|
FAUXTON posted:Because you see plumbing is a service whereas baking is speech Piell posted:There was no loving message discussed for the cake. They refused to make a cake for a wedding as soon as they learned the people getting married were gay. It's discrimination against a protected class, full stop.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
What you're missing is that the people funding this kind of litigation are not doing this in a vacuum out of abstract interest in good law. They are pushing a legal agenda. They also have allies in the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Like, in general? Sure. If that's your logic then wouldn't the following also be true: "Hello, I would like to custom order a marble cake to celebrate the end of Ramadan." Yes, can refuse, according to you. "Hello, I would like to custom order a marble cake to celebrate Black History month." Yes, can refuse, according to you. "Hello, I would like to custom order a marble cake to celebrate being the first woman mayor." Yes, can refuse, according to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
I have no idea what DR is even arguing even more
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Baking might not be speech, but custom cake decorating really obviously is. You keep saying that cake decorating obviously is speech, but it really isn't obvious at all. It CAN be speech, most things can. Again, as many have said, even when it is speech, it isn't necessarily protected. Baking a cake that is specially designed, but expresses no overt message, is not an endorsement of the matter the cake celebrates, nor is it speech, let alone protected speech. If a choir ONLY sings at Unitarian functions, but sings at any Unitarian function, it's hard to see how they fall into any public accommodation. A choir at a local church isn't required to sing at other churches. Neither of these are in the regulated category.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Sure. Businesses can discriminate in all kinds of ways, so long as that discrimination is not based on certain protected categories of people. Like, a store can refuse to allow in a known shoplifter, or people improperly dressed for health/cleanliness reasons, or whatever. "Because you're left-handed" is not a valid reason. Iirc, the no shoes no shirt was originally a fig leaf over explicitly discriminatory policies. After the civil rights act of 64, the south tried in a million different ways to continue the policy of segregation and one was “improperly dressed for health/cleanliness reason” and the other was religious or conscious reasons. Same reason a million segregation academies blossomed under the church and its hard not to see the persecution complex in the evangelical church as resulting from the federal governments intervention in Brown. Maybe I’m just holding a hammer and everything a looks like a nail, but these cakes are just an echo
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Baking might not be speech, but custom cake decorating really obviously is. If a choir is willing to perform Amazing Grace at an all-white picnic, but not at an all-black picnic, because of the picnic attendees' race, do you think they are engaging in impermissible racial discrimination, and if not, how is it different?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Stop feeding him, gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Baking might not be speech, but custom cake decorating really obviously is. Define custom
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I have no idea what DR is even arguing even more Bad faith devil's advocate positions to troll the thread. It's a sure bet that whenever I see 30+ new posts here or the CA politics thread that it's a DR shitstorm. Ignore DR. Do not quote DR. This is the only way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Sped reckoning
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
Cakes are very gay and you cannot parse the homosexuality out of their construction
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
The funniest part to me is that if most of these businesses getting sued would've just bluffed a vaguely plausible reason to turn down the order, that would be the end of it. Just say you're booked six months out or some poo poo that's a deal breaker for the couple, and the icky gays and their money you don't want will exit your life forever. Just keep how much you hate the homos to yourself for five god damned minutes and that's the end of it. They couldn't even manage that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I have no idea what DR is even arguing even more He's making GBS threads up the thread as he always does because he knows people will fall over themselves to reply to his bad faith arguments. Or he's just that much of a dumb rear end bigot, take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
Javid posted:The funniest part to me is that if most of these businesses getting sued would've just bluffed a vaguely plausible reason to turn down the order, that would be the end of it. Just say you're booked six months out or some poo poo that's a deal breaker for the couple, and the icky gays and their money you don't want will exit your life forever. Just keep how much you hate the homos to yourself for five god damned minutes and that's the end of it. They couldn't even manage that. Everybody involved in Masterpiece Cakeshop wants to be doing exactly what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Everybody involved in Masterpiece Cakeshop wants to be doing exactly what they're doing. Except the judges / justices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
