[Hong Wu]

There's a good analysis over at SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/sympo ... ore-270971

But the antidiscrimination law imposes no such barrier on the ability of any couple to marry, for the refusal of any individual to serve another in a competitive marketplace means that the harm suffered by the couple is the well-nigh trivial cost of finding one of 67 nearby bakeries which advertised their willingness to design cakes for same-sex weddings. In contrast, the burden imposed on Phillips for the exercise of his rights of religion and speech includes the loss of his business license, heavy fines and mandatory participation in various re-education programs suitable only in totalitarian regimes.

Craig and Mullins seek to raise the ante when they proclaim that “no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told ‘we don’t serve your kind here’ that we faced.” But that hyperbolic statement fails to acknowledge the limited nature of Phillips’ refusal, and it wholly overlooks the shame, embarrassment and humiliation, and outright intimidation and abuse, that their vocal supporters are willing to inflict on Phillips for the exercise of his religious and expressive beliefs. While Craig and Mullins are blessed with multiple choices if CADA does not apply, Phillips has no place to run if it does.

I guess both sides can claim to be the victim here, it probably is significant though to note what being the victim entails in each case.

[Doug64]

For record, this is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's reasoning

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ru ... 9b529d3a12

Sorry it is HuffPo.

But her position isn't wrong.

No, she is wrong, and looking at the article here’s where she went off the rails:

Specifically, she pushed back against a key part of the majority’s argument by saying there was an important difference between a bakery that refused to make a cake for anyone with anti-LGBTQ language on it and a bakery that refused to make a cake for someone in particular ― which they would have made for others ― because that someone was a member of the LGBTQ community. While the former was not discrimination, the latter was.

Here she agrees with the Colorado commission when it rejected the baker’s claim that his willingness to sell his products to the couple for any other purpose demonstrated that it wasn’t bias against the couple that was driving his decision but refusal to be an accessory to an event he considers sinful. Mind, this means she disagrees with the commission when it accepts that same reasoning for bakers refusing to create anti-gay marriage cakes that their animus was directed against the message and not the customers. And that’s where both she and the commission fail, because if a willingness to sell other products to the customers is acceptable evidence for one case, then it must also be acceptable evidence for the other.

[One Degree]

Anyone personalizing a product or service knows it represents who they are. Using semantics to argue against this reality is intellectually dishonest.
For example, even a house painter may refuse to paint your house purple because it reflects on his ‘quality’.
He does not care that your house is purple, he just does not want to be associated with it.

[Godstud]

Anyone personalizing a product or service knows it represents who they are.

Rubbish. They aren't putting the company logo on a fucking wedding cake.

For example, even a house painter may refuse to paint your house purple because it reflects on his ‘quality’.

Only if he leaves a sign, "Painted by _____.". Also, his quality wouldn't be decided on by who he painted the house for.

Your argument is nonsense.

[Heisenberg]

Reading this thread is making me quite glad that PoFo's liberals are not in charge of the courts.

The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to engineer it to achieve a desired outcome. @Doug64's point about how a ruling in favour of the couple could be applied to a much nastier scenario is a valid one. As it happens, there was a similar case in Northern Ireland not too long ago where veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell took the side of the bakers.

It isn't a stretch to say that a cake with a message on can be considered a publication, and under the USA's First Amendment it seems absurd to say someone should be forced into producing a publication they disagree with. Anyone with sense can see that a ruling in the couple's favour would likely lead to alt-right stunts where they go to bakeries owned by gay people/black people/whatever and demand they make neo-Nazi themed cakes.

[Beren]

It isn't a stretch to say that a cake with a message on can be considered a publication, and under the USA's First Amendment it seems absurd to say someone should be forced into producing a publication they disagree with. Anyone with sense can see that a ruling in the couple's favour would likely lead to alt-right stunts where they go to bakeries owned by gay people/black people/whatever and demand they make neo-Nazi themed cakes.

It could even be considered an issue of artistic freedom perhaps since baking a wedding cake is not the same as serving beer or fixing cars. Such discrimination should be illegal and sanctioned by the law basically, and religion shouldn't be above the law in general, however, no law and no principal should be absolute either. I'm sure they could have found another bakery, as they did I guess, and then let the market decide his fate anyway. Or it's just not liberal enough to say that?

[One Degree]

Rubbish. They aren't putting the company logo on a fucking wedding cake.

