SCOTUS Rules About Colorodo Baker

[*bfine32*]

(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.

So your assertion is that it matters who gets appointed to SCOTUS if your desire is for them NOT to follow the rule of law, but rule on personal beliefs? Outside of that the comment makes 0 sense. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 06:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

relevant portion from the opinion

Quote:Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.

(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. 

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/04/16-111_j4el.pdf

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-04-2018, 05:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When Chik-fil-a came out against gays in this area their business went UP instead of down.

Interesting alternative version of history you have there.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-04-2018, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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".

I thought that too but then I wondered if they meant the ruling was narrow.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-04-2018, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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".

I think the Narrow Opinion is about this case only and that future cases could result in differing opinions or rulings.

EDIT: I didn't see Michaelsean's post.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2018, 09:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I thought that too but then I wondered if they meant the ruling was narrow.

(06-04-2018, 09:58 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I think the Narrow Opinion is about this case only and that future cases could result in differing opinions or rulings.

EDIT: I didn't see Michaelsean's post.

We can assume what they meant by narrow all day; but the decision was not narrow, it was 7-2. I can say I listen to npr quite regularly at work and they are drifting more and more to the left. I suppose they are banking on the liberal dollars keeping them afloat; good luck with that. It's sad because during the election they were the most unbiased site out there, but something has changed. 

[SunsetBengal]

(06-04-2018, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We can assume what they meant by narrow all day; but the decision was not narrow, it was 7-2. I can say I listen to npr quite regularly at work and they are drifting more and more to the left. I suppose they are banking on the liberal dollars keeping them afloat; good luck with that. It's sad because during the election they were the most unbiased site out there, but something has changed. 

https://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias

Quote:Last week, NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" - a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature, and also politics - airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on September 3, and then on October 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O'Reilly. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the [O'Reilly] interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias....

That's just one excerpt, but the article is worth a read.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 09:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I thought that too but then I wondered if they meant the ruling was narrow.

They did. CNN, NYT, NPR, NBC, PBS, WaPo, and more have used the phrasing "narrow" to describe the scope of the decision. 


It's summed up well in the first sentence of Reuter's story
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-04-2018, 10:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They did. CNN, NYT, NPR, NBC, PBS, WaPo, and more have used the phrasing "narrow" to describe the scope of the decision. 


It's summed up well in the first sentence of Reuter's story
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU

Ok, we all can agree that "narrow" was the message they wanted to put forth, but why?  I don't know too many people who think that 7-2 is a narrow margin, by any stretch.  

In football terms, that's like 49-14.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-04-2018, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We can assume what they meant by narrow all day; but the decision was not narrow, it was 7-2. I can say I listen to npr quite regularly at work and they are drifting more and more to the left. I suppose they are banking on the liberal dollars keeping them afloat; good luck with that. It's sad because during the election they were the most unbiased site out there, but something has changed. 

I’m just saying it might have meant a narrow ruling which would make more sense.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 10:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, we all can agree that "narrow" was the message they wanted to put forth, but why?  I don't know too many people who think that 7-2 is a narrow margin, by any stretch.  

In football terms, that's like 49-14.  

It was a narrow decision, meaning the scope of the decision was very narrow. 

They made a decision regarding the treatment of the baker by the state commission and did not make a decision regarding whether or not he was allowed to refuse service or whether he could claim artistic expression. It failed to set a precedent for future cases regarding the refusal of service on the grounds of religious freedom. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2018, 10:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, we all can agree that "narrow" was the message they wanted to put forth, but why?  I don't know too many people who think that 7-2 is a narrow margin, by any stretch.  

In football terms, that's like 49-14.  

I must apologize to the OP for going on a tangent with npr. I agree that npr's headline leads the reader to believe the vote was close and their intent can be called into question. WTS, it's a matter for an entirely different thread. The bottom line is today's ruling was a victory for supporters of religious freedoms. 

[SunsetBengal]

(06-04-2018, 10:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It was a narrow decision, meaning the scope of the decision was very narrow. 

They made a decision regarding the treatment of the baker by the state commission and did not make a decision regarding whether or not he was allowed to refuse service or whether he could claim artistic expression. It failed to set a precedent for future cases regarding the refusal of service on the grounds of religious freedom. 

Well, by noting the hostility toward the man's religious views, they certainly left that door open.

[BmorePat87]

I know there's concern that the phrasing of "narrow" is a liberal attempt to rewrite the impact of this case, ignoring any history of "broad" and "narrow" being used to describe the scope of opinions, but here's a fun article I found from conservative outlet the Federalist.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/08/supreme-court-likely-rule-jack-phillips-dodging-big-religious-liberty-question/

The author completely called this decision months ago and suggested it was be a narrow opinion involving only the treatment of Phillips by the commission, hinging on Kennedy. Well called.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 11:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, by noting the hostility toward the man's religious views, they certainly left that door open.

They left the issue completely open. They kicked the can down the road.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2018, 11:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They left the issue completely open. They kicked the can down the road.

I have to agree with those who stated it was a good thing they did.  Basing such an important ruling on a flawed case opens up the ruling for immense criticism and dispute.  Better to let a properly handled case of this nature reach them so they can make a clean, "from now on", ruling.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I think SCOTUS ruled the way they did because it would be extremely hard to prove religious beliefs as a reason to not sell to someone.

Where is the line drawn?

A person who is deeply religious but doesn't go to church has no way to prove they are deeply religious. 
A person who isn't deeply religious and is just a bigot can claim they are religious.
What about a bakery knowingly makes a cake for a couple for the couples third marriage who committed adultery on their previous spouses?

For the state to prove someone doesn't have religious convictions is impossible.

These cases need to be handled on a case by case basis.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2018, 11:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I think SCOTUS ruled the way they did because it would be extremely hard to prove religious beliefs as a reason to not sell to someone.

Where is the line drawn?

A person who is deeply religious but doesn't go to church has no way to prove they are deeply religious. 
A person who isn't deeply religious and is just a bigot can claim they are religious.
What about a bakery knowingly makes a cake for a couple for the couples third marriage who committed adultery on their previous spouses?

For the state to prove someone doesn't have religious convictions is impossible.

These cases need to be handled on a case by case basis.

The phrase "since religious beliefs" is repeated numerous times in the opinion, but it is important to not that in the opinion Kennedy questions where the line is draw, suggesting using this religious argument could be applied to nearly any public accommodation to create a stigma against gay people. He also states that a state can limit someone's religious freedom if they make an argument for public interest (preventing discrimination).

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2018, 11:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to agree with those who stated it was a good thing they did.  Basing such an important ruling on a flawed case opens up the ruling for immense criticism and dispute.  Better to let a properly handled case of this nature reach them so they can make a clean, "from now on", ruling.

I agree. Making this such a narrow ruling was important. I also agree with the ruling. I think laws/policies regarding LGBTQ discrimination are legal (and necessary), but we must apply these policies in an equitable manner. If there is hostility or bias in the application of the policy, then the initial determination should be reversed. If the biased application of the policy was a result of the fallibility of the policy itself, then the policy needs to be evaluated.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-04-2018, 08:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: relevant portion from the opinion



http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/04/16-111_j4el.pdf

Wow way to ruin your case.  and they seem to be somewhat inconsistent, so they probably need to fix that.