|
Groovelord Neato posted:hmmm wonder why far-right homophobes bankrolled masterpiece's case and supported them with briefs. must just be they love free expression so much. Why do you hate yourself
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is the part where you are wrong. It is uncontroversial that the baker was in fact willing to sell food to gay people. But it was. Fundamentally it was about if groups can exclude people who will go against the message they wish to convey. This is obviously a completely different scenario to that of baking a generic wedding cake. We can argue the merits of the decision specifically for Hurley but that would be pretty pointless as an analogue to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. And if Masterpiece acted more like a club and not as a bakery, then they could have similar rights to exclude people. But in this case they made clear that their problem was selling a cake to a homosexual couple; regardless of the actual characteristics or artistic merit of the cake. You seem to buy into this argument because you appear to believe there is an actual different between a "gay wedding cake" and a "wedding cake". I find it a tad amusing because you seem to almost get it quote:It's the difference between, "I want a #3 on wheat and a bag of chips" and "I want you to design and make a rainbow sub celebrating gay pride" or "write 'Christ is Lord above all others' in the mustard." You are just unwilling to admit that even the baker in question has said they would refuse the equivalent of "I want a #3 on wheat and a bag of chips". Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
The relevant portion of the Colorado law that the complaint was made underquote:24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition Cut down to the portion that applies it is "place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services ... including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public ... It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual ... because of ... sexual orientation... the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation." The gay couple was denied the full enjoyment of goods and services (depends on what making a cake qualifies as) because of their sexual orientation. It's illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning: Do you think the situation in the following hypothetical is: (1) legal (2) if not legal, how is it distinguishable from Masterpiece Cake Shop hypothetical posted:A man runs a lunch counter. Customers come in, tell him what kinds of meat/bread/cheese/etc... they like, and he fixes them a sandwich that he thinks they will enjoy from the stuff he has behind the counter. Each sandwich is reasonably unique to the customer, but generally follow similar kinds of templates. The sandwiches are also plated in a whimsical/decorative way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
At least it's not about cops murdering someone this time
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:(2) if not legal, how is it distinguishable from Masterpiece Cake Shop It's distinguishable from Masterpiece because he would sell them monkey chow, unlike the baker, who would not sell the gay couple anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:It's distinguishable from Masterpiece because he would sell them monkey chow, unlike the baker, who would not sell the gay couple anything. Nah, the baker said he would sell them premade off the shelf cakes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Piell posted:Nah, the baker said he would sell them premade off the shelf cakes. Specifically birthday cakes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Piell posted:Nah, the baker said he would sell them premade off the shelf cakes. That’s what he said. In reality, ”The majority opinion” posted:Phillips’ shop had refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their commitment celebration. So can we stop with the “he’d sell them something else” nonsense when he clearly wouldn’t?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
So this just got punted back to the original court, right? Like they can still rule against the dude again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Javid posted:So this just got punted back to the original court, right? Like they can still rule against the dude again? No, which is an unusual move for what is otherwise a punt. That case is done. The next gay couple to walk into his shop could take him to court and start the whole thing over again, though. The court didn’t say “discriminating against gays is cool & good”. They let him off on a technicality. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jun 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:No, which is an unusual move for what is otherwise a punt. That case is done. Which they all had to know is bound to happen, if for no other reason that to say gently caress You to these right wing assholes. Though the right is banking entirely on Kennedy or a liberal dying/retiring because at that point they can go full speed at undoing pretty much everything from the last century that didn't benefit wealthy whites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The next gay couple to walk into his shop could take him to court and start the whole thing over again, though. Nah - there’s a gay wedding flowers case coming up without the hostility in the record.