SCOTUS Rules About Colorodo Baker

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 08:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting alternative version of history you have there.

The owners lobbied to deny gays equal protection under the law and discriminated against same sex couples.

Nothing "alternative" about my version of history.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-04-2018, 11:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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).

The way I'm reading it, it cannot be a definitive broad based ruling, as every case needs to be looked at on it's individual merits.  As in, does one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.  Because due to the nature of human beings, there will always be instances where say someone refuses to make a cake simply because they don't like gay people, rather than being truly adhering to their deeply rooted religious beliefs.  
After taking time to think about this a bit further, I have a better understanding of the "narrow" scope of the decision, and I see it's importance.  The baker was treated unfairly with hostility by his State court, and SCOTUS is telling States that they must consider both sides on a case.  

[Bengalzona]

7 to 2 vote tells me there is more to the case than just some evangelicals wanting to be mean to gay people. But, of course, I'm too lazy to look up the details myself, so I'll just wait around on Facebook until some pulls up a good meme to tell my how I should feel about this.

[BmorePat87]

(06-05-2018, 05:01 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The way I'm reading it, it cannot be a definitive broad based ruling, as every case needs to be looked at on it's individual merits.  As in, does one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.  Because due to the nature of human beings, there will always be instances where say someone refuses to make a cake simply because they don't like gay people, rather than being truly adhering to their deeply rooted religious beliefs.  
After taking time to think about this a bit further, I have a better understanding of the "narrow" scope of the decision, and I see it's importance.  The baker was treated unfairly with hostility by his State court, and SCOTUS is telling States that they must consider both sides on a case.  

It could be given the right case. We make the same judgement call with racial and sex based discrimination. The line has to be drawn and states can draw it.

But, like you said, this was not the case to draw that line given the unfair treatment by Colorado preventing them from even getting to the issue of could the state limit him.

[Matt_Crimson]

(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.

But was the baker refusing to serve them because they were gay? Or was he refusing to serve them because he doesn't support gay marriage? These are two different things.

[Beaker]

(06-05-2018, 09:39 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But was the baker refusing to serve them because they were gay? Or was he refusing to serve them because he doesn't support gay marriage? These are two different things.

Either way he is losing business that some other baker will willingly take.

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-06-2018, 12:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: Either way he is losing business that some other baker will willingly take.

Companies lose business to other businesses every day. 


I'm just pointing out that saying an individual refused to serve someone because they're gay creates a different story than an individual refusing to serve someone because they don't want to help them celebrate something they don't support.

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2018, 12:32 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm just pointing out that saying an individual refused to serve someone because they're gay creates a different story than an individual refusing to serve someone because they don't want to help them celebrate something they don't support.

because they're gay

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-06-2018, 12:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: because they're gay

Care to elaborate?

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2018, 07:21 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Care to elaborate?

I think it's pretty simple. Opposition to gay marriage is based on the fact that they're a gay and not straight.

I'm not discriminating against women, I just only believe that men should play football. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2018, 07:21 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Care to elaborate?

I think your argument has validity issues when we dig into it. If someone provides a service like baking cakes for weddings, then we must start there. What is the difference between a "traditional" wedding and a "gay" wedding. The difference is that we are looking at a same-sex couple. It is easy to say on the surface level that the service was not provided because of a disagreement over same-sex marriage, but that still boils down to the difference of the couple being gay rather than straight. You're stopping at the lowest common denominator, but when a lot of people look at these issues they are looking deeper.

[Dill]

(06-04-2018, 08:05 PM)bfine32 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. 

???? How do you get from an observation about the legal status of artistic free speech to a claim about SCOTUS appointments and a desire "NOT to follow the rule of law????

[Dill]

(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".

That was before the US reached a critical mass of bias hunters--back when anyone could read the title and article and understand that NPR was saying the grounds of the vote were narrow, not the result.

[Bengalzona]

(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.

Theoretically possible if gay couples were a significant portion of the wedding cake buyer market. I think it is safe to assume that they are not as most estimates put the LGBT population ib the U.S. as less than 10% of the population. The owner's have probably done the simple math and assumed that a loss of up to 10% of their business is acceptable to them, thus making it acceptable to target a minority of the population. It is the same math historically used to target other groups at different times, such as blacks, Latinos, Irish, Italians, etc. Hence, I don't think capitalism really gets the job done in changing this type of behavior.