Only if he leaves a sign, "Painted by _____.". Also, his quality wouldn't be decided on by who he painted the house for.

Your argument is nonsense.

If they put a sign in your yard, it is very likely they are not concerned with quality. You do not seem to be in tune with the finer points of craftsmen. We are talking about independent entrepreneurs. They are normally big on ‘pride of work’ or they would not have their own business. I doubt many people decide to make cakes for a living as a ‘get rich quick’ scheme.
My argument is based upon personal experience as an independent business person. I know I turned down work that I was not comfortable with and respect others who do the same.

[Heisenberg]

I'm sure they could have found another bakery, as they did I guess, and then let the market decide his fate anyway

Let's just say I doubt it's a coincidence that they went to the (only?) Denver bakery owned by a conservative Christian to buy their wedding cake.

[maz]

Anyone with sense can see that a ruling in the couple's favour would likely lead to alt-right stunts where they go to bakeries owned by gay people/black people/whatever and demand they make neo-Nazi themed cakes.

By allowing such a frivolous case to be heard in the Supreme Court, it only seems fair for alt right trolls to do this.

Except that we could guess what would happen. Some journalist from Huffington Post would doxx the alt right person, they would get fired from their job, and it they happened to have children the state would come in and forcibly take them away.

[Pants-of-dog]

I literally quoted you an article which said they lived in Massachusetts when the court case started.

No, you did not.

The text you quoted said they planned to get married in Massachusetts because gay martiage was bot legal in Colorado at the time.

This is the second time I explain this to you.

Here is the text you quoted:

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a brief encounter at Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving the couple distraught.

And the link you cited: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme ... asons.html

——————————

Let's just say I doubt it's a coincidence that they went to the (only?) Denver bakery owned by a conservative Christian to buy their wedding cake.

They went there on the recommendation of their reception planner. The main reason for choosing that bakery was its proximity to where the reception was located.

[AFAIK]

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a brief encounter at Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving the couple distraught.

That's hilarious.

Customer: I'd like a cake to celebrate a criminal act.
Bakery: No way!
Customer: See you in court!


PS- I like the phrase 'not yet legal'. Peter File planned to take his 12 year old girlfriend out of state since having sex with her was not yet legal at home. Racist lures his victim south since lynching is not yet legal in New York.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the USA is a weird place with weird laws.

In this case, the religious rights of an artifical person, i.e. a bakery, were seen as more important than the rights of actual people.

[Beren]

It's amazing how frustrated and determined feminists and gays can get with Twitter issues and wedding cakes. This guy would get destroyed as well in Canada, huh @Pants-of-dog?

[Pants-of-dog]

It's amazing how frustrated and determined feminists and gays can get with Twitter issues and wedding cakes. This guy would get destroyed as well in Canada, huh @Pants-of-dog?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Beren]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm talking about the Spectacled Feminist vs Bald Idiot Twitter Harassment case in Toronto.

[Pants-of-dog]

I still do not know what you are talking about.

[Decky]

I have noticed that the alt right seems to think that everyone lives in their internet bubble and spends their entire life reading Alex Jones and whatever bullshit conspiracy he has come up with recently. If you try and explain that you go to work and go to the pub and see people in real life they seem totally incredulous that these commitments could mean you miss all of their bullshit stories that 99% of people have never heard of.

[Beren]

I still do not know what you are talking about.

Nevermind, I wouldn't mean to derail the thread anyway. I'm rather curious as to whether you were raised as a girl actually.

[Rich]

Well, maybe that was because religious people have been using their myths to oppress others for centuries now while gay people have not oppressed anyone.

Have they not? The two great pillars of Nicene Christianity, St Paul and Plato were both homosexuals. I've no doubt there were many homosexuals who were leaders in the history of Buddhism. You only have to look at the modern FWBO/ Triratna movement for an example of a homosexual oppressing others. Some of the worst misogyny has come from closet homosexuals.

[blackjack21]

In this case, the religious rights of an artifical person, i.e. a bakery, were seen as more important than the rights of actual people.

Homosexuals are angry that the world's major religions basically condemn homosexuality. A lot of the political left have done their level best to infiltrate more conservative organizations to try to sway people's opinions, but often that results in the destruction of the conservative organization rather than a transformation of attitude. The American Episcopal church is a perfect example. Today's political left wants conservative Christians to bake a cake celebrating an abortion when they find it utterly abhorrent.