Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on June 04, 2018, 05:57:53 PM
-
First world problems
https://nyti.ms/2Hiqu9I
-
First world problems
https://nyti.ms/2Hiqu9I (https://nyti.ms/2Hiqu9I)
I haven't read it. But this is not an issue in most first world countries. Things happening lately that make me question the first worldiness of the US :D.
-
Good to know that lefty anti-Christianity is not the SCOTUS-sanctioned religion of the US. The right to marry does not mean the right to force people to participate in events they sincerely believe are sinful just because the left-minded person in question thinks those beliefs are dumb. I did not expect this but I'm very pleased. The baker in question, like in most of these gay wedding cases, had no problem serving gay people and in fact had done so for ages. He just didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, which is one event, based on his faith. I hope more and more balanced decisions and policies like this start prevailing over both the extreme Left and evil alt Right BS that's slowly tearing the US into 2 increasingly totalitarian-leaning groups.
-
Now I hope Morgan Freeman sues that evil Counterfeit News Network and its vindictive and probably racist reporter for the hatchet job they did him in the last 2 weeks just to hitch a ride on the metoo wagon.
-
I think the question is whether a public business can decide who they are going to serve based on their religious beliefs. If one opens a business in the public domain of decorating wedding cakes then why should one refuse to decorate gay wedding cakes? Nobody is asking them to participate in the gay wedding. What about if one rents out wedding Tuxedos, should one refuse to rent Tuxedo’s for gay couple.
What about if they refuse to decorate a cake for an interracial couple because their religion is against interracial marriage.
Good to know that lefty anti-Christianity is not the SCOTUS-sanctioned religion of the US. The right to marry does not mean the right to force people to participate in events they sincerely believe are sinful just because the left-minded person in question thinks those beliefs are dumb. I did not expect this but I'm very pleased. The baker in question, like in most of these gay wedding cases, had no problem serving gay people and in fact had done so for ages. He just didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, which is one event, based on his faith. I hope more and more balanced decisions and policies like this start prevailing over both the extreme Left and evil alt Right BS that's slowly tearing the US into 2 increasingly totalitarian-leaning groups.
-
Kichwa, that does not worry me for this reason: weddings are events. They are not people. People are protected from discrimination. Not events or messages.
So if a racist religion denounces race-mixing as sinful (which I believe nowadays some do/might) a member of that religion should not be forced to take part in an event that inherently is about that very thing (race-mixing). They should not be allowed to refuse those same people service in any other scenario however where they cannot show such a link (besides freedom of expression scenarios). Now, if there is a religious rule that says serving people of a certain race or sexual orientation is a sin, in that case the the public interest to protect individuals from discrimination ought absolutely to supersede the religious/concientous-objection right. So refusing to sell them a cake would be a no-no in my books but if they requested a custom designed wedding cake where the baker's job is to create a message and such on the cake espousing views he himself disagrees with or even none, I'd support the KKK idiot's right to refuse.
The thing is, this is a question of a balance of rights/fundamental freedoms: conscience, religion, expression and freedom from discrimination. According to the SCOTUS (and to me) these are BOTH protected rights. You can't create a strict hierarchy that simply refuses to treat the right to conscientious objection as a real right based on one's own personal animus or contempt for religion or that particular religion. it would not be a freedom if it had to be vetted by those who don't share beliefs of the faith in question. I think the court struck a good balance. You can't just refuse to serve gay people but you can refuse to sell your services in support of messages or events you disagree with. I am comfortable with such a balance.
-
It seems like the SCOTUS actually punted on the question of whether the baker was right or wrong not to serve the gays and choosing to focus on the tone of the Colorado Civil Rights commission, according to commentaries I have seen on TV thus far. That this ruling is narrow. Specific to this particular case. Not applicable to say another bigot in another state behaving the same way.
-
No strong objection but I'd be happier if the split was the usual 5-4. Also the ruling hinges more on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's hostility to the baker's religion, not really the heart of the matter which seems escapist. I get the litigation was by the Baker vs Colorado (not by or vs the gay couple).
I support LGBT.. who are a tiny minority. The real matter remains unresolved according to many commentators.
-
It seems like the SCOTUS actually punted on the question of whether the baker was right or wrong not to serve the gays and choosing to focus on the tone of the Colorado Civil Rights commission, according to commentaries I have seen on TV thus far. That this ruling is narrow. Specific to this particular case. Not applicable to say another bigot in another state behaving the same way.
