|
The SCOTUS is in dire need of a majority of liberals/non-theocrats because we're one liberal retirement/death away from a loving ruling that outright declares the US a Christian Theocracy.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:Or say being a county clerk and refuse to sign off on marriage licenses for TEH GAYZ. They'll give lip service to other religion's ideas, but only the ones that are conveniently tangential to Christianity. hobbesmaster posted:I mean it is kinda important that the government at least appear to be impartial, thats probably why this was a 7-2. I get what you're saying and it's probably the technically correct approach, but it's pretty laughable from a practical perspective given that there are a huge number of anti-gay laws calling gay sex a "crime against nature" in state books right now. They might be currently unenforceable, but there they are. Evil Fluffy posted:The SCOTUS is in dire need of a majority of liberals/non-theocrats because we're one liberal retirement/death away from a loving ruling that outright declares the US a Christian Theocracy. Pretty much this - SCOTUS's Overton window is currently to the right of Americans in general, and is in danger of moving precipitously to the right. Stickman fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:02
|
|
is dead but give it time.
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The SCOTUS is in dire need of a majority of liberals/non-theocrats because we're one liberal retirement/death away from a loving ruling that outright declares the US a Christian Theocracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Hopefully at least the various people who have to shoot down the bigots' challenges will be able to read Kagan's concurrence as a guide for how to use anti-discrimination laws to prohibit bigotry without also having to allow other forms of bigotry-trolling (i.e. the guy who wanted anti-gay-marriage cakes).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think you can draw that line without making a value judgment about which religious beliefs are valid. If Masterpiece Bake Shop is required to produce a cake that says, "Craig and Mullins, gay married forever" then then trolls can go into a Muslim bakery and request a cake saying "Jesus is Lord above all others". masterpiece bake shop refused to make any cake at all, not a cake with a specific message about gay marriage on it that's why it was specifically different from the bakers who refused to bake cakes with anti-gay slogans on it: masterpiece refused because of who the clients were, not the message
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think you can draw that line without making a value judgment about which religious beliefs are valid. If Masterpiece Bake Shop is required to produce a cake that says, "Craig and Mullins, gay married forever" then then Christian trolls can go into a Muslim bakery and request a cake saying "Jesus is Lord above all others". Well, the issue in Masterpiece Bake Shop is that the shop refused to bake any cake for a gay couple at all. It wasn't about the artistic content of the decorations, it was about who the cake was being sold to. Kagan specifically highlights that in her concurrence, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:masterpiece bake shop refused to make any cake at all, not a cake with a specific message about gay marriage on it Main Paineframe posted:Well, the issue in Masterpiece Bake Shop is that the shop refused to bake any cake for a gay couple at all. It wasn't about the artistic content of the decorations, it was about who the cake was being sold to. Kagan specifically highlights that in her concurrence, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The decision says that there was dispute on this matter, with Masterpiece claiming they were willing to sell generic cakes or birthday cakes to gay people, but were unwilling to produce a custom cake for a gay wedding. If that's the case, I think it's hard to argue that they weren't willing to serve gay people. Every wedding cake is custom from a bakery like that. They were refusing to make any wedding cake and were offering off the shelf birthday cakes as a substitute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The decision says that there was dispute on this matter, with Masterpiece claiming they were willing to sell generic cakes or birthday cakes to gay people, but were unwilling to produce a custom cake for a gay wedding. If that's the case, I think it's hard to argue that they weren't willing to serve gay people. They were unwilling to create any cake for a gay wedding. If I went in and ordered a three-tier yellow cake with white icing and flowers, if I'm straight they will make and sell that cake to me. If I'm gay, they will not make that exact cake for me. When they say they won't make a custom cake, they won't make any sort of custom cake: they don't just refuse to write "Adam & Steve". The record was clear enough on that point that if people didn't want to be confused they wouldn't have been. The confusion was tactical, to obscure what "custom cake" meant and to imply (without any basis in the record) it meant "ADAM AND STEVE GAY MARRIED FOREVER"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Kansas' medical licensure board is something along the lines of "Kansas Board of Healing Arts" which may pave the way for some hilarious attempts to claim medical care/services are artistic expression. It's 2018, don't act like this is all that far-fetched 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Kansas' medical licensure board is something along the lines of "Kansas Board of Healing Arts" which may pave the way for some hilarious attempts to claim medical care/services are artistic expression. You might already be aware of this, but doctors often refuse to see transgender patients for routine care and there's a new HHS "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" which will likely make the problem worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Every wedding cake is custom from a bakery like that. They were refusing to make any wedding cake and were offering off the shelf birthday cakes as a substitute. From the decision: "One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference." If the cake didn't have any specific theme, then I don't see how the guy who tried to order "Gay Marriage is Sin" cakes would be relevant to the discussion. It seems like there's a really simple solution here: if the couple wants a custom cake for their gay wedding, and the baker refuses because he has religious objections to gay marriage, then they can just buy a generic or off the shelf cake. If the baker has no problem with that, then they can take it home and pipe "ADAM AND STEVE GAY MARRIED FOREVER" or whatever else they want on it. The couple gets accommodated, and the baker isn't forced to endorse a message they disagree with. If the baker refuses to sell them a generic cake, then it's a pretty clear cut case that his objection is to serving gay people, not endorsing a message he disagrees with. The Colorado commission did no favors by saying, "yes he should be forced to endorse a message he has religious objections to, because his religious beliefs are wrong and lovely."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Except custom cake in this case meant: Materials, size and flavourings to order. The bakery never got to the point of refusing to create a particular message in the cake because they refused to take any kind of order from 'teh gayz' and only allowed them to buy an off the shelf option. There was no question of the bakers being asked to create something with any kind of political or religious message or position, they were unwilling to sell products to a couple because they were gay. Like, if someone in a wheelchair came into the bakery and said he wanted a three tier sponge cake with strawberry frosting to celebrate getting two cool bionic legs and they had told him they thought cyborgs were going to be the downfall of humanity and scum like him shouldn't be able to walk, 'you can grab something of the shelf or get out', I don't think we'd be here discussing whether it was acceptable or not. Because robot legs are objectively awesome and no one would let religious craziness get in the way of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