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Dead Reckoning: Try this hypothetical: if a Muslim baker refuses to take orders for Christmas cookies, is the baker failing to accommodate Christians? Raldikuk posted:But it was. Fundamentally it was about if groups can exclude people who will go against the message they wish to convey. This is obviously a completely different scenario to that of baking a generic wedding cake. We can argue the merits of the decision specifically for Hurley but that would be pretty pointless as an analogue to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. twodot posted:So no, they're not selling endorsements to the public. I'm glad we were able to distinguish between "celebrity endorsements" and "cake shops", it was touch and go for a bit. twodot posted:Yes obviously it's a content based restriction, because businesses discriminating on content is permissible, discriminating on protected class status is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Try this hypothetical: if a Muslim baker refuses to take orders for Christmas cookies, is the baker failing to accommodate Christians? Christmas cookies celebrate Christmas, sure. But that's not even slightly analogous to this situation. A wedding cake only celebrates a wedding. It does not matter whose wedding, the sexes of the people getting married, or the sexual preference of any intermediary purchasing the cake. If the baker makes wedding cakes, he makes wedding cakes. If he discriminates in who he chooses to sell them to - that's discrimination. It doesn't matter whether the baker objects to same sex marriage, because he has already demonstrated that he doesn't object to weddings by selling cakes to celebrate them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Muslims really don’t hate Jesus that much. He’s a major prophet of Islam. A Muslim baker might still object to baking Christmas cookies, but it’s not a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
If a Muslim baker regularly made and sold cookies and had just sold cookies to a Jewish guy, then had a Christian come into his shop and say he wanted to buy some of those cookies for his Christmas party and the Muslim baker refused on the grounds that he didn't want his cookies being seen to be eaten by Christians at a Christian celebration, would that be legal? Bearing in mind he is fine with his cookies being sold to Jews, Hindus, etc. For their religious celebrations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
It wasn't content-based discrimination: the baker refused to serve them without even knowing what they wanted on the cake. A Muslim baker can say "I don't make Christmas cookies" that's content based. He can't say "I don't even want to know what kind of cookies you want I won't custom decorate cookies for Christians"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
moths posted:Christmas cookies celebrate Christmas, sure. But that's not even slightly analogous to this situation. MrNemo posted:If a Muslim baker regularly made and sold cookies and had just sold cookies to a Jewish guy, then had a Christian come into his shop and say he wanted to buy some of those cookies for his Christmas party and the Muslim baker refused on the grounds that he didn't want his cookies being seen to be eaten by Christians at a Christian celebration, would that be legal? VitalSigns posted:It wasn't content-based discrimination: the baker refused to serve them without even knowing what they wanted on the cake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
No that is not true, the baker refused to even make a plain nondescript cake, he put it in his own brief. If your argument is so weak you have to imagine a different fact pattern, maybe you should just give up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is absurd. There are all sorts of different wedding traditions out there, religious and secular, and just because someone agrees with one does not mean that they are legally obliged to agree with anything else people choose to call a wedding. Less than a week after SCOTUS indicated that this needed further review in the courts and should be handled in a way consistent with the need to respect the rights of gay persons to not be discriminated against or denied goods, services, and public accommodations, Arizona ruled as follows: AZ Court of Appeals, Div 1, Brush & Nib Studio, LC, et al vs City of Phoenix posted:Simply stated, if Appellants, as an economic entity, want to operate their for-profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation. It bears repeating that Section 18-4(B) regulates conduct, not speech. Accordingly, the conduct at issue is not the creation of words or images but the conduct of selling or refusing to sell merchandise—either pre-fabricated or designed to order—equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech. Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in “a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., slip op. at 10" Emphasis mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
That's basically the argument twodot made earlier, that if you sell your art commercially you lose the right to not speak certain messages, and it's still unconstitutional for the same reasons. If that logic holds, then someone who sells endorsements cannot refuse to endorse the Westboro Baptist Church. A musician who plays events cannot refuse to play the Southern Baptist Convention because she opposes their beliefs. Gay people have the right to get married, and I fully support that, but I'm not sure it extends to legally forcing artists to help them celebrate their wedding or provide them the trappings of a wedding party. VitalSigns posted:No that is not true, the baker refused to even make a plain nondescript cake, he put it in his own brief. If Craig and Mullins wanted a nondescript cake, there should have been no problem accepting a birthday cake instead of a wedding cake. The thing you're dancing around here is that wedding cake isn't gastronomically different from birthday cake, the thing that makes it different is the structure and decoration applied to it by the baker... And aesthetic decoration designed to evoke a mood or image is pretty obviously speech. Groovelord Neato posted:hmmm wonder why far-right homophobes bankrolled masterpiece's case and supported them with briefs. must just be they love free expression so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's basically the argument twodot made earlier, that if you sell your art commercially you lose the right to not speak certain messages, and it's still unconstitutional for the same reasons. If that logic holds, then someone who sells endorsements cannot refuse to endorse the Westboro Baptist Church. A musician who plays events cannot refuse to play the Southern Baptist Convention because