Supreme Ct. Rules on Wedding Cake for Same Sex Marriage

[Danmark]

Today the U. S. Supreme Court finally published its decision in MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO The full text of the decision along with concurrances and dissent:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecour ... _OPINION_3

Tho' nominally the decision overturns the Colorado decision and was a finding in favor of the baker, it was a cleverly crafted 'non decision.' Justice Kennedy affirmed the Colorado law in question, a law which says a company open to the public cannot refuse to sell its products to someone because of their race, religion, marital status, or sexual orientation.
“It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.� Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a) (2017)."

However, Kennedy found fault with the Commission that applied this law to Phillips [the baker], saying that they showed hostility toward Phillips' religious beliefs by characterizing them as an excuse for unlawful discrimination:

"To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use� is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law__...."
The subject for debate is A, doe this summary of the decision fairly represent the Court's opinion, and
B, is Colorado's anti discrimination law fair to competing factions?

[Danmark]

the Constitution of these United States is indeed the basis of our laws. However, that does not mean that one clause in one amendment should be viewed outside the context of the rest of the Constitution. If there is a conflict between parts of the Constitution, as there is in this case, the courts adjudicate a resolution to that conflict.

Fine. State your example, citing the case and the Constitution, where "one clause in one amendment ... is in conflict with... the rest of the Constitution." Then relate this to the Masterpiece Cake case. This is my beef with your 'analysis.' You never cite a case, you never cite the Constitution. You are never specific in your analysis. If you are going to complain about a court ruling, cite the ruling and be specific about how it contravenes the Constitution.

Also, I repeat, if you actually read the entire case opinion, including the concurrences and the the dissent, you would be better able to make your case. Instead you just complain without any effective analysis.

[Danmark]

Also, judicial precedent does silence debate. If that were the case then there would be no 13th amendment, because there was already judicial precedent in favor of lifetime slavery prior to it being passed.

This is just plain wrong on several levels. Precedent does not "silence debate." Debate continues despite court rulings and even Supreme Court rulings have been overturned without amendments. Classic example is the flag salute case. The court reversed itself on whether JW's should be required to salute the flag.

"In the late 1930s, as Europe and Asia headed toward war, a wave of patriotism swept over the United States. One manifestation was a number of state laws requiring school children to salute the American flag each morning. Members of the religious sect, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, argued that a compulsory salute would violate the religious prohibition against graven images. Because of their beliefs, including strident anti-Catholicism, and proselytizing tactics (door-to-door canvassing) that many found obnoxious, the Witnesses became the most hated religious group in the country. They were the target of vigilante attacks, and many state and local laws were designed to restrict their activities.

In a challenge to the mandatory flag salute law in Pennsylvania, Minersville v. Gobitis, decided on this day, the Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling against members of the Gobitis family. Soon after, however, three members of the Court had second thoughts, and said so publicly. As a result, in a second case, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, decided on June 14, 1943, the Court reversed itself and affirmed the rights of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. "
http://todayinclh.com/?event=supreme-co ... ses-itself
Once again, 'Bluethread' you are just plain wrong.

[Danmark]

Now, to the substance of what you said in response to Wootah, I see nothing wrong with allowing people to refusing service to Republicans in an open market.

You have every right to disagree with the U. S. Constitution and believe in violating the law and being a criminal, just a any murderer has a right to disagree with the law and kill someone. But if you have a business open to the pubic and refuse service because you want to discriminate on the basis of race or political affiliation, be prepared to pay the penalty, just as the murderer does.

You have the right to disagree with the law, but that is not a defense to breaking it.

[bluethread]

But if someone said, "The Bible makes absurd statements," you would expect the person to cite the so called 'absurd statement.'

Hwoever, if one were to say, "How is this helpful in any way? Is the the bible saying X? Does it mean Y? In either of these cases, the ten commandments are meaningless." and then were to explain the nature of a commandment, I might very well point out that the bible does not say X and it does not mean Y. I might then propose that it says Z and that means A. I also, responded to what Wootah said. It all depends on my percieved expectations of that other one. On that basis I would discriminate between posters. I have no problem with such discrimination.


Now, If you consider what I have posted to be just "some witless opinion based on mere personal opinion" that is fine. However, I noticed you did not adrress the quotes and citations I did make with regard to what Wootah said. Yet, you seem to have no problem continuing your discussions with Wootah and jgh7, who have spoken of principle without citation. With the exception of noting that I accidently posted, "judicial precedent does silence debate", instead of "judicial precedent does NOT silence debate", I will withdraw and allow you to continue with those with whom you do not mind discussing "witless opinion based on mere personal opinion".

[Bust Nak]

It's an interesting decision. The Supreme Court did a very clever job indeed of avoiding taking any real sides on the issue. They sort of used a "technicality" as a means of showing favor to Phillips. I'm left to wonder what their final decision would have been if no hostility had been shown towards Phillip's religious beliefs by the Colorado Commission.

