Legal in Colorado to Refuse to Make Anti-Gay Cake

[T.Lex]

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.

Well, my personal philosophy aligns closer to Thomas. (Who has been rumored to be catatonic or otherwise distracted during oral arguments himself.)

But, Ginsburg presented a different take on the case that I found... sympathetic ... might be the best description. That is, more behavior-oriented, and thus amenable to regulation, than the majority opinion.

For instance, what if the dude wanted a traditional cake, that said nothing on it. Not even a cake-topper made of soap (with a protective finish). Then, what exactly would be baker have a problem with? I personally don't agree with the following equivalence, but if we accept that the baker could not refuse to bake a cake because the couple was Jewish (or some other protected class) based on his religion, then we've already accepted the paradigm Ginsburg proposes. It is then up to the locale to determine what protected groups are protected.

She also deconstructed the examples propounded by the majority for instances where the commission declined to act. Moreover, it sets up a situation where a commission can't re-visit past precedent, which is awkward.

Ginsburg is a solid jurist. One that I rarely align with, but that's ok.

 

[HoughMade]

The "plain wedding cake" argument ignores what a wedding cake is and how a baker would normally create it. Ginsberg essentially says that Phillips would not sell a wedding cake to homosexuals where he would to heterosexuals and that makes it illegal....this ignores the whole part about what goes into making it a "wedding cake". There was no evidence that they asked for a plain cake with no same-sex identifiers on it. The standard wedding cake has a topper which depicts the participants.

Beyond that, what if he would sell a wedding cake to a gay man who was buying it for a heterosexual wedding? I bet he would. In fact the evidence was that he would sell any item he normally made to anyone. If he would sell a same-sex wedding cake to no one regardless of orientation (which was the evidence), and he would sell a wedding cake (no 21st century created qualifier necessary) to anyone regardless of orientation, then the issue is not his refusal to sell to someone. The sole issue is about the nature of the same-sex cake and what it would mean to him in his belief system. He believed that to make and sell that cake would be an endorsement of or participating in the same-sex wedding. Ginsberg completely ignored that and tried to claim that he was refusing to sell something to homosexuals, which is patently false. He would not have sold the same-sex cake to anyone.

 

[bwframe]

What does this indicate about November's election?

 

[BigRed]

All joking, snide remarks, sarcasm, etc. aside; it is truly pitiful how low the republic has sank and continues to sink.

The constitution was to limit the common government. Further, if one has not even the right to decline and say no, what does one have?

The republic is dead, gents.

 

[rhino]

The "plain wedding cake" argument ignores what a wedding cake is and how a baker would normally create it. Ginsberg essentially says that Phillips would not sell a wedding cake to homosexuals where he would to heterosexuals and that makes it illegal....this ignores the whole part about what goes into making it a "wedding cake". There was no evidence that they asked for a plain cake with no same-sex identifiers on it. The standard wedding cake has a topper which depicts the participants.

Beyond that, what if he would sell a wedding cake to a gay man who was buying it for a heterosexual wedding? I bet he would. In fact the evidence was that he would sell any item he normally made to anyone. If he would sell a same-sex wedding cake to no one regardless of orientation (which was the evidence), and he would sell a wedding cake (no 21st century created qualifier necessary) to anyone regardless of orientation, then the issue is not his refusal to sell to someone. The sole issue is about the nature of the same-sex cake and what it would mean to him in his belief system. He believed that to make and sell that cake would be an endorsement of or participating in the same-sex wedding. Ginsberg completely ignored that and tried to claim that he was refusing to sell something to homosexuals, which is patently false. He would not have sold the same-sex cake to anyone.

I'm not even a simple country law-yah, but that is a solid analysis, sir.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I haven't read the entire ruling yet (I don't have T.Lex's free time, apparently), but from what I can tell so far, this ruling has absolutely nothing at all to do with engaging in commerce. In fact, the baker's willingness to engage generally in commerce with the complainants was one of the reasons that SCOTUS sided with the baker. (It was one of the things for which SCOTUS raked the State of Colorado over the coals, as an example of blatant, unequal protection/application of the law.)

