Legal in Colorado to Refuse to Make Anti-Gay Cake

[T.Lex]

Sounds like media/libs trying to backpedal the court's results?

Not really.

Well, I can't speak to the entirety of MSM reporting on this.

In terms of appellate court decisions, though, I would call this a victory with "narrow" precedential value. They did try to make this as specific as possible to the local "human rights" commission, so as to narrow the consequences. (And there were some REALLY bad facts for that commission.)

But, I think it does provide a logic-path for future cases.

 

[chipbennett]

Wait . . . how is a 7-2 vote a "narrow victory"? Is narrow referring to the specifics of the judgement?

The decision (7-2) was not narrow, but the scope of the ruling was narrow. Essentially, the court is saying that the bias of the State actors was so egregious here that they couldn't help but rule the way they did, but the "larger questions" remain unanswered and must ripen more in the lower courts.

 

[BigRed]

View attachment 67363

 

[HoughMade]

The decision (7-2) was not narrow, but the scope of the ruling was narrow. Essentially, the court is saying that the bias of the State actors was so egregious here that they couldn't help but rule the way they did, but the "larger questions" remain unanswered and must ripen more in the lower courts.

Which is, IMO, why it is 7-2.

I don't like activist courts no matter who they favor. You don't make broad constitutional rulings unless they are absolutely necessary to the case. Here, it was not...but likely there is another case, and another day, when the direct confrontation of a right enshrined in the Constitution versus a judge-made newly found "right" to force other to do stuff is unavoidable.

Why haven't some Ayrian Brotherhood people sued a bakery for not putting a swastika and their slogans on a cake?

 

[T.Lex]

So, I spent some time last night going through Ginsburg's dissent. It is pretty darn good.

In a state's rights sense, it actually would uphold a state's ability to regulate non-1A protected activities.

(Curious aside, apparently cake decorating isn't necessarily a protected 1A "communication." I pretty much disagree with that, as any art form is communication.)

 

[Shadow01]

Let's say I own a drive in restaurant. Our mission is to serve good hot food to our customers at reasonable prices, and with fast friendly service.

We don't care if our customers are homosexual, bisexual, trysexual, heterosexual, or asexual. We don't even ask. We sell you food and you give us money.

If a same sex couple approaches me about having their wedding at my business, I will decline. Doesn't matter why. It's because I said so.
If a man and woman approaches me about having their wedding at my business, I will most likely decline.

I also reserve the right to change my mind for whatever reason.

I agree, but you and I don’t see the special status that is going to be applied to the first part of your example. That special status allows for the claim of discrimination that doesn’t exist in the second half of your example. Society sees it differently than it actually is.

 

[rhino]

Which is, IMO, why it is 7-2.

I don't like activist courts no matter who they favor. You don't make broad constitutional rulings unless they are absolutely necessary to the case. Here, it was not...but likely there is another case, and another day, when the direct confrontation of a right enshrined in the Constitution versus a judge-made newly found "right" to force other to do stuff is unavoidable.

Why haven't some Ayrian Brotherhood people sued a bakery for not putting a swastika and their slogans on a cake?

Maybe they're not big enough *******s to do that?

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe they're not big enough *******s to do that?

Not petty and vindictive enough to try to ruin a man's business and livelihood to prove some sort of point?

I'm sure they could work up the angst- they just need to find a black baker.

 

[Shadow01]

So, I spent some time last night going through Ginsburg's dissent. It is pretty darn good.

In a state's rights sense, it actually would uphold a state's ability to regulate non-1A protected activities.

(Curious aside, apparently cake decorating isn't necessarily a protected 1A "communication." I pretty much disagree with that, as any art form is communication.)

She was awake long enough to write one?

 

[T.Lex]

She was awake long enough to write one?

She probably writes better in her sleep than you could ever aspire to achieve.

 

[Shadow01]

She probably writes better in her sleep than you could ever aspire to achieve.

Nice attack on a forum member. You should hold your head high on that one.

 

[T.Lex]

Nice attack on a forum member. You should hold your head high on that one.

Hmmm... member since March 2011? Figured a thicker skin for such a long-time member. That wasn't an "attack."

Ahhhhh... 16 posts since March 2011? Never mind. I think I know what's going on.

 

[Ingomike]

Hmmm... member since March 2011? Figured a thicker skin for such a long-time member. That wasn't an "attack."

Ahhhhh... 16 posts since March 2011? Never mind. I think I know what's going on.

Pare you implying they were sleeping with Ginsburg all that time? LOL

M

 

[femurphy77]

Pare you implying they were sleeping with Ginsburg all that time? LOL

M

How pare he??!!

 

[breakingcontact]

It isn't about the cake.

It is about being compelled to engage in commerce. Why does the cake baker not want to engage in this commerce, because it is a celebration of sin.

 

[BigRed]

It isn't about the cake.

It is about being compelled to engage in commerce. Why does the cake baker not want to engage in this commerce, because it is a celebration of sin.

Why does somebody want to force another, against their will, to make a cake for a rump rider rodeo?

Chances are good that it would come out pretty crappy.

Why not find somebody that enjoys doing such things instead of forcing one that doesn't to do it?

 

[breakingcontact]

Why does somebody want to force another, against their will, to make a cake for a rump rider rodeo?

Chances are good that it would come out pretty crappy.

Why not find somebody that enjoys doing such things instead of forcing one that doesn't to do it?

Because it is about enforcing acceptance.

Disallowing acting out some beliefs through the weight of law.

 

[HoughMade]

It isn't about the cake.

It is about being compelled to engage in commerce. Why does the cake baker not want to engage in this commerce, because it is a celebration of sin.

Actually, it's about compelled speech...which has actual protection under the First Amendment.

And T.Lex...c'mon, that dissent was nothing great. It was basically: "I disagree".

As usual, I thing Justice Thomas was dead on.

 

[IndyTom]

Which is, IMO, why it is 7-2.

I don't like activist courts no matter who they favor. You don't make broad constitutional rulings unless they are absolutely necessary to the case. Here, it was not...but likely there is another case, and another day, when the direct confrontation of a right enshrined in the Constitution versus a judge-made newly found "right" to force other to do stuff is unavoidable.

Why haven't some Ayrian Brotherhood people sued a bakery for not putting a swastika and their slogans on a cake?

I don't know that they were Aryan Brotherhood, but the same board who came down on this baker supported 3 other bakers who refused to make anti-gay cakes of some sort.

 

[breakingcontact]

Actually, it's about compelled speech...which has actual protection under the First Amendment.

And T.Lex...c'mon, that dissent was nothing great. It was basically: "I disagree".

As usual, I thing Justice Thomas was dead on.

Yeah I understand that aspect as well. I also believe that choosing to engage or not engage in commerce is speech as well.