The Supreme Court focused on the conduct of the lower court judge, if that "technicality" invalidated the lower court decision then surely a retrial with an new unbiased judge is the right way to settle things, as neither the facts of the case, nor the Colorado state laws were challenged. Was ordering a retrial even an option? I mean the baker isn't any less guilty just because the judge was biased.

The question is not if a store owner must sell to all people. The question is if a store owner can be compelled to create a message he does not agree with.

To take up the analogy of selling a flag, if a store sold American flags then the store would be required to sell flags to a Nazi who openly said that he planned to burn those flags.

Now imagine the a permium version of that flag store which doesn't have any American flags on the shelf but only produces them in a fancy manner on receiving an order, what difference if any would that make? Is this store owner compelled to fulfull that order? The Nazi is after all, welcomed to any and all of the product on the shelf, or perhaps making a flag is considered a product on the shelf that he is compelled to sell?

But if you have a business open to the pubic and refuse service because you want to discriminate on the basis of race or political affiliation, be prepared to pay the penalty, just as the murderer does.

You have the right to disagree with the law, but that is not a defense to breaking it.

Wait a minute, I am pretty sure political affiliation is not a protected characteristic in some states.

[DPMartin]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

its a fine line, but the spirit of the law federally if you will is clear you can do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with another's rights. you have the right to play baseball but you don't have the right to play baseball in my baseball field just because you have rights.


if the state bakes cakes then they have no right to deny anyone operating within their rights. (like public transportation for instance) but now your telling a private citizen what he has to do with what he has invested his money in.


its bad to be in business in Colorado if you have religious scruples with what you will be involved with. that is the lesson here.


it is said of Sodom and Gomora that men could not dwell in Sodom unless they submit to sodomy first. hence the crowd pressing Lot's door demanding they "know" his visitors.

the law may say they have the right, but someone else's rights to refrain is denied.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 26 by DPMartin]

What about the right to be freed from discrimination based on sexuality?

[bjs]

The question is not if a store owner must sell to all people. The question is if a store owner can be compelled to create a message he does not agree with.

To take up the analogy of selling a flag, if a store sold American flags then the store would be required to sell flags to a Nazi who openly said that he planned to burn those flags.

Now imagine the a permium version of that flag store which doesn't have any American flags on the shelf but only produces them in a fancy manner on receiving an order, what difference if any would that make? Is this store owner compelled to fulfull that order? The Nazi is after all, welcomed to any and all of the product on the shelf, or perhaps making a flag is considered a product on the shelf that he is compelled to sell?

Yes, that is the question at hand. Can a specialty shop, whether they sell things “off the self� or only do special orders, be compelled to create a message that they disagree with.

My guess is that the court will say no, because of the president set by Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston. In that case a group wanted to have a float in St. Patrick’s Day Parade that celebrated gay pride. Those putting on the parade wanted to focus on Irish-American culture and felt a gay pride float would become the focal point, distracting people from their main message.

“The Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be presented by their demonstration, even if the intent of the state was to prevent discrimination.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurley_v. ... _of_Boston

If the court holds to its president, which it tends to do, it will most likely end on the position that is a violation of free speech for the government to compel someone to create message he/she disagrees with.

[Danmark]

The question is not if a store owner must sell to all people. The question is if a store owner can be compelled to create a message he does not agree with.

To take up the analogy of selling a flag, if a store sold American flags then the store would be required to sell flags to a Nazi who openly said that he planned to burn those flags.

Now imagine the a permium version of that flag store which doesn't have any American flags on the shelf but only produces them in a fancy manner on receiving an order, what difference if any would that make? Is this store owner compelled to fulfull that order? The Nazi is after all, welcomed to any and all of the product on the shelf, or perhaps making a flag is considered a product on the shelf that he is compelled to sell?

Yes, that is the question at hand. Can a specialty shop, whether they sell things “off the self� or only do special orders, be compelled to create a message that they disagree with.

My guess is that the court will say no, because of the president set by Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston. In that case a group wanted to have a float in St. Patrick’s Day Parade that celebrated gay pride. Those putting on the parade wanted to focus on Irish-American culture and felt a gay pride float would become the focal point, distracting people from their main message.

“The Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be presented by their demonstration, even if the intent of the state was to prevent discrimination.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurley_v. ... _of_Boston

If the court holds to its president, which it tends to do, it will most likely end on the position that is a violation of free speech for the government to compel someone to create message he/she disagrees with.

First, the word is 'precedent' not 'president.' 2d, we already know the answer. A shop open to the public cannot discriminate based on the status of the buyer; however it cannot be compelled to draft a written message that runs contrary to the owner's beliefs.