SCOTUS Rules 7:2 in favor of anti-faggotry baker

[vooke]

• Tweet

First world problems

https://nyti.ms/2Hiqu9I

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

First world problems

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  .

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Kichwa]

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

[Nefertiti]

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.

[Nefertiti]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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. 

[Nefertiti]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

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.

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

[Kichwa]

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Kichwa]

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

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.

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

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.