Author Topic: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.  (Read 5775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #135 on: June 30, 2018, 09:02:42 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
And shame on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for acting in the manner they apparently did.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #136 on: June 30, 2018, 09:12:38 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Are Supreme Court judges sometimes known to include wider rulings and definitions in their opinions? Like do they soooorrrttaaa hide Easter Egg rulings in their opinions?

Yes. Sometimes they telegraph their feelings on future opinions. This is usually done in concurring or dissenting opinions. In majority rulings, if the opinion throws in an aside that’s not germaine  to the legal issue at hand, that’s called “dicta”, and has no binding value as precedent.

Thomas has written some really interesting concurrences, speaking about if it was up to him he’d reset the Commerce Clause to about how it was interpreted in 1930.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #137 on: July 01, 2018, 04:57:45 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7282
  • Tommy Points: 1314
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
imagine for instance a local pro-gun society asking for a cake with a pro gun message. Or if you are in favour of guns, imagine any other cause you personally think is immoral but has some support among the general public. What about a cake writing communism is great?


Well, those are choices, being gay isn't a choice or preference.  I don't think it matters in this case, but I can understand the argument.

I think a more apt comparison would be a customer asking the cake baker to decorate a cake that said, "congrats on being born {insert status}".

Thanks for the reply. tbh I don't think this is relevant here.

And in any case, getting married is a choice.

Yes, getting married is a choice -- one that gay people didn't have till recently because of centuries of intolerance, ignorance and religious teachings.  In this case, the baker is apparently within his rights to disapprove of the marriage and refuse to serve them.   What he did is legal, but there is little doubt (probably the baker himself knows this) that it was a discriminatory act.  We still have the right to discriminate based on sexual preference and SCOTUS and the media have sent a message (in the way this has been portrayed) that the right to discriminate against homosexuals is alive and well. We'll see if this creates any momentum in that direction. I hope not.

Thanks for the reply Neurotic Guy.
I discriminate all the time based on personal preferences - I am nicer towards good looking women than overweight ones, and I am more likely to like you if you support the Celtics than the Lakers. I suspect I am not different than most ppl in this respect. Why is this a problem at when it comes to making cakes?

IMHO a different decision by the Supreme Court would have made things worse not better.  This is not the kind of discrimination you want to suppress by legal means.


So you've nailed the disagreement!!   I DO think this is the kind of discrimination you want to suppress by legal means.   I want you to have the right to discriminate as to who you prefer to socialize with or which team's fans you prefer to hang out with.   Absolutely!  But I don't agree that these social discriminations or biases are in the same league as discrimination against GLBTQ in the marketplace.  I think you are a better person if you treat overweight or unattractive people well (I wouldn't shop your store if you refused them service), BUT I guess you don't have to.   My opinion re: GLBTQ is you should have to.   But that's an opinion having witnessed horrific, traumatic mistreatment of GBLTQ people in my life.  I think overweight and unattractive people get mistreated too -- just not to the same extent and not condoned and reinforced by major religious groups and majority culture for centuries.

Thanks for the interesting reply, appreciated.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favour of refusing service in general. If the baker had refused to sell them a cake, that would have been a whole different story.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #138 on: August 20, 2018, 12:29:17 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

Colorado must really enjoy being reversed on appeal. They’re going to force the Court to address this on its merits; I.e., that somebody can’t be compelled to speak, create, produce, etc., in a way that violates their conscience.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #139 on: August 20, 2018, 06:50:07 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 928
  • Tommy Points: 214
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

Colorado must really enjoy being reversed on appeal. They’re going to force the Court to address this on its merits; I.e., that somebody can’t be compelled to speak, create, produce, etc., in a way that violates their conscience.

Clearly there are some circumstances in which people can be compelled to serve people they don’t want to.  Opposition to serving people of different races was justified for a very long time on grounds of religion or conscience. I do not recommend trying that today - or saying you don’t want to make a cake for an interracial marriage b cause that’s against God’s law. This is about whether the government can also write laws to protect LGBT people, as they can to protect people against racial discrimination. You can say your views should outweigh others right not to be refused service on grounds of their sexual orientation, but that’s what you’re saying. There are interests on both sides, not just one.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 06:56:52 PM by Sophomore »

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #140 on: August 20, 2018, 07:00:39 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

Colorado must really enjoy being reversed on appeal. They’re going to force the Court to address this on its merits; I.e., that somebody can’t be compelled to speak, create, produce, etc., in a way that violates their conscience.

Clearly there are some circumstances in which they can. Opposition to serving people of different races was justified for a very long time on grounds of religion or conscience. I do not recommend trying that today. This is about whether the government can also write laws to protect LGBT people.