Javid posted:The funniest part to me is that if most of these businesses getting sued would've just bluffed a vaguely plausible reason to turn down the order, that would be the end of it. Just say you're booked six months out or some poo poo that's a deal breaker for the couple, and the icky gays and their money you don't want will exit your life forever. Just keep how much you hate the homos to yourself for five god damned minutes and that's the end of it. They couldn't even manage that. A place by me refused to cater a lesbian wedding and posted this on their website and apparently in Missouri it's fine? quote:Home
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Except the judges / justices. Ginsburg might want to retire, maybe Breyer. Otherwise, though, yeah, them too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ginsburg might want to retire, maybe Breyer. Otherwise, though, yeah, them too. If the justices were really interested in Masterpiece Cakeshop, they wouldn't have released that 7-2 punt followed by another punt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:He's making GBS threads up the thread as he always does because he knows people will fall over themselves to reply to his bad faith arguments. Either way, it's a bad idea to just let bad ideas go unchallenged so that they appear valid to casual observers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't see how "I won't make a cake that celebrates a gay marriage" isn't content based. I think you do, because you were magically able to make that distinction when you thought it was advantageous to your argument, see here: Dead Reckoning posted:IIRC, the cake Craig and Mullens ended up with revealed a rainbow flag motif when cut, so slight differences there. "Aha! I knew they wanted a 'gay' cake because it had a rainbow in it", even you had to describe the content of the cake because a layered white wedding cake isn't a "gay" cake just because gay people are eating it. It's really not that hard. "Hi I would like a custom wedding cake with a rainbow inside to celebrate my gay wedding." "No, I don't do custom rainbow wedding cakes for anybody" (content-based discrimination) "Hi I would like a custom wedding cake exactly the same as the one that other couple just walked out with to celebrate my gay wedding." "No, I won't make that cake if it's for a gay couple" (class-based discrimination) Since he refused before he even heard what content they wanted, for all he knew they wanted a duplicate of a cake he made for someone else, then his objection obviously wasn't based on the content of speech they were asking him to express, it was based on who was doing the asking. You also seem to have a bad understanding of discrimination law in general. For example this: Dead Reckoning posted:For example, if a straight person came in and said, "I would like to commission a cake for my son's gay wedding", they would reject that request. Dead Reckoning posted:It doesn't really matter though. If a choir is willing to perform Amazing Grace at a Unitarian Universalist picnic, but not the Southern Baptist Convention, because they disagree with their beliefs, they aren't engaging in impermissible religious discrimination. Church choirs aren't a public accommodation because they don't offer their services for sale to the general public. If the choir did accept gigs from the general public and performed at all sorts of events but had a "No Jews" policy because they disagree with Jewish beliefs, then yes that is illegal religious discrimination. Dead Reckoning posted:If there is no expressive conduct involved in making a wedding cake, then the couple should have just bought a birthday cake and left instead of wasting all their money on custom fondant and piping that doesn't make it taste any better. But if course no one does that, because custom wedding cakes look different and express different messages than birthday cakes or grocery store sheet cakes, which is why there is an entire industry devoted to custom-making them to your particular taste and ceremony. Expression is obviously not based on whether something has a functional purpose or not. Fondant and piping don't become speech just because they don't taste like anything. Your reasoning here could apply to birthday cakes just as well because "Happy Birthday Marcus" written in frosting doesn't make the cake taste better so you can discriminate against black people buying birthday cakes. Fashion handbags and designer clothing don't function any better than coveralls and canvas bags so black people can be banned from boutiques or at least restricted to the "black-permitted" section. For that matter, the water coming out of the colored fountain is the same water as the white fountain, and the back of the bus gets you to the same destination at the same time. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:A place by me refused to cater a lesbian wedding and posted this on their website and apparently in Missouri it's fine? You'd have to sue to find out, but being LGBT is not protected in many states. It's not protected in federal law. Discriminating against gays is illegal in Colorado because they specifically wrote protections for sexual identity into their law. Missouri has roughly the same protected classes as federal law, so until "no discrimination on the basis of sex" is detemined to include sexual identity, stores can kick gays out all they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:You'd have to sue to find out, but being LGBT is not protected in many states. It's not protected in federal law. Discriminating against gays is illegal in Colorado because they specifically wrote protections for sexual identity into their law. Missouri has roughly the same protected classes as federal law, so until "no discrimination on the basis of sex" is detemined to include sexual identity, stores can kick gays out all they want. This is one of those “if Hillary had won” things, since a number of promising cases attempting to apply the Title VII to discrimination against gay people, which would have at least arguably suggested protections under Title II (the federal public accommodations law) were moving along. As is, the SCOTUS is probably going to rule that Title VII doesn’t protect gay people. So...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
