The US Supreme Court Thread

I'd go with massive coronary arterial failure after running 10 minutes in 100 degree heat and 100 percent humidity.

 

Throwing dirt on him before he steps off the plane... He's going to die of a broken heart if y'all don't get it turned around

 

Why would he care? He's retired.

 

In a crucial case, today the Supreme Court ruled narrowly against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the case of an LGBTQ couple denied service by a bakery in Colorado.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s enforcement of its civil rights law was flawed in this specific case -- but the Court also acknowledged the equal rights of LGBTQ people to be free from the indignities of discrimination. The Court’s decision also did not change our nation’s fundamental civil rights laws.

 

It will have the same impact as due process claims did in Bush v. Gore.

 

He is too old for China.

Actually he is not that old, he just looks much older than his age, low 30s is not that bad.

 

That’s my hope. They artfully dodged the LGBTQ vs Christian fundie conflict, so that lives to fight another day...probably when support for gay rights polls higher than it already does.

 

We're talking Rooney, right? He hit puberty at age 7, and has 100,000 beers under his belt. He's older than most 40 year olds.

 

Hopefully that's after just one half season or DC is ********ed for years. Somebody should introduce him to pupusas.

 

Practically speaking and regardless of the composition of the court, They weren’t going to be able to say much more than they did. It was a bad test case. The laws have changed in the interim making gay marriage legal.

Let’s say I own an outdoor shop and my religion centered on responsible stewardship of the land and in CO fishing permits were mandated to provide funding for public waterways/fishery restoration. I refuse to sell you a fishing pole because you’re taking it to MA, which has no prohibition against fishing without a license and they have no funding source to maintain this resource. So I refuse to sell you a fishing pole. Is that discrimination? What if I would agree to sell you a basketball or a tennis racket or a hunting rifle or even a fishing pole that wasn’t fully outifitted?

It’s not the same thing, but it does illustrate the weakness of the case. Today the case would be interesting, with gay marriage legal everywhere and presumably a better functioning review board. Probably not a case they’d actually take.

 

The anti discrimination statute covered accommodation, which would include baked goods, but not necessarily “cake art” (phrase makes me retch, but whatevs).

The “cake artist” denied them some form of cake, but because the conversation turned south so quickly, it was impossible for both parties to reach an understanding of what was being denied. Per the “artist”, he explained to one of the couple’s mothers via phone call a day later, who was present for the store encounter, that the couple was welcome to purchase any “spec/standard” cake in addition to other baked goods for their wedding, but he wouldn’t be using his artistic ability, ie, speech/expression to decorate the cake or to create a custom cake. She never denied this, but this was never considered by the review board. The nature of the accommodation denial (or lack thereof) was never explored. Hostile? Maybe. In that respect what he wanted to offer the couple wasn’t much different than the cake maker who refused to create the anti-gay cake in CO, but agreed to make the cake and sell the frosting.

Gay marriage was at the time also not legal in Colorado, but it was in MA.

Questions (and I’m not an atty):
1) is denying them a bespoke/“artful” cake refusal to accommodate?
2) if a straight person wanted a cake for a gay wedding, does the discrimination statute apply? I’m assuming yes and that there is a straw purchase/fair housing case to support.
3) If they couldn’t enter into legally recognized marriage in the jurisdiction of the baker/artist, what adequately accommodates the customer? Note: the case could be remanded, but that doesn’t change the fact that they could not enter into a legally recognizable marriage in CO at the time of the shop visit. He’s not denying them a cake, but an artful cake for something not legally recognized at the time of the meeting in the local jurslisdiction.

That’s where I was trying to go with the fishing pole. Maybe more applicable: a butcher’s religion forbids the use of alcohol but recognizes the free will of people to form their own opinions at the religion’s age of majority (21). The drinking age in the state is 21. Age is protected under the state’s anti discrimination accommodation statute. Two soon to be 18 year olds enter the shop to procure an artistically scored pig for a roast to have a boozer celebrating their upcoming 18th being held in another state, where drinking at 18 is legal (no longer applies, but go with it). The butcher/pig artist refuses on account of their age, his religion and the intended use of his “artistic creation”. He offers them anything from the precut case for their bbq or even a pig that isn’t scored with a message/decorative carvings. He states he would refuse sale of artistic pig to a 21 year old if he knew it was for an 18 year old’s “coming of age” boozer for the same reasons. The 18 year olds file a complaint and the fact the butcher was willing to serve them anything short of artistically scoring the pig was not admissible.

Same questions/restriction on use/speech/religious belief issues apply.

All of those issues IMO make this case is a crappy one where procedure rather than accommodation becomes the answer with the SC. That and the fact we’re talking abt cake messages and flower arrangements. I wanna see a case where an accountant refuses to do taxes for a gay bar. Or discriminatory issues related to healthcare, survivor benefits/succession planning, adoption rights, employment, etc. I’m not trying to diminish all of the daily aggressions LGBTQ community faces, but this case amounts to weeds and a tangled up set of weeds at that.

 

Can anybody explain to me why it's OK to toss a guy out of your store because he's wearing a MAGA hat, but it's not OK to refuse sales to a guy wanting a gay marriage?

I don't mean legally OK. I couldn't be bothered with that. I mean, why as a lefty I should feel as if my side is harmed, when (for me) we're doing just what we are complaining about.

 

What would happen if a graduate of Bob Jones University refused to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple? It's the same principle.

 

I get what you're saying. I get frustrated with the double standards many of my lefty counterparts use when it comes to being offended or regulating speech. It's hard to separate the legal from the non-legal here, but I'll try:

The hat is speech. Political views/affiliation are often protected, and IMO do go to the core of who someone is, but the manner in which you express those views (or don't) is not. I should not be able to kick someone out for wearing a religious symbol or attire that reflects ethnic/religious affiliation in common use. I can kick someone out of my store for dress code, what they say in my store, their behavior. I shouldn't be able to kick out a Trump voter for simply being a Trump voter. But the hat? Yeah. I can't kick someone out of my store for being gay. But using the same logic, I should be able to kick them out for wearing a Pride shirt. That seems fair and consistent to me at least.

IMO, I shouldn't deny a MAGA guy a cake that says "Congratulations Donald and MIke" with the inauguration date on it any more than I should deny a gay couple " Congratulations A and B" with their wedding date on it. That's boiler plate/common sense. But it's hard to distinguish boiler plate/common sense from original/creative content.

 

Gracias. Good explanation all the way around, and this quoted part makes sense.

 

I dont know why anyone would want a cake made by someone who didnt want to bake them a cake. Better a drooping incompetent monstrosity made by the lady down the street with love than a professional delight made by an asshole.

 

Perhaps it is because they are bigots themselves? "Bake me a cake, Bigot".

If you read the backdrop you would know the guy never refused them service in the past.

 

It was the product right, he would have sold them a weading cake, but it was I believe about wording on the cake.