she opposes their beliefs. Gay people have the right to get married, and I fully support that, but I'm not sure it extends to legally forcing artists to help them celebrate their wedding or provide them the trappings of a wedding party. Once again: quote:"Accordingly, the conduct at issue is not the creation of words or images but the conduct of selling or refusing to sell merchandise—either pre-fabricated or designed to order—equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech You seem to not understand the difference between a private artist engaging in trade as an individual (such as a musician or someone who sells their own speech) vs a public accommodation, i.e. a cake shop. The fact that merchandise may be designed to order does not mean that the conduct of refusing to sell merchandise to a protected class is itself permissible, even though it may impact speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So all I have to do to be immune to public accommodation laws is to conduct all my business over the phone? quote:So all I have to do in order to completely abrogate someone's anti discrimination protections for their religious beliefs is to say that I'm not discriminating against their religion, just objecting to the content of what their religion teaches. Good to know. twodot fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jun 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's not legal for two reasons: the owner is discriminating explicitly based on the race of the customer rather than objecting to having to endorse a particular message, and also making sandwiches is insufficiently expressive conduct to warrant first amendment protection. If the sandwich guy was somehow sitting down with each customer for a 15 minute conversation before sketching and then executing a sandwich that took two hours to create and was decorated to each customer's unique preference, I might be willing to reconsider that second objection. The first reason seems like a distinction without a difference. Hypothetical sandwich guy would tell you that he is objecting to having to endorse the message that blacks and whites are equal by serving them equally/people are accusing cake guy of explicitly discriminating based on the sexual orientation of the customer The second objection doesn't make sense to me. The question is whether the product I'm making is also speech from me. If anything, getting specifications from someone beforehand ("three layers, raspberry filling with blue flowers on layer 1, strawberry filling with pink flowers on layer 2, ...") seems like it should make the cake less likely to be my speech. The amount of work it is also shouldn't change its speechyness. A cake shouldn't stop/start being speech depending on how good of a baker/decorator I am. Dead Reckoning posted:Try this hypothetical: if a Muslim baker refuses to take orders for Christmas cookies, is the baker failing to accommodate Christians? The test I would use is whether they're saying "I don't make X" or whether they're saying "I don't make X for Y If they make and sell pine tree/fat santa/cross/... cookies normally, it wouldn't be permissible to refuse to sell them for a church gathering. If they don't normally make those kinds of cookies, it's fine for them to refuse to start making them. Basically (back in the wedding cake context): Fine: - I don't make wedding cakes with "Hooray for Gay Marriage!" written on them - I don't make wedding cakes with "Gay Marriage Sux!" written on them - I don't make wedding cakes with "Hitler was right!" written on them Not fine: - I won't make this cake because you will use it in a gay wedding. I would make it for someone else - I won't make this cake because you will use it in a straight wedding. I would make it for someone else - I won't make this cake because you will use it in an interracial wedding. I would make it for someone else
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're altering the hypothetical, not answering it. If a non-Christian baker can refuse to make Christmas cookies without illegally discriminating against Christians, even though only Christians celebrate Christmas, why should it be illegal for a baker to refuse to bake same sex wedding cakes, even though only homosexual people have same sex weddings? Please outline the legal distinctions between a straight wedding and a gay wedding that doesn't involve the status of a protected class. I think your hypothetical would actually be more similar to a Christian baker who produces traditional christmas cakes and is known for making them to order within a traditional and fairly generic range. He has a Jewish customer come in and order one because he thinks it would be nice to have during Hannukah (maybe he likes traditional fruit cake or whatever type of cake it is) and the baker refuses to make him one on the grounds that he doesn't believe in Hannukah and thinks the Jewish customer is going to hell. Instead he offers to sell him a birthday cake off the shelf but won't actually make a cake for him. There's no difference for the baker between preparing this cake for a Jewish or a Christian customer, the religious significance of the cake really comes more from being part of the cultural tradition rather than presenting clear religious messages and even within that he confirms that it's the fact that its being bought by a Jewish person for use in a Jewish religious celebration that is why he won't sell it. Any cake being made, the baker feels, would be an implicit endorsement of the Jewish faith. gently caress I don't know why you're debating this to this extent, if the protected class issue was to do with miscegenation I don't think the case would have made it to the SCotUS. 'My religious beliefs are that blacks and whites were separated by god and making a cake that will be used in such an abhorrent ceremony would be an implicit endorsement.' Would you really be here arguing 'He didn't refuse to sell it to the customer because they were black, if he'd sent a white friend in to buy the cake for him, the baker would have refused to sell him a cake to be used for a mixed wedding too!'