change my username to Gay Cake please
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:change my username to Gay Cake please i refuse, as is my constitutional right!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Baking might not be speech, but custom cake decorating really obviously is. Church-atrached choirs don't have business licenses. Just shut the gently caress up, you're really bad at this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
DR just can't wrap his mind around the fact laws exist that punish people for broadcasting and practicing socially, legislatively, and constitutionally agreed upon poo poo beliefs. The idea bothers him for some reason 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
DR is the Dunning whatever effect personified
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
If it was merely using the correct words and phrases to avoid legal trouble, sov cits would be revolutionaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
SCOTUS just ruled that a 40 foot cross is not a religous symbol, on the basis that it's been there for a while
Piell fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Piell posted:SCOTUS just ruled that a 40 foot cross is not a religous symbol it's actually way better, they 100% agree it's a religious symbol but it 'means something more now' for the monument so even if it is a religious symbol you can't complain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
I'm sure these guys would vote the same if it was a big rear end crescent moon comparing the loss of soldiers to the sacrifice of the great Islamic martyrs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Piell posted:SCOTUS just ruled that a 40 foot cross is not a religous symbol, on the basis that it's been there for a while Breyer agreed so its not too bad. Apparently this cross has been there for over 100 years and the Supreme Court created a "if its been there forever, we'll just go ahead and make an exception" edit: Kagan also joined part of it
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:it's actually way better, they 100% agree it's a religious symbol but it 'means something more now' for the monument so even if it is a religious symbol you can't complain. From SCOTUSBlog quote:The outcome turns heavily on the fact that the cross has been around for a long time and seems to establish a general presumption of constitutionality for old monuments of this sort: "The passage of time gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality." Old things cant be unconstitutional, I'm a Supreme Court Justice hurf durf
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Breyer agreed so its not too bad. Apparently this cross has been there for over 100 years and the Supreme Court created a "if its been there forever, we'll just go ahead and make an exception" it's real fuckin dumb fam, the supporting judges are all agreeing it is a religious symbol, they're just going 'pft but who cares'
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:it's real fuckin dumb fam, the supporting judges are all agreeing it is a religious symbol, they're just going 'pft but who cares' This 7-2 decision doesn't sound totally crazy to me. Their reasoning is basically "its been there for a very long time, at this point removing it would no longer be neutral, it would now be openly hostile to religion, which also isn't allowed".
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This 7-2 decision doesn't sound totally crazy to me. Their reasoning is basically "its been there for a very long time, at this point removing it would no longer be neutral, it would now be openly hostile to religion, which also isn't allowed". That's very stupid. A big sign saying "Jesus is the only god" put up by the government doesnt become constitutional just because it's been up for a while
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Of course SCOTUS justices think that old things deserve special respect under the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Piell posted:That's very stupid. A big sign saying "Jesus is the only god" put up by the government doesnt become constitutional just because it's been up for a while I would agree that a big sign saying "Jesus is the only god" would be more of a problem. Fortunately, this is only a big old cross, and governments still can't put up new crosses everywhere on their property.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Rigel posted:I would agree that a big sign saying "Jesus is the only god" would be more of a problem. Fortunately, this is only a big old cross, and governments still can't put up new crosses everywhere on their property. Yeah, any decision that rests on a hundred year old set of facts isn't going to be all that abusable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:37
|
|