Yup. The litigant is the baker so the question before SCOTUS was narrow.
-
No strong objection but I'd be happier if the split was the usual 5-4. Also the ruling hinges more on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's hostility to the baker's religion, not really the heart of the matter which seems escapist. I get the litigation was by the Baker vs Colorado (not by or vs the gay couple).
I support LGBT.. who are a tiny minority. The real matter remains unresolved according to many commentators.
You would see the 5-4 split if they were - as you say - dealing with the heart of the matter.
-
No strong objection but I'd be happier if the split was the usual 5-4. Also the ruling hinges more on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's hostility to the baker's religion, not really the heart of the matter which seems escapist. I get the litigation was by the Baker vs Colorado (not by or vs the gay couple).
I support LGBT.. who are a tiny minority. The real matter remains unresolved according to many commentators.
You would see the 5-4 split if they were - as you say - dealing with the heart of the matter.
Sadly, I fear, in favor of the gayphobe baker.
-
Good to know that lefty anti-Christianity is not the SCOTUS-sanctioned religion of the US. The right to marry does not mean the right to force people to participate in events they sincerely believe are sinful just because the left-minded person in question thinks those beliefs are dumb. I did not expect this but I'm very pleased. The baker in question, like in most of these gay wedding cases, had no problem serving gay people and in fact had done so for ages. He just didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, which is one event, based on his faith. I hope more and more balanced decisions and policies like this start prevailing over both the extreme Left and evil alt Right BS that's slowly tearing the US into 2 increasingly totalitarian-leaning groups.
If I were in the baker’s shoes I’d do the same, but kadame I don’t know where you got the idea of participating in a gay wedding. They requested for a gay themed wedding cake and not asked him to participate in their event.
I think the next frontier of assault on Christianity is suing a church for declining to officiate a gay wedding. Some day someone will rule that tax exempting an organization that pees on US katiba is a no-no.
The days of anti-faggotry Christianity in the US are certainly numbered
-
It seems like the SCOTUS actually punted on the question of whether the baker was right or wrong not to serve the gays and choosing to focus on the tone of the Colorado Civil Rights commission, according to commentaries I have seen on TV thus far. That this ruling is narrow. Specific to this particular case. Not applicable to say another bigot in another state behaving the same way.
From what I understand, they faulted the commission precisely for refusing to treat the baker's religious claims seriously. So bigots will have to actually weigh the religious freedom of people brought before them in commissions against other rights claimed to be violated on that basis the next time a case like this comes around before them. I actually see a trend in SCOTUS in Hobby lobby and Hossana-Tabor basically refusing to protect one group of bigots over another. Justice Kennedy apparently noted the issue of "intolerance" to the baker during the hearings. So its more than just rudeness they were faulting. Personally, I find it encouraging that they are refusing to be swept up under ideology and just being above it all and fair.
-
It seems like the SCOTUS actually punted on the question of whether the baker was right or wrong not to serve the gays and choosing to focus on the tone of the Colorado Civil Rights commission, according to commentaries I have seen on TV thus far. That this ruling is narrow. Specific to this particular case. Not applicable to say another bigot in another state behaving the same way.
From what I understand, they faulted the commission precisely for refusing to treat the baker's religious claims seriously. So bigots will have to actually weigh the religious freedom of people brought before them in commissions against other rights claimed to be violated on that basis the next time a case like this comes around before them. I actually see a trend in SCOTUS in Hobby lobby and Hossana-Tabor basically refusing to protect one group of bigots over another. Justice Kennedy apparently noted the issue of "intolerance" to the baker during the hearings. So its more than just rudeness they were faulting. Personally, I find it encouraging that they are refusing to be swept up under ideology and just being above it all and fair.
Here is what they actually said about the Commission. That it disparaged the baker's religious beliefs. The way I understand it, it was the unfair treatment of the baker's religion by the commission - as opposed to its finding against the baker - that left SCOTUS no choice but to overturn it.
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
To add insult to injury there were other bakers who won cases brought before this commission, when they refused to bake for customers who wanted messages hostile to gays. In this case, the error is not so much the outcome as the different treatment this baker gets from the commission.
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.
It can be argued that the commission did not take the religious claims seriously. But I think the fairness in considering them is the issue here rather than if they(the religious claims) should ultimately determine which way the Comission rules.