I hope next a Jehovah's Witness baker refuses to bake a celebration cake for a child recovering from cancer because the child got a blood transfusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Nah, it should be someone hardcore into predestination who objects to interfering with God's will that the child should die. MrNemo posted:Except custom cake in this case meant: Materials, size and flavourings to order. The bakery never got to the point of refusing to create a particular message in the cake because they refused to take any kind of order from 'teh gayz' and only allowed them to buy an off the shelf option. There was no question of the bakers being asked to create something with any kind of political or religious message or position, they were unwilling to sell products to a couple because they were gay. So if the baker agreed to make a three tiered white cake to spec but refused to apply any religious or wedding-related decorations for a gay couple, you would find that acceptable? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
If they had provided such an offering, we could judge it on that point and make a decision. As it was, though, they refused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
How much more detail do I need to add to my hypothetical before you can decide whether or not people should be forced to write messages they find morally objectionable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How much more detail do I need to add to my hypothetical before you can decide whether or not people should be forced to write messages they find morally objectionable? A message being asked to be written would probably be a good start??? Which didn't happen here
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
"wedding-related decorations" is also pretty loving vague.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Nah, it should be someone hardcore into predestination who objects to interfering with God's will that the child should die. The argument that making a cake is speech would certainly be legally stronger if a message-less cake could be made but one with a specific message was refused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How much more detail do I need to add to my hypothetical before you can decide whether or not people should be forced to write messages they find morally objectionable? I think the baker could have been fine if they had said i’ll make you whatever but i won’t write anything on it in a similar vein that they could refuse to write assface mcfucknuggets on a cake. The issue is they refused to make any wedding cake for the couple. This case was not about any message or whether it was objectionable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
How do you think the court would have ruled if the couple had been looking for sculpture or poetry rather than a cake?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
I think a sculptor is only comparable to the baker if they have a routine type of statue they custom make based on a pre-designed list. Like a cupid statue that comes customizable with options a, b, and c. I don’t think that sculptor could refuse standard service just because it was going to a gay wedding but could refuse an actual custom and completely new type of work similar to how the baker could object to words on the cake but not necessarily the cake baking itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How do you think the court would have ruled if the couple had been looking for sculpture or poetry rather than a cake? What's the sculpture or poetry equivalent to a three layer, white frosted cake? As in what is a comparable service that either of those forms of artistic expression could render that are similarly "default," for lack of a better word?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
So the baker can object to words, but what about a heart shape?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:What's the sculpture or poetry equivalent to a three layer, white frosted cake? Anything you can buy in an airport gift shop. “My name is Doris and I’m here to say”.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
I'd say it depends on how much of the baker's personal expertise is required. If they have a heart-shaped pan? They should probably have to bake it. If they're going to need to carefully arrange differently shaped cakes to make a composite heart shape, that might be enough that I'd rule it was more of an artistic endevor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
I tremendously look forward to the rulings on what is artistic expression. If the couple provided an image to icing-print, that’s probably not an expression by the baker, right? Could Kinkos refuse to photocopy LGBT flyers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I tremendously look forward to the rulings on what is artistic expression. If the couple provided an image to icing-print, that’s probably not an expression by the baker, right? Actually, exchangeability might be a decent way to determine at least some degree of the artistry involved. If the service they're requesting is one that the could conceivably request from a different provider and not have meaningfully different outcomes, you can't deny it to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Stickman posted:You might already be aware of this, but doctors often refuse to see transgender patients for routine care and there's a new HHS "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" which will likely make the problem worse. Right, but there's now a SCOTUS decision drawing a (narrow, almost suit-specific, etc) ruling that protects discrimination as artistic expression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Kagan's concurrence suggests a simple enough standard: 1) if you're willing to write a message for a straight couple, you have to be willing to write that message for a gay couple too 2) you can refuse to write a message for a gay couple, but only if you would refuse to write the same message for a straight couple According to Kagan's standard, the cake shop could have refused to write a message explicitly condoning gay marriage, since it would also refuse such a message if requested by straight customers, but it wouldn't be able to do so for a neutral message such as a heart. Granted, that's just one justice's opinion, and doesn't necessarily have legal force. But it at least provides more guidance than the thoroughly useless majority opinion, and that's really the best you can do when the Court punted for the express purpose of avoiding difficult questions like this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
If I run a Jewish deli can I refuse to cater a Nazi rally?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
~Nazis aren't a protected class~
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Neither are gay people. Reminder that gay rights cases have came down in support of gay rights not by extending a protected class status but by equal rights/due process methods.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:If I run a Jewish deli can I refuse to cater a Nazi rally? You're changing too many variables, unless you're contending that your catering is a form of artistic expression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
How could making cakes be art but making a wider selection of goods not be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Making a cake isn’t art that was just the baker’s argument. Just assembling a three layer cake from your standard wedding cake menu isn’t protected expression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Next you’re going to tell me that my Scrabble board isn’t literature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How could making cakes be art but making a wider selection of goods not be? Any idiot off the street can bake the cake as long as they follow instructions well, but decorating them beyond "coat it in vanilla frosting," is actually a pretty involved process that requires skill and creative vision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:03
|
|