state's order for not treating him fairly. The opinion notes that this doesn't solve the question of whether or not you can refuse service over religious beliefs. 

Conservatives will say it affirms the right to refusal. Liberals it will allow gay people to be discriminated against. Neither is accurate, it's a solid ruling given the circumstances of the case. Anyone supporting the couple should be able to note the state messed up and sank the case.

[Au165]

Yea, I think the biggest issue here for me is they could have chosen to tackle the bigger issue but punted knowing it'll keep coming up until they do rule on it.

[Dill]

(06-04-2018, 02:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, I think the biggest issue here for me is they could have chosen to tackle the bigger issue but punted knowing it'll keep coming up until they do rule on it.

Maybe better they did punt. Wait for a sounder basis for a permanent resolution.

Also, this will help remind those folks who think it doesn't matter who gets to appoint SCOTUS justices that it does matter.

[Beaker]

This is one of those cases that would have sorted itself out due to capitalism. If you want to not take a customer because they are gay, those customers will just go to your competition and you will make less money.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-04-2018, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Maybe better they did punt. Wait for a sounder basis for a permanent resolution.

Also, this will help remind those folks who think it doesn't matter who gets to appoint SCOTUS justices that it does matter.

I don't know,Breyer and Kagan sided with the majority.  

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 03:47 PM)Beaker Wrote: This is one of those cases that would have sorted itself out due to capitalism. If you want to not take a customer because they are gay, those customers will just go to your competition and you will make less money.

Not true.  It never worked in the capitalist Jim Crow south.  In rural areas like where I live there may only be one good bakery in a town.

[fredtoast]

I don't understand this ruling. I will have to read it for myself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2018, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not true.  It never worked in the capitalist Jim Crow south.  In rural areas like where I live there may only be one good bakery in a town.

Not that I agree with his premise, but it couldn't work in the Jim Crow south as there were no alternative businesses, so citing it as a counter to his argument is silly.

[Dill]

(06-04-2018, 03:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know,Breyer and Kagan sided with the majority.  

I think they had to, given the way the Colorado court handled the case. My understanding is the the gay couple could have purchased a ready-made cake, so they were not being refused service. They just could not compel the "artist" to make gay art.

Interesting how the Baker's case is founded upon an appeal to free speech--artistic free speech.
Art alters the nature of all manner of otherwise illegal exchanges. E.g., prostitution is illegal everywhere but Nevada, but paying people for sex in front of a camera is legal because it is "art" is legal in many states.

[Dill]

(06-04-2018, 03:47 PM)Beaker Wrote: This is one of those cases that would have sorted itself out due to capitalism. If you want to not take a customer because they are gay, those customers will just go to your competition and you will make less money.

The record of "Capitalism" in sorting out discrimination/civil rights cases has been rather uneven. That's why we have laws.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 05:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not that I agree with his premise, but it couldn't work in the Jim Crow south as there were no alternative businesses, so citing it as a counter to his argument is silly.

If capitalism fixed the problem then there would have been alternative businesses.  The Jim Crow south was capitalist.

Like I said.  In many rural areas there is only one decent bakery in a town, and even in larger towns minorities should not be forced to spend their money at second rate establishment just because the most popular one discriminates. 

Where I live capitalism would work AGAINST a business that served gays because the majority would shun them and put them out of business.  When Chik-fil-a came out against gays in this area their business went UP instead of down.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-04-2018, 05:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If capitalism fixed the problem then there would have been alternative businesses.  The Jim Crow south was capitalist.

Like I said.  In many rural areas there is only one decent bakery in a town, and even in larger towns minorities should not be forced to spend their money at second rate establishment just because the most popular one discriminates. 

Where I live capitalism would work AGAINST a business that served gays because the majority would shun them and put them out of business.  When Chik-fil-a came out against gays in this area their business went UP instead of down.

The only reason chik-fil-a business went up is because of the calls for a boycott. If there was no call for a boycott, their business would have gone down due to people who used to go there would have just stopped because they don't like their beliefs.

I have never eaten at that restaurant and most likely never will since there isn't one close and I think they are overpriced.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 05:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I think they had to, given the way the Colorado court handled the case. My understanding is the the gay couple could have purchased a ready-made cake, so they were not being refused service. They just could not compel the "artist" to make gay art.

Interesting how the Baker's case is founded upon an appeal to free speech--artistic free speech.
Art alters the nature of all manner of otherwise illegal exchanges. E.g., prostitution is illegal everywhere but Nevada, but paying people for sex in front of a camera is legal because it is "art" is legal in many states.

They didn't make a judgement call on that. They touched on the fact that you could make the argument of artistic expression and religious beliefs, but they then acknowledged that the argument could then be expanded to essentially deny any public accommodation to gay people. They reaffirmed that the state does have the ability to restrict the 1st amendment if they can make an argument for it being in their interest to prevent discrimination.

They just settled whether or not the commission in Colorado treated him fairly, which they did not. They had a clear bias against him the whole time because of his religion. Kagan and Breyer start their concurring opinion that stating that one cannot use religion to discriminate in public accommodations, but then stated that the state cannot show hostility towards one religion. 

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 06:03 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The only reason chik-fil-a business went up is because of the calls for a boycott. If there was no call for a boycott, their business would have gone down due to people who used to go there would have just stopped because they don't like their beliefs.

As soon as their business goes down they just announce the boycott and all the anti-gay people flood them with business.

You can't say people boycotting them over their beliefs would force a change when a boycott over their beliefs would bring in more business.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 06:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They just settled whether or not the commission in Colorado treated him fairly, which they did not. They had a clear bias against him the whole time because of his religion. 

I guess I need to read the opinion, but this makes no sense.  Basically anytime they rule against a person based on his religion he could claim they had a bias against his religion.

[Millhouse]

(06-04-2018, 06:03 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The only reason chik-fil-a business went up is because of the calls for a boycott. If there was no call for a boycott, their business would have gone down due to people who used to go there would have just stopped because they don't like their beliefs.

I have never eaten at that restaurant and most likely never will since there isn't one close and I think they are overpriced.

Their business went up because people like their food over any other fast food place. Sure the boycotts got them more attention at the time, but they are expanding like crazy and crushing pretty much all their competition except maybe McDs. And compared to those other places, their prices are very good actually.

[Millhouse]

I wonder if the bakery was owned by Muslims would this case have gotten the same attention.

[Beaker]

(06-04-2018, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not true.  It never worked in the capitalist Jim Crow south.  

Where there were laws against where you were allowed to shop? We're talking about in an open system where everyone is free to choose which stores they will patronize. If you don't sell to someone, you can bet your competitors will. They make more money, you end up losing business.

[*bfine32*]

There was a time when NPR was considered an non-biased news source; however, that ship has sailed. The vote was 7-2 and NPR's title is "Narrow opinion".