In other words SCOTUS wants them to show fair treatment rather than necessarily to agree with the baker's views.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4493285-Supreme-Court-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-ruling.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4493285-Supreme-Court-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-ruling.html)
-
Kadame9: As others have stated correctly, the ruling was very narrow and the court never even reached the issue of discrimination. Your assertion that weddings are events and not people and therefore refusing to a gay event is so ridiculous its laughable. You can certainly make such ridiculous assertion in defense of your client if that is all you have but I am sure the other side will rebut forcefully. Of course discrimination is about people and that is not the issue. The issue is whether the actions has a discriminatory effect on certain legally identifiable groups of people. Based on your argument a mechanic can refuse to fix gay or black peoples cars and then argue that he discriminated against the car and not the person.
Kichwa, that does not worry me for this reason: weddings are events. They are not people. People are protected from discrimination. Not events or messages.
So if a racist religion denounces race-mixing as sinful (which I believe nowadays some do/might) a member of that religion should not be forced to take part in an event that inherently is about that very thing (race-mixing). They should not be allowed to refuse those same people service in any other scenario however where they cannot show such a link (besides freedom of expression scenarios). Now, if there is a religious rule that says serving people of a certain race or sexual orientation is a sin, in that case the the public interest to protect individuals from discrimination ought absolutely to supersede the religious/concientous-objection right. So refusing to sell them a cake would be a no-no in my books but if they requested a custom designed wedding cake where the baker's job is to create a message and such on the cake espousing views he himself disagrees with or even none, I'd support the KKK idiot's right to refuse.
The thing is, this is a question of a balance of rights/fundamental freedoms: conscience, religion, expression and freedom from discrimination. According to the SCOTUS (and to me) these are BOTH protected rights. You can't create a strict hierarchy that simply refuses to treat the right to conscientious objection as a real right based on one's own personal animus or contempt for religion or that particular religion. it would not be a freedom if it had to be vetted by those who don't share beliefs of the faith in question. I think the court struck a good balance. You can't just refuse to serve gay people but you can refuse to sell your services in support of messages or events you disagree with. I am comfortable with such a balance.
-
It seems like the SCOTUS actually punted on the question of whether the baker was right or wrong not to serve the gays and choosing to focus on the tone of the Colorado Civil Rights commission, according to commentaries I have seen on TV thus far. That this ruling is narrow. Specific to this particular case. Not applicable to say another bigot in another state behaving the same way.
From what I understand, they faulted the commission precisely for refusing to treat the baker's religious claims seriously. So bigots will have to actually weigh the religious freedom of people brought before them in commissions against other rights claimed to be violated on that basis the next time a case like this comes around before them. I actually see a trend in SCOTUS in Hobby lobby and Hossana-Tabor basically refusing to protect one group of bigots over another. Justice Kennedy apparently noted the issue of "intolerance" to the baker during the hearings. So its more than just rudeness they were faulting. Personally, I find it encouraging that they are refusing to be swept up under ideology and just being above it all and fair.
Here is what they actually said about the Commission. That it disparaged the baker's religious beliefs. The way I understand it, it was the unfair treatment of the baker's religion by the commission - as opposed to its finding against the baker - that left SCOTUS no choice but to overturn it.
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
To add insult to injury there were other bakers who won cases brought before this commission, when they refused to bake for customers who wanted messages hostile to gays. In this case, the error is not so much the outcome as the different treatment this baker gets from the commission.
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.
It can be argued that the commission did not take the religious claims seriously. But I think the fairness in considering them is the issue here rather than if they(the religious claims) should ultimately determine which way the Commission rules.
In other words SCOTUS wants them to show fair treatment rather than necessarily to agree with the baker's views.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4493285-Supreme-Court-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-ruling.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4493285-Supreme-Court-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-ruling.html)
Yes, Termi, you're right. But in my view it's more than just the tone. Those guys simply didn't treat the guy's religious-based objections seriously. They were dismissive and acted as if they simply didn't apply at all in the matter. So their decision cannot be considered fair when they actually never weighed the guy's sincerely held beliefs against Colorado anti discrimination law. So I think the next time such a case is brought, they are going to consider such an objection, then an appeal based on that will be about that reasoning and whether it is fair regarding those freedoms.
