Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[bronconick]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

What does this do to the handgun Heller ruling? Nothing?

The only things were Maryland's Assault Weapon Ban and open carry prohibition in Florida. They're left intact.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

How the hell did an open carry ban sneak through the Flori-derp legislature/voters?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Interesting to note how much of the coverage of the Colorado baker's case gets the basic facts wrong:
- the baker offered to sell the same-sex couple any cake in the store.
- the couple refused that offer
- the case is solely about the baker declining to make a customized cake specifically for them
- the baker also refuses to make customized cakes for a variety of other people and other situations (none for Halloween, none with obscene language, none with swastikas...)

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Clearly, this movie really should have been made.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Here's my biggest questions about the cake case:
If a business is allowed to tell a gay person they aren't going to sell to them, wouldn't that have major implications for Title IX and employment as well?

 

[Drew S.]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Interesting to note how much of the coverage of the Colorado baker's case gets the basic facts wrong:
- the baker offered to sell the same-sex couple any cake in the store.
- the couple refused that offer
- the case is solely about the baker declining to make a customized cake specifically for them
- the baker also refuses to make customized cakes for a variety of other people and other situations (none for Halloween, none with obscene language, none with swastikas...)

Could he have given them a quote with a high price? I don't think the government should be telling businesses they are forced to do certain custom work. That isn't a good precedent.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Could he have given them a quote with a high price? I don't think the government should be telling businesses they are forced to do certain custom work. That isn't a good precedent.

Yeah, but that's just de facto discrimination

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Interesting to note how much of the coverage of the Colorado baker's case gets the basic facts wrong:
- the baker offered to sell the same-sex couple any cake in the store.
- the couple refused that offer
- the case is solely about the baker declining to make a customized cake specifically for them
- the baker also refuses to make customized cakes for a variety of other people and other situations (none for Halloween, none with obscene language, none with swastikas...)

This is where I break with the left. I don't have a problem with these people refusing business. As long as the business they're refusing is clearly identified on a brochure, or Facebook page, or somewhere so all of us can just laugh at them.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Could he have given them a quote with a high price? I don't think the government should be telling businesses they are forced to do certain custom work. That isn't a good precedent.

Small companies, where prices are not published, will often quote high prices to dissuade certain potential clients. However, if that potential client takes the quoted price, then the business must take the job or land in deep doo-doo.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

This is where I break with the left. I don't have a problem with these people refusing business. As long as the business they're refusing is clearly identified on a brochure, or Facebook page, or somewhere so all of us can just laugh at them.

Should a business be allowed to discriminate against black people?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Should a business be allowed to discriminate against black people?

No, and that's the fallacy in the argument. I'm not saying what was done here isn't wrong or against the law. I just don't think it was worth it to go to court. The vast majority of businesses out there would have been happy to make them the cake they wanted and who wants to do business with these bigots anyway? Not me.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Should a business be allowed to discriminate against black people?

I'd like to see that on a brochure. It'd help me know which businesses to avoid because they're owned and operated by pond scum.

 

[unofan]

Could he have given them a quote with a high price? I don't think the government should be telling businesses they are forced to do certain custom work. That isn't a good precedent.

He can't (legally) give them a quote with a higher price than he would a straight couple. That's also discrimination.

Here's the gist of it, would you be ok with him telling an interracial couple to take a hike because he believes miscegenation is a sin. If not, then this isn't ok either.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

This is where I break with the left. I don't have a problem with these people refusing business. As long as the business they're refusing is clearly identified on a brochure, or Facebook page, or somewhere so all of us can just laugh at them.

Depends on why.

If you are denying business because of who the person is, then it's discrimination. If you are denying business because of the content of what is being asked to be made, that's different.

Saying you will not provide business to bi-sexual couples is no different than denying business to minorities.

Saying you will not provide business because the cake has offensive content, well, that should be fine.

I don't see any justification of picking and choosing who to service based on who the person is.

BTW, saying that the baker offered a pre-made cake is not the same as the baker providing a custom cake. Not even close. That's part of separate and not equal.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

BTW, if this case goes to the side of the baker, then it should be perfectly ok to ask if someone is an R or a gun holder to deny them business. I doubt that will go over well.

 

[unofan]

BTW, if this case goes to the side of the baker, then it should be perfectly ok to ask if someone is an R or a gun holder to deny them business. I doubt that will go over well.

In most places that is perfectly legal to do. Only a few places ban discrimination based on political affiliation.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In most places that is perfectly legal to do. Only a few places ban discrimination based on political affiliation.

Really? So a private bus company could refuse to take Democrats to the polls on election day?

 

[unofan]

Really? So a private bus company could refuse to take Democrats to the polls on election day?

In most jurisdictions, yes.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In most jurisdictions, yes.

Wow!

That is f-cked up.

 

[Drew S.]

BTW, if this case goes to the side of the baker, then it should be perfectly ok to ask if someone is an R or a gun holder to deny them business. I doubt that will go over well.

Restaurant in Maine banned gun owners last year.