 

[chipbennett]

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

I think that falls under the right of free association, not the right of free speech.

 

[chipbennett]

Well, my personal philosophy aligns closer to Thomas. (Who has been rumored to be catatonic or otherwise distracted during oral arguments himself.)

But, Ginsburg presented a different take on the case that I found... sympathetic ... might be the best description. That is, more behavior-oriented, and thus amenable to regulation, than the majority opinion.

For instance, what if the dude wanted a traditional cake, that said nothing on it. Not even a cake-topper made of soap (with a protective finish). Then, what exactly would be baker have a problem with? I personally don't agree with the following equivalence, but if we accept that the baker could not refuse to bake a cake because the couple was Jewish (or some other protected class) based on his religion, then we've already accepted the paradigm Ginsburg proposes. It is then up to the locale to determine what protected groups are protected.

She also deconstructed the examples propounded by the majority for instances where the commission declined to act. Moreover, it sets up a situation where a commission can't re-visit past precedent, which is awkward.

Ginsburg is a solid jurist. One that I rarely align with, but that's ok.

I reply with the caveat that I have not read Ginsberg's dissent yet, and am replying based solely on your characterization of her dissent. This decision did not address, much less answer, the question of the State's authority to compel a private citizen to engage generally in commerce with another private citizen, when such engagement introduces a freedom-of-conscience matter. In fact, the decision basically said, "we're not dealing with that question yet, but some lower-court cases might give us the opportunity later."

So, I could speculate that Ginsberg is merely using her dissent to lay the groundwork for her argument when that question comes before the court.

 

[T.Lex]

I reply with the caveat that I have not read Ginsberg's dissent yet, and am replying based solely on your characterization of her dissent. This decision did not address, much less answer, the question of the State's authority to compel a private citizen to engage generally in commerce with another private citizen, when such engagement introduces a freedom-of-conscience matter. In fact, the decision basically said, "we're not dealing with that question yet, but some lower-court cases might give us the opportunity later."

So, I could speculate that Ginsberg is merely using her dissent to lay the groundwork for her argument when that question comes before the court.

Probably.

All the opinions basically start - based on precedent - that states can regulate discriminatory conduct. That is, they can decide what counts as a "protected group" and gay people have - again by precedent - been afforded that status.

For practical purposes (IMHO), we've already lost that battle in the culture war.

 

[BugI02]

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 think PONC are not allowed membership in ANY protected class, so no standing

 

[BugI02]

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.

The progressive definition of discrimination is not commutative

If A then not B = racist misogynist bastard

If B then not A = welcome to the #resistance

 

[BugI02]

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

'Member' implies a certain level of ... participation. With greater effort you might know that T.Lex is a barrister of some repute and does not look kindly upon shotgun critiques of his fellowes

Conversely, lack of a body of work makes the A/B choice of Troll/Not Troll ... less nuanced

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Probably.

All the opinions basically start - based on precedent - that states can regulate discriminatory conduct. That is, they can decide what counts as a "protected group" and gay people have - again by precedent - been afforded that status.

For practical purposes (IMHO), we've already lost that battle in the culture war.

If only leftists/SJWs took their lumps so and gave up.

 

[T.Lex]

If only leftists/SJWs took their lumps so and gave up.

It isn't about giving up, it is about recognizing reality. And then adjusting strategy accordingly.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It isn't about giving up, it is about recognizing reality. And then adjusting strategy accordingly.

That I'm ok with.

 

[HoughMade]

Welp...

They'll never give up. Will we?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3452...content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

 

[Libertarian01]

Welp...

They'll never give up. Will we?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3452...content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

[video=youtube;_V5Eqg6C34E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V5Eqg6C34E[/video]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Clay Pigeon]

....

 

[Mark-DuCo]

I have a feeling they won't stop until the baker out of business.