-
Kadame9: As others have stated correctly, the ruling was very narrow and the court never even reached the issue of discrimination. Your assertion that weddings are events and not people and therefore refusing to a gay event is so ridiculous its laughable. You can certainly make such ridiculous assertion in defense of your client if that is all you have but I am sure the other side will rebut forcefully. Of course discrimination is about people and that is not the issue. The issue is whether the actions has a discriminatory effect on certain legally identifiable groups of people. Based on your argument a mechanic can refuse to fix gay or black peoples cars and then argue that he discriminated against the car and not the person.
Kichwa, that does not worry me for this reason: weddings are events. They are not people. People are protected from discrimination. Not events or messages.
So if a racist religion denounces race-mixing as sinful (which I believe nowadays some do/might) a member of that religion should not be forced to take part in an event that inherently is about that very thing (race-mixing). They should not be allowed to refuse those same people service in any other scenario however where they cannot show such a link (besides freedom of expression scenarios). Now, if there is a religious rule that says serving people of a certain race or sexual orientation is a sin, in that case the the public interest to protect individuals from discrimination ought absolutely to supersede the religious/concientous-objection right. So refusing to sell them a cake would be a no-no in my books but if they requested a custom designed wedding cake where the baker's job is to create a message and such on the cake espousing views he himself disagrees with or even none, I'd support the KKK idiot's right to refuse.
The thing is, this is a question of a balance of rights/fundamental freedoms: conscience, religion, expression and freedom from discrimination. According to the SCOTUS (and to me) these are BOTH protected rights. You can't create a strict hierarchy that simply refuses to treat the right to conscientious objection as a real right based on one's own personal animus or contempt for religion or that particular religion. it would not be a freedom if it had to be vetted by those who don't share beliefs of the faith in question. I think the court struck a good balance. You can't just refuse to serve gay people but you can refuse to sell your services in support of messages or events you disagree with. I am comfortable with such a balance.
The only way your example is analogous is if there is a religion in which washing the cars of black people is a sin. These things are not based on wild claims, someone actually has to convincingly show any court that such a thing exists before any such thing can even be taken seriously at all. It's not like anyone can just claim anything. I saw interviews of the baker in question and his lawyer even before yesterday's decision and they said the baker only refused to do the one event, he even offered to sell them another wedding cake already made and on the shelves that did not require his customized services. He has no problem serving gay people and has done so forever. He just doesnt want to perform a service directly for a purpose that his religion teaches is a sin. But people on the left are very intolerant to religious people especially Christians which is why that Commission acted so haughtily and dismissive.
-
I think you are the one making wild claims. The example I gave you was just to remind you that these cases are fact based
Kadame9: As others have stated correctly, the ruling was very narrow and the court never even reached the issue of discrimination. Your assertion that weddings are events and not people and therefore refusing to a gay event is so ridiculous its laughable. You can certainly make such ridiculous assertion in defense of your client if that is all you have but I am sure the other side will rebut forcefully. Of course discrimination is about people and that is not the issue. The issue is whether the actions has a discriminatory effect on certain legally identifiable groups of people. Based on your argument a mechanic can refuse to fix gay or black peoples cars and then argue that he discriminated against the car and not the person.
Kichwa, that does not worry me for this reason: weddings are events. They are not people. People are protected from discrimination. Not events or messages.
So if a racist religion denounces race-mixing as sinful (which I believe nowadays some do/might) a member of that religion should not be forced to take part in an event that inherently is about that very thing (race-mixing). They should not be allowed to refuse those same people service in any other scenario however where they cannot show such a link (besides freedom of expression scenarios). Now, if there is a religious rule that says serving people of a certain race or sexual orientation is a sin, in that case the the public interest to protect individuals from discrimination ought absolutely to supersede the religious/concientous-objection right. So refusing to sell them a cake would be a no-no in my books but if they requested a custom designed wedding cake where the baker's job is to create a message and such on the cake espousing views he himself disagrees with or even none, I'd support the KKK idiot's right to refuse.
The thing is, this is a question of a balance of rights/fundamental freedoms: conscience, religion, expression and freedom from discrimination. According to the SCOTUS (and to me) these are BOTH protected rights. You can't create a strict hierarchy that simply refuses to treat the right to conscientious objection as a real right based on one's own personal animus or contempt for religion or that particular religion. it would not be a freedom if it had to be vetted by those who don't share beliefs of the faith in question. I think the court struck a good balance. You can't just refuse to serve gay people but you can refuse to sell your services in support of messages or events you disagree with. I am comfortable with such a balance.
