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

[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

put on a top hat and dance like Fred Astaire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1F0lBnsnkE

(Turn CC on for references.)

 

[unofan]

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?

Doesn't matter.

You can refuse service for any legal reason. You can refuse service based on content, period, whether it's innocuous or offensive, because that is a legal reason.

You can't refuse service based on a protected characteristic, which in Colorado includes sexual orientation.

 

[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

Doesn't matter.

You can refuse service for any legal reason. You can refuse service based on content, period, whether it's innocuous or offensive, because that is a legal reason.

You can't refuse service based on a protected characteristic, which in Colorado includes sexual orientation.

Best post I've read on the topic. Clarifies a lot. It also allows for not doing it based on an offensive nature (I'm not sure I want to force bakers to bake a giant double-sided dildo that says "Paul Ryan's Tax Reform Celebration Toy")

 

[Drew S.]

Doesn't matter.

You can refuse service for any legal reason. You can refuse service based on content, period, whether it's innocuous or offensive, because that is a legal reason.

You can't refuse service based on a protected characteristic, which in Colorado includes sexual orientation.

I’m sure people who want to discriminate will catch on to this.

 

[unofan]

I’m sure people who want to discriminate will catch on to this.

No shiat, Sherlock. The civil rights act has been around since the 60s, and the smart racists out there long ago figured out ways around it. Doesn't make the law less worthwhile.

I'm sure the more intelligent among the homophobes will catch on, too.

 

[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

You can refuse service for any legal reason.

Legal reason, yup, you bet.

But I'm still asking: Who defines "offensive content"? What is "offensive"? Is that set by you? Me? The Catholic Church? Larry Flynt?

I guess your answer is saying the Government defines it and the offended has to do the (offensive to them) work under penalty of law.


I know a baker that would refuse making a cake with the GB Packers' "G" on it because he'll claim it's "offensive".

 

[jerphisch]

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

Doesn't matter.

You can refuse service for any legal reason. You can refuse service based on content, period, whether it's innocuous or offensive, because that is a legal reason.

You can't refuse service based on a protected characteristic, which in Colorado includes sexual orientation.

So refusing to put two grooms on the cake is fine, refusing to sell a cake to two grooms is not?

 

[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

Legal reason, yup, you bet.

But I'm still asking: Who defines "offensive content"? What is "offensive"? Is that set by you? Me? The Catholic Church? Larry Flynt?

I guess your answer is saying the Government defines it and the offended has to do the (offensive to them) work under penalty of law.

Did you just say you assumed that it's the government who defines a term of art in legislation?

Cuz I'm thinking, yeah, that's a pretty good guess.

It's also a good system. The government is all of us. All the rest of your examples are just some as-shole.

 

[jerphisch]

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

Doesn't matter.

You can refuse service for any legal reason. You can refuse service based on content, period, whether it's innocuous or offensive, because that is a legal reason.

You can't refuse service based on a protected characteristic, which in Colorado includes sexual orientation.

Legal reason, yup, you bet.

But I'm still asking: Who defines "offensive content"? What is "offensive"? Is that set by you? Me? The Catholic Church? Larry Flynt?

I guess your answer is saying the Government defines it and the offended has to do the (offensive to them) work under penalty of law.


I know a baker that would refuse making a cake with the GB Packers' "G" on it because he'll claim it's "offensive".

Just keep reading uno's post until it kicks in...

 

[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

It's also a good system. The government is all of us.

Yup.
But it tacitly requires all of us understand and accept that you may not agree with some outcomes.

That aspect of political and cultural civility is going extinct.

 

[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

Yup.
But it tacitly requires all of us understand and accept that you may not agree with some outcomes.

That aspect of political and cultural civility is going extinct.

Passive voice was used.

Although there is some measure of this on both sides, the right has been driving this trend ever since Rush first saw a rube, sniffed a mic, and thought, "mmm... smells like money."

 

[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

Just keep reading uno's post until it kicks in...

Any legal reason. Definitely. But uno goes on to say "content ... offensive".

What is "offensive"? Who defines it?

Apparently, the Government. Or as Kep says, we do. And as I said, that tacitly requires all of us understand and accept that you (or I) may not agree with some outcomes.

 

[jerphisch]

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

Any legal reason. Definitely. But uno goes on to say "content ... offensive".

What is "offensive"? Who defines it?

Apparently, the Government. Or as Kep says, we do. And as I said, that tacitly requires all of us understand and accept that you (or I) may not agree with some outcomes.

No, he doesn't. Like I said keep reading it. He says "content...innocuous or offensive." There is no definition of offensive required, because as long as it is based on content it doesn't matter what the content is.

 

[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

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?

That's not what the case is about. The bakery offered to sell the couple any cake in the store. The baker was not "refusing to sell to them." He merely declined to put a customized message in the icing; as he does in many other situations as well.

 

[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

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

He refuses to make custom cakes for a variety of different reasons, each of which he claims is against his religious beliefs.

The refusal to make any Halloween-themed cake stood out to me, an "interesting" exclusion.....

And no one ever said "gay = swastikas." The argument (from one of the Justices) was, if he is forced to make a custom message on a cake for same-sex wedding, why then is he not also forced to make a custom message on a cake for a neo-Nazi wedding?

Kennedy will side with the baker this time in an incredibly limited ruling phrased so that it will not be applicable any other time to any other situation. 5-4

 

[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

You can refuse service for any legal reason. You can refuse service based on content, period, whether it's innocuous or offensive, because that is a legal reason.

You can't refuse service based on a protected characteristic, which in Colorado includes sexual orientation.

Hmm... actually, this post is the essence of the baker's case: the content of the customized message is why he refused to make a custom cake. he did not refuse to sell them a cake (which, as you dourly note, would be illegal).

Sounds like you've just given us the outline of Kennedy's majority opinion in a 5-4 ruling in favor of the baker.

 

[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

There is no definition of offensive required, because as long as it is based on content it doesn't matter what the content is.

I was too locked in on "offensive content".

The ruling is, "I don't like that content. Scurry along to another who will do that content for you," is a legal response to give.


My Packer-hating baker friend exhales.

 

[unofan]

Legal reason, yup, you bet.

But I'm still asking: Who defines "offensive content"? What is "offensive"? Is that set by you? Me? The Catholic Church? Larry Flynt?

I guess your answer is saying the Government defines it and the offended has to do the (offensive to them) work under penalty of law.


I know a baker that would refuse making a cake with the GB Packers' "G" on it because he'll claim it's "offensive".

No, I said it doesn't matter, because you can refuse service for inoffensive conduct just as legally as offensive conduct. So there's no need to define what is offensive.

Trying reading what I said rather than your own misguided interpretation of it.

 

[unofan]

That's not what the case is about. The bakery offered to sell the couple any cake in the store. The baker was not "refusing to sell to them." He merely declined to put a customized message in the icing; as he does in many other situations as well.

Wrong

 

[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

No, I said it doesn't matter, because you can refuse service for inoffensive conduct just as legally as offensive conduct. So there's no need to define what is offensive.

Trying reading what I said rather than your own misguided interpretation of it.

Like said, I locked in on the word "offensive" rather than "content" (no adjective). I apologize to your infallibility.