We’ll see how broadly the Court rules next time.  Roberts will probably keep the decision from being too sweeping, but there’s going to be a ruling protecting First Amendment rights.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #141 on: August 20, 2018, 07:06:26 PM »

Online KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10670
  • Tommy Points: 1250
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

Colorado must really enjoy being reversed on appeal. They’re going to force the Court to address this on its merits; I.e., that somebody can’t be compelled to speak, create, produce, etc., in a way that violates their conscience.

Clearly there are some circumstances in which they can. Opposition to serving people of different races was justified for a very long time on grounds of religion or conscience. I do not recommend trying that today. This is about whether the government can also write laws to protect LGBT people.

We’ll see how broadly the Court rules next time.  Roberts will probably keep the decision from being too sweeping, but there’s going to be a ruling protecting First Amendment rights.

Yeah, all this commission in Colorado is doing is opening the door for the SCOTUS to strengthen 1st Amendment rights with a subsequent ruling that basically re-iterates what they've already intimated at.  Artistic talents are akin to protected speech, regardless of whether you are hiring out your talents or not.

Furthermore, I suspect this baker may have solid grounds to now sue the commission for damages.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #142 on: August 20, 2018, 07:14:20 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

Colorado must really enjoy being reversed on appeal. They’re going to force the Court to address this on its merits; I.e., that somebody can’t be compelled to speak, create, produce, etc., in a way that violates their conscience.

Clearly there are some circumstances in which they can. Opposition to serving people of different races was justified for a very long time on grounds of religion or conscience. I do not recommend trying that today. This is about whether the government can also write laws to protect LGBT people.

We’ll see how broadly the Court rules next time.  Roberts will probably keep the decision from being too sweeping, but there’s going to be a ruling protecting First Amendment rights.

Yeah, all this commission in Colorado is doing is opening the door for the SCOTUS to strengthen 1st Amendment rights with a subsequent ruling that basically re-iterates what they've already intimated at.  Artistic talents are akin to protected speech, regardless of whether you are hiring out your talents or not.

Furthermore, I suspect this baker may have solid grounds to now sue the commission for damages.

In general state agencies and similar entities will have some immunity from damages, particularly punitive damages, but this case is so obvious. The baker is a target of harassment, and the State is enabling that harassment, and perhaps acting as an accomplice to it.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #143 on: August 20, 2018, 07:26:40 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3770
  • Tommy Points: 250
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

Colorado must really enjoy being reversed on appeal. They’re going to force the Court to address this on its merits; I.e., that somebody can’t be compelled to speak, create, produce, etc., in a way that violates their conscience.

Clearly there are some circumstances in which people can be compelled to serve people they don’t want to.  Opposition to serving people of different races was justified for a very long time on grounds of religion or conscience. I do not recommend trying that today - or saying you don’t want to make a cake for an interracial marriage b cause that’s against God’s law. This is about whether the government can also write laws to protect LGBT people, as they can to protect people against racial discrimination. You can say your views should outweigh others right not to be refused service on grounds of their sexual orientation, but that’s what you’re saying. There are interests on both sides, not just one.


Not mere interests on both sides - this is a classic ethical dilemma that pits one right against another,

Personally, I don't think anyone should be compelled to be a baker when they don't want to. At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

The he decision to engage in business as a wedding cake maker specifically is a decision to make wedding cakes for anyone who pays.  It's not religion or politics; its business.

Framing this as a win for the 1st ammendment (one of my fav) misses quite a bit.  It clearly denies certain freedoms just as its celebrants rejoice in the freedom to discriminate it protects.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 07:54:26 PM by More Banners »

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #144 on: August 20, 2018, 08:10:39 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #145 on: August 20, 2018, 08:31:03 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
I look at wedding cakes as a commodity, regardless of how they are decorated so my opinion is the baker should have made the cake. He denied making the cake before even knowing how the couple wanted it decorated, which is the artist part. If the couple only wanted a regular cake, then the baker definitely infringed upon the couple's rights of being in the LBGT community.

However, the baker had previously turned down making Halloween cakes for religious reasons, so he has shown a history of not providing services based on his religious rights.

Tough call, IMHO. I see both sides.

All that said, the abuse he took from the other baker was disgusting and the commission using that abuse to bring up the subject is a ridiculous abuse of power.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #146 on: August 20, 2018, 09:18:36 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5947
  • Tommy Points: 24
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #147 on: August 20, 2018, 09:34:01 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.
The only problem with this attitude is it's against the law. You can't refuse to service people based on sex, religion, race, or sexual orientation. If you could my guess is thousands of businesses across the south would go back to refusing to service black or brown people. Might as well go back to putting signs up saying "We don't service gay, lesbian or transgender people".

The tough part of this case is is being a baker a commodity business or an artistic business? In this case, if it is viewed as an artistic business, then the owner has a right to say no because no one can force you to do a piece of art, if the art is against the artist's religion.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #148 on: August 20, 2018, 09:34:25 PM »

Online KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10670
  • Tommy Points: 1250
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #149 on: August 20, 2018, 10:51:20 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5947
  • Tommy Points: 24
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis