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

[unofan]

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

"Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who seemed ready to side with Mr. Phillips, said wedding cakes can have shortcomings. “I’m yet to have a wedding cake that I’d say tasted great,” he said."

The new Scalia tried to make a funny and came off as a *******. Color me shocked.

 

[unofan]

Wow!

That is f-cked up.

Remember, the default is a private party can do whatever they want. You'd have to affirmatively pass a law banning such discrimination. And discrimination based upon politics hasn't traditionally been an issue necessitating a corrective law.

 

[Drew S.]

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.

The element in this case that is troubling to me was that it was a custom job. I certainly agree that you shouldn’t be able to deny selling someone something that is in stock. I don’t really think the government should more or less force people into doing custom work though. I would feel the same way regardless of the party involved.

 

[unofan]

The element in this case that is troubling to me was that it was a custom job. I certainly agree that you shouldn’t be able to deny selling someone something that is in stock. I don’t really think the government should more or less force people into doing custom work though. I would feel the same way regardless of the party involved.

"Custom job" in the loosest sense of the term, seeing as he denied them before they ever talked about details.

For all he knew, they'd have asked for a simple two tiered chocolate cake that he could make in his sleep. Just because it wasn't already sitting there on a shelf waiting doesn't make it a custom job.

 

[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

Remember, the default is a private party can do whatever they want. You'd have to affirmatively pass a law banning such discrimination. And discrimination based upon politics hasn't traditionally been an issue necessitating a corrective law.

Understood.

 

[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

The element in this case that is troubling to me was that it was a custom job. I certainly agree that you shouldn’t be able to deny selling someone something that is in stock. I don’t really think the government should more or less force people into doing custom work though. I would feel the same way regardless of the party involved.

Uh, most cake makers are making custom cakes all the time.

They are no some random bread making bakery, they are making cakes for specific people and events. So if THAT is your core business, how can you justify denying service based on who a person is.

This isn't McDonald's who can deny your special 1/4 pounder. This is a custom baking company. It is exactly what they do.

 

[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

I would actually be perfectly happy for a bakery to deny service to gays, on the condition that they publicize the fact (i.e., "no shoes, no service"). Let's see how that boycott works out for them.

 

[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

I would actually be perfectly happy for a bakery to deny service to gays, on the condition that they publicize the fact (i.e., "no shoes, no service"). Let's see how that boycott works out for them.

I'm not. It sets a bad precedent and basically legalizes discrimination. Instead of even starting to open Pandora's box, I'd rather keep that closed and never return.

It didn't work for Donald Trump advertising he was a sex offender. It didn't work for Donald Trump admitting he had racist housing practices. It isn't going to work for Roy Moore being a pedophile*.

Best to just avoid that mess altogether.
*Allegedly

 

[burd]

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.

People tend to lose sight of the distinction between constitutional and statutory protection and the state action requirement of the former.

But you do a nice job of keeping us straight, uno.

 

[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

I'm not. It sets a bad precedent and basically legalizes discrimination. Instead of even starting to open Pandora's box, I'd rather keep that closed and never return.

It didn't work for Donald Trump advertising he was a sex offender. It didn't work for Donald Trump admitting he had racist housing practices. It isn't going to work for Roy Moore being a pedophile*.

Best to just avoid that mess altogether.
*Allegedly

Ideally we make sexual identification and orientation protected categories, yes. But in the meantime, let's register the bigots.

 

[joecct]

Ideally we make sexual identification and orientation protected categories, yes. But in the meantime, let's register the bigots.

You're a bigot, too. You hate the South and Republicans just because they're different from you.

The line forms to the left.

 

[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

You're a bigot, too. You hate the South and Republicans just because they're different from you.

The line forms to the left.

*shakes head*

 

[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

You're a bigot, too. You hate the South and Republicans just because they're different from you.

The line forms to the left.

Hit a nerve, eh?

Next time I'm trying to deny you your rights feel free to complain. If those rights are discrimination against people because of fairy stories your parents told you, I will likely not be sympathetic.

The wing nut crusade against the gays is a campaign of ignorance and hatred. You can't ennoble it with your magic spells. You can certainly deflect to other people's sins, but as I recall Cap'n Hand Holes would advise you to examine your own heart.

 

[Handyman]

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...)

Does he refuse to make them for straight couples without any of those caveats? If not then since when does gay = swastikas?

Oh wait you are concern trolling and you only know what your bot inputs...nevermind

 

[Handyman]

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

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.

Easy for you to say. We have the luxury to look at it divorced from any real emotional connection. But when it hits closer to home it causes a different type of reaction.

 

[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

Easy for you to say. We have the luxury to look at it divorced from any real emotional connection. But when it hits closer to home it causes a different type of reaction.

I agree. It is easy for me to say. None of this stuff is easy. That being said I've turned the other cheek a few times in my life. I know the pain.

 

[Handyman]

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

I'm not. It sets a bad precedent and basically legalizes discrimination. Instead of even starting to open Pandora's box, I'd rather keep that closed and never return.

It didn't work for Donald Trump advertising he was a sex offender. It didn't work for Donald Trump admitting he had racist housing practices. It isn't going to work for Roy Moore being a pedophile*.

Best to just avoid that mess altogether.
*Allegedly

Yep 2017 has proven that shining a light doesnt force the cockroaches into the shadows, they just put on a top hat and dance like Fred Astaire.

 

[Handyman]

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

I agree. It is easy for me to say. None of this stuff is easy. That being said I've turned the other cheek a few times in my life. I know the pain.

As have I...but I am not going to tell someone else THEY should turn the other cheek in the situation. If they feel they are being discriminated against they should fight. Being silent never helped anyone ask any woman who worked at Miramax.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

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

Who defines "offensive"?

Does the person doing the work get to define it? Or does the Government?

And if the Government says the provider must by force of law create offensive (to them) content, doesn't that verge on an Eighth Amendment conundrum?

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

... they just put on a top hat and dance like Fred Astaire.

That was a frog.