[Dill]

(06-06-2018, 11:04 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Theoretically possible if gay couples were a significant portion of the wedding cake buyer market. I think it is safe to assume that they are not as most estimates put the LGBT population ib the U.S. as less than 10% of the population. The owner's have probably done the simple math and assumed that a loss of up to 10% of their business is acceptable to them, thus making it acceptable to target a minority of the population. It is the same math historically used to target other groups at different times, such as blacks, Latinos, Irish, Italians, etc. Hence, I don't think capitalism really gets the job done in changing this type of behavior.

The other side of "capitalsim" in this case might be that more people from the 90% decide to support the baker, as happened with Chick-fil-a.

Capitalism never sorted out segregated lunch counters. Owners were happy to lose black business when they knew it would cost them more white business.  Seems like capitalism depends a whole lot on the temper of business clientele in a given time and place.  In NYC the baker's move would have likely killed his business; it might have helped it in Utah or Alabama.  

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-06-2018, 08:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think it's pretty simple. Opposition to gay marriage is based on the fact that they're a gay and not straight.

I'm not discriminating against women, I just only believe that men should play football. 

What? No it sn't. 

Opposition to gay marriage (in this particular case) is based on the religious belief that gay marriage is wrong, not because gay people are gay. The religious belief is the source from which the opposition comes from in the first place.

(06-06-2018, 08:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think your argument has validity issues when we dig into it. If someone provides a service like baking cakes for weddings, then we must start there. What is the difference between a "traditional" wedding and a "gay" wedding. The difference is that we are looking at a same-sex couple. It is easy to say on the surface level that the service was not provided because of a disagreement over same-sex marriage, but that still boils down to the difference of the couple being gay rather than straight. You're stopping at the lowest common denominator, but when a lot of people look at these issues they are looking deeper.

But again,

Refusing someone service because they're gay and because you don't want to partake in their crlebration because you think it's wrong are two different things.

One suggests that he would not serve gay people at all regardless of whether or not it's for a wedding, it's just because he doesnt like gay people.

The other suggests he will serve gay people, just not a gay wedding.

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-06-2018, 11:42 AM)Dill Wrote: The other side of "capitalsim" in this case might be that more people from the 90% decide to support the baker, as happened with Chick-fil-a.

Capitalism never sorted out segregated lunch counters. Owners were happy to lose black business when they knew it would cost them more white business.  Seems like capitalism depends a whole lot on the temper of business clientele in a given time and place.  In NYC the baker's move would have likely killed his business; it might have helped it in Utah or Alabama.  

In other words business are exactly like politicians.

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2018, 12:15 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What? No it sn't. 

Opposition to gay marriage (in this particular case) is based on the religious belief that gay marriage is wrong, not because gay people are gay. The religious belief is the source from which the opposition comes from in the first place.


But again,

Refusing someone service because they're gay and because you don't want to partake in their crlebration because you think it's wrong are two different things.

One suggests that he would not serve gay people at all regardless of whether or not it's for a wedding, it's just because he doesnt like gay people.

The other suggests he will serve gay people, just not a gay wedding.

Like I said, I do not oppose women, I just do not support them playing football. It's my belief that women playing sports is wrong, not because women are women. I just believe it because my faith tells me that women engaging in something that does not involve me, does not hurt anyone, and involves only those who choose to participate is immoral and a sin. It's just as bad as killing someone because a sin is a sin.

I still support women cooking and cleaning or even voting, I just won't sell any sports equipment to women because I do not support women playing sports. I won't sell them a baseball mitt but I'll still sell them an oven mitt.


See at the root of all of it, I am discriminating against women for being women, not just them playing sports. It's the fact that they as women are playing the sport. T

The opposition to gay marriage is that the people involved in the marriage are gay. It doesn't matter if your prejudice against gay people is only limited to them marrying, you still have a prejudice based on their sexual orientation. 

[*PhilHos*]

(06-05-2018, 09:39 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But was the baker refusing to serve them because they were gay? Or was he refusing to serve them because he doesn't support gay marriage? These are two different things.

If I recall correctly, this baker had actually served many gay people. The baker had actually baked a few wedding cakes for gay couples. And, IIRC, he even decorated cakes for gay people. The only thing he didn't do was decorate the cakes for gay couples to be used in gay weddings.

While people can still argue, he was discriminating, you can't claim he didn't serve gay people. IF this is the same baker I'm think of.

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2018, 01:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If I recall correctly, this baker had actually served many gay people. The baker had actually baked a few wedding cakes for gay couples. And, IIRC, he even decorated cakes for gay people. The only thing he didn't do was decorate the cakes for gay couples to be used in gay weddings.

While people can still argue, he was discriminating, you can't claim he didn't serve gay people. IF this is the same baker I'm think of.

It's not an absolute and I don't know if anyone suggested it was. You can order food, you just can't sit at the lunch counter.