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 12:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is absurd. There are all sorts of different wedding traditions out there, religious and secular, and just because someone agrees with one does not mean that they are legally obliged to agree with anything else people choose to call a wedding. Your hypothetical is completely irrelevant, though. And that illustrates the point you're missing: There's no material difference between a wedding cake for gays, lesbians, or straight couples. A cake is a cake is a cake. Christmas cookies celebrate a particular holiday unique to a specific faith. But to the state of Colorado, a wedding is a wedding is a wedding. Refusing to provide a cake is more akin to a homophobic carpenter refusing to build the couple a deck because they'd have "icky gay BBQs on it." There's no legal distinction between a gay deck and a straight deck, just like there's no distinction between cakes. The core issue is that a couple was denied a service because of their sexual orientation. What motive the actor claims is irrelevant when considering the illegal act of discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
moths posted:And that illustrates the point you're missing DR isn’t missing any of these points. He’s understands and is avoiding them to prolong the frustration of those opposing him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
I'm starting to realize that. I feel like the SC really painted itself into a corner with the Hobby Lobby "closely held belief" nonsense, because it established that actual facts (birth control does not cause abortions) are secondary to closely held misconceptions (they do so cause abortion). Now a person can claim any belief as an excuse to violate someone else's rights, and as long as there's some tangential relationship to a (Christian) religion, it will get serious consideration in the public realm. DR's feigned point-missing actually takes on a veneer of credibility post Hobby Lobby. The baker can now present a belief that God would set him on fire forever for doing his job and not being a homophobe, which reframes the question into "does Colorado have the right to send this baker to Hell?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He wouldn't make a nondescript wedding cake, which is a rather important distinction. It's like the Christians in my hypothetical said, "we just wanted some nondescript Christmas cookies." The fact that the customer is applying a desired descriptor means that it is not nondescript. "Christmas cookies" is not a content-neutral description. The whole point of a Christmas cookie is to indicate the beliefs of the people they're made for (Christians). "Wedding cakes" on the other hand, is not, you can't necessarily tell by looking at a wedding cake what kind of wedding it is: Catholic, Jewish, interracial, straight, gay, etc. Unless you think gay people are somehow different biologically and there is such a thing as a "gay wedding cake" that gay people have to eat because they can't digest the same cakes as straight people (I am willing to believe that you think this). A better analogy would be the Christians asking the Muslim baker for "non-descript holiday cookies, suitable to be served at any holiday" and "we'll take the exact cookies that you made for the imam that just walked out" and the baker says "no those cookies indicate that I wish God to bless his congregation, but I think you're going to hell so I won't make you the same cookies because Christians shouldn't get to have holidays". And yes that would be discrimination based on membership in a protected class because it's not the content of their order, it's who is placing the order. Christmas cookies might work as an analogy if it were a Catholic baker who refused to sell Lutheran-decorated Christmas cookies which he wouldn't make for anyone (content-based discrimination, legal) versus refusing to sell a Lutheran "non-descript Christmas cookies suitable for any Christmas celebration of any denomination" because he thinks Lutherans are going to hell (but would make those exact cookies for a fellow Catholic). This would be a good analogy, and of course also an example of illegal discrimination against a protected class. And no "well birthday cookies aren't gastronomically different so you should accept them instead of the Christmas cookies I won't sell to non-Catholics" is not a defense. Unless you think "I'll only serve black people Soylent, it's nutritionally adequate" is a good defense for restaurants refusing to serve black people (I am willing to believe that you think this)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Christmas cookies" is not a content-neutral description. The whole point of a Christmas cookie is to indicate the beliefs of the people they're made for (Christians). Christmas isn't necessarily a Christian holiday in America. There are definitely ways of selling non-Christian Christmas cookies (snowflakes, pine trees, wrapped presents, basically anything not featuring baby Jesus). If the Muslim baker was willing to sell those to non-Christians but not Christians then yes that is discrimination. Marriage isn't necessarily a religious ceremony in America. Same idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:Christmas isn't necessarily a Christian holiday in America. There are definitely ways of selling non-Christian Christmas cookies (snowflakes, pine trees, wrapped presents, basically anything not featuring baby Jesus). If the Muslim baker was willing to sell those to non-Christians but not Christians then yes that is discrimination. I'd say those would fall under non-descript holiday cookies, since they're the exact same thing fundys bitch about Starbucks putting on their holiday cups instead of slapping the baby Jesus on it 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Glad to see you all shift to being mad about voting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Four decisions just hit the floor and you're still arguing in circles with DR. DR quit being dense. The everyone threw out the baker's artistic content argument as spurious. It wasn't valid in the colorado case, and it won't be a good argument going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
For example, the SCOTUS just made it easier today for GOP to strike people from voting rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:For example, the SCOTUS just made it easier today for GOP to strike people from voting rolls. It's the Roberts court, it would be a surprise if they weren't doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:For example, the SCOTUS just made it easier today for GOP to strike people from voting rolls. I think they made it easier for everyone to reduce the chances of voter fraud and enhance trust in the voting system, not just one party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:For example, the SCOTUS just made it easier today for GOP to strike people from voting rolls. Also it has a bonus Thomas concurrence where he yells at Congress for trying to circumvent states rights on holding elections
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
The rest of the decisions are pretty boring. You can't use a class action's extension of SoL to file a new class action after the initial class failed to certify, and minnesota is ok for automatically removing a former spouse as a beneficiary. Washington v United States was an 4-4 with Kennedy abstaining so I don't know what the lower case was to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:I think they made it easier for everyone to reduce the chances of voter fraud and enhance trust in the voting system, not just one party. Yes I'm sure that's the intent of the political party that asks for racial statistics of voting populations so they can precisely engineer methods of suppressing the black vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:43
|
|