The only way your example is analogous is if there is a religion in which washing the cars of black people is a sin. These things are not based on wild claims, someone actually has to convincingly show any court that such a thing exists before any such thing can even be taken seriously at all. It's not like anyone can just claim anything. I saw interviews of the baker in question and his lawyer even before yesterday's decision and they said the baker only refused to do the one event, he even offered to sell them another wedding cake already made and on the shelves that did not require his customized services. He has no problem serving gay people and has done so forever. He just doesnt want to perform a service directly for a purpose that his religion teaches is a sin. But people on the left are very intolerant to religious people especially Christians which is why that Commission acted so haughtily and dismissive.
-
I think you are the one making wild claims. The example I gave you was just to remind you that these cases are fact based
The "wild" claim was in fact the argument of this baker based on the facts of his situation and his real non-imaginary religion, which this court obviously did not rubbish. Very different from the weird car example you gave which is not analogous by any stretch of the imagination unless there is a faith that sees washing black people's cars specifically as sinful. Even in that case I explained my view before that in such a case, anti-discrimination should prevail over religious rights because it would be about the people as such, not even the event. I understand some people tried to make such claims in the 60s against Black people and the courts refused to accommodate that. Personally, I see a distinction, so I support both the courts in that case as well as in the case of the baker but I submit it is a very delicate matter and not clear cut or given to easy answers. Each case is determined by weighing all the rights involved which is fair. In this case for example, the guy actually serves gay people so the automatic assumption that he is refusing to serve them due to their orientation is too simplistic.
-
Here is what they actually said about the Commission. That it disparaged the baker's religious beliefs. The way I understand it, it was the unfair treatment of the baker's religion by the commission - as opposed to its finding against the baker - that left SCOTUS no choice but to overturn it.
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
To add insult to injury there were other bakers who won cases brought before this commission, when they refused to bake for customers who wanted messages hostile to gays. In this case, the error is not so much the outcome as the different treatment this baker gets from the commission.
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.
It can be argued that the commission did not take the religious claims seriously. But I think the fairness in considering them is the issue here rather than if they(the religious claims) should ultimately determine which way the Commission rules.
In other words SCOTUS wants them to show fair treatment rather than necessarily to agree with the baker's views.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4493285-Supreme-Court-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-ruling.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4493285-Supreme-Court-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-ruling.html)
Yes, Termi, you're right. But in my view it's more than just the tone. Those guys simply didn't treat the guy's religious-based objections seriously. They were dismissive and acted as if they simply didn't apply at all in the matter. So their decision cannot be considered fair when they actually never weighed the guy's sincerely held beliefs against Colorado anti discrimination law. So I think the next time such a case is brought, they are going to consider such an objection, then an appeal based on that will be about that reasoning and whether it is fair regarding those freedoms.
I think we are on the same page somewhat. Though me I think ultimately dismissing the religious objections does not equate to not taking them seriously. One can even share those objections and still find that they should be dismissed.
The commission findings were peppered with dismissive opinions on the baker’s objections. I am assuming this is what you mean by not taking them seriously. But I am saying you don’t have to take the objections seriously to agree or disagree with their point of view. By disparaging these objections, the commission’s findings had to be vacated.
Either way, what may get lost in this baker’s victory is that SCOTUS did not endorse his behavior. It remains unclear whether his refusal to provide his service to gay couples was legit or not legit.
On a different note, the baker seems like a nice guy. But I am sure there were(arguably still are) a lot of nice folks who politely turned away black customers from their services. Some otherwise nice folks still call police on black people waiting for friends in Starbucks.
I think religious folks - and Christians in particular- should quit acting as if they are an oppressed group in the US. They are not. There are secular laws against polygamy for instance, but you don’t find Muslims trying to crack them.
-
Either way, what may get lost in this baker’s victory is that SCOTUS did not endorse his behavior. It remains unclear whether his refusal to provide his service to gay couples was legit or not legit.
I think SCOTUS leans towards his actions being anything but legit;
And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs say- ing “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.
But the elephant in the room whether custom design are protected speech as the baker argued
-
Either way, what may get lost in this baker’s victory is that SCOTUS did not endorse his behavior. It remains unclear whether his refusal to provide his service to gay couples was legit or not legit.
I think SCOTUS leans towards his actions being anything but legit;
And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs say- ing “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.
But the elephant in the room whether custom design are protected speech as the baker argued
Another favorite of the right-wingers. I think the design if it is speech would be the gay couple's speech. When Trump sends a deranged tweet early in the morning, twitter is not held responsible for the garbage.
-
I think the majority punted. I agree with the dissent of Justice Ginsburg that this court should have addressed the issue of religious discrimination vs. free speech instead of focusing too much on "a few stray remarks" by one of the commissioners to grant the baker a win. The majority could have addressed those disparaging remarks in dicta. The court therefore lost another opportunity to address real issues because it will take a long time for another case to come by. What a shame.
I think you are the one making wild claims. The example I gave you was just to remind you that these cases are fact based
The "wild" claim was in fact the argument of this baker based on the facts of his situation and his real non-imaginary religion, which this court obviously did not rubbish. Very different from the weird car example you gave which is not analogous by any stretch of the imagination unless there is a faith that sees washing black people's cars specifically as sinful. Even in that case I explained my view before that in such a case, anti-discrimination should prevail over religious rights because it would be about the people as such, not even the event. I understand some people tried to make such claims in the 60s against Black people and the courts refused to accommodate that. Personally, I see a distinction, so I support both the courts in that case as well as in the case of the baker but I submit it is a very delicate matter and not clear cut or given to easy answers. Each case is determined by weighing all the rights involved which is fair. In this case for example, the guy actually serves gay people so the automatic assumption that he is refusing to serve them due to their orientation is too simplistic.
-
This piece explains a possible rationale for why the two liberals sided with the majority opinion.
SCOTUS has traditionally tried to steer clear of what they generally feel is the state's lane. At the end it seems like a Pyrrhic victory if not an outright loss for the nominal winners :o .
By Kate Shaw
Ms. Shaw is a law professor who covers the Supreme Court for ABC News.
It was no surprise that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has cast the decisive vote in so many important Supreme Court cases, wrote Monday’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips who, on religious grounds, had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
What was surprising was the lopsided 7-2 vote count. Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, the two dissenting justices, would have ruled that the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion did not shield Mr. Phillips from a Colorado anti-discrimination law.
As is often the case, however, the overall vote count obscured deep disagreements among the justices who joined the majority opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, thought Justice Kennedy’s opinion didn’t go far enough. And Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, argued that Mr. Phillips had a right to refuse service not just under the First Amendment’s “free exercise of religion” clause but also under its “free speech” provision.
But what to make of the concurring opinion of Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, two liberal-leaning members of the court, who surprised many observers by joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion in full?
One explanation is simple pragmatism. Justice Kennedy’s opinion placed considerable emphasis on statements by several members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had ruled against Mr. Phillips, that Justice Kennedy read as disparaging religion. Arguing that this hostile language undermined the constitutionality of the commission’s proceedings allowed the court to conveniently sidestep the difficult questions at the heart of the case — questions about the proper balance between a state’s power to protect its gay and lesbian citizens from discrimination, on the one hand, and the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, on the other.
Since those questions don’t necessarily have clear answers, Justices Kagan and Breyer may have deemed it wiser to table them for the time being. By joining Justice Kennedy, they positioned themselves to have far more influence on the reasoning and implications of his opinion than they would have done by adding a third and fourth vote to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.
Their concurring opinion, for example, focused on an interesting aspect of Justice Kennedy’s opinion: the emphasis he placed on the fact that the Colorado commission had deemed it acceptable for bakers to refuse to make a cake for a customer who wanted cakes bearing anti-gay messages. Justice Kennedy pointed to this disparate treatment — one refusal to make cakes was deemed impermissible, the other acceptable — as a reason to find for Mr. Phillips.
In their concurring opinion, Justices Kagan and Breyer noted — without drawing an objection from Justice Kennedy — that the commission erred in failing to identify an important distinction between the two sorts of cases: Mr. Phillips made wedding cakes for opposite-sex couples but refused to do so for same-sex couples, denying same-sex couples full equality under state law; but bakers who refused to bake a cake “denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage” would not have baked such a cake for any customer — and therefore engaged in no denial of equal treatment.
By joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion, Justices Kagan and Breyer were thus able to give the Colorado commission some clear instructions: A do-over without the religious hostility and with a better explanation of its rationale could well result in a constitutionally sound victory for the same-sex couple denied their cake by Mr. Phillips.
That is the power of joining an opinion: It allows justices to help shape the interpretation of that opinion by lower courts, state agencies and other bodies that have to implement the court’s ruling — an influence that is difficult to have from a position of dissent.
When it comes to discerning the precise legal standard emanating from Monday’s fractured decision in the Masterpiece case, lower courts have their work cut out for them. But at least one possibility they can consider as a result of the concurring opinion of Justices Kagan and Breyer is that so long as careful and respectful consideration of all sides is given, state and local bodies may do what Colorado did here — ruling against a baker like Mr. Phillips — without running afoul of the Constitution.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/liberal-justices-concurrence-masterpiece.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/liberal-justices-concurrence-masterpiece.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur)
-
SCOTUS cleverly avoided booby traps. It is a loss / win for both parties.
-
SCOTUS cleverly avoided booby traps. It is a loss / win for both parties.
Wassup my negro
-
How is the Clergyman from The Mountains?
SCOTUS cleverly avoided booby traps. It is a loss / win for both parties.
Wassup my negro
-
vooke,
I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society. But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race. There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories. One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites. Christianity really is not under siege in the US. If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies. You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.
In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks. Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color)
-
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
...Who is this Clark individual? Shindwe yeye. Why aren't they shaming him like Roseanne?
-
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
...Who is this Clark individual? Shindwe yeye. Why aren't they shaming him like Roseanne?
Some Dakota state representative(kind of like MCAs). Sentiments like those are pretty common among advocates who push for tolerance of free speech(code for tolerance of intolerance).
-
Whenever Christians feel insecure they reach for the language of the first century when Christians were a minority and were being persecuted. Its ridiculous in a country like the US where they are the majority and arguably one most Christian nations, however playing victims not only help them deal with their insecurities but is a whole money making industry and a powerful political interest group.
vooke,
I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society. But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race. There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories. One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites. Christianity really is not under siege in the US. If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies. You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.
In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks. Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color)
-
vooke,
I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society. But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race. There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories. One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites. Christianity really is not under siege in the US. If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies. You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.
In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks. Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color)
So negroes are prepared to stand for gays because they may as well be next?
That’s quite a stretch but I can see your point.
-
vooke,
I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society. But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race. There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories. One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites. Christianity really is not under siege in the US. If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies. You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.
In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks. Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color)
So negroes are prepared to stand for gays because they may as well be next?
That’s quite a stretch but I can see your point.
I wish it was a stretch. There is a decent overlap between the purveyors of anti-otherism and racists. Prejudices seem to come in a package. The people who teach you one, also teach you the other.
That's why blacks ultimately tend to take the side of inclusion of out-groups, even when they are contrary to their religious(very strong by the way) persuasions.
-
vooke,
I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society. But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race. There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories. One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites. Christianity really is not under siege in the US. If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies. You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.
In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks. Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color)
So negroes are prepared to stand for gays because they may as well be next?
That’s quite a stretch but I can see your point.
I wish it was a stretch. There is a decent overlap between the purveyors of anti-otherism and racists. Prejudices seem to come in a package. The people who teach you one, also teach you the other.
That's why blacks ultimately tend to take the side of inclusion of out-groups, even when they are contrary to their religious(very strong by the way) persuasions.
To me it seems like gays employ sentimentalism associated with negro woes to advance their agenda. So gays riding on negro and not the other way. Negroes who support them just fell for that. Blackmailed negroes
-
I wish it was a stretch. There is a decent overlap between the purveyors of anti-otherism and racists. Prejudices seem to come in a package. The people who teach you one, also teach you the other.
That's why blacks ultimately tend to take the side of inclusion of out-groups, even when they are contrary to their religious(very strong by the way) persuasions.
This is my beef with Rethugs and conservatives in general. Whereas they have a more pragmatic approach to economics, security, etc. I think Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats are some of the very few reasonable right wingers around - basically no "Everyone-for-himself, I-own-this-place-you-alien" mentality. Trump, rather than focus on the bigger conservative picture, quickly reverses common decency like antiracism and LGBT rights. You'd think in 2017 these are long closed items but noo. In the end I'm much rather a Democrat/liberal than a conservative. The latter are way too abhorrent.