Mittens @ 7/6/2018 13:34

If the decision went the other way, would that baker be forced to make me my giant cock cake that I am going to want for my wedding? This is a legitimate question. What would have constituted "regular line of business" when it comes to an industry that I assume is quite made-to-order?

Voodoo Doughnut in Portland will make you a giant:

Spoiler	+

Primate @ 7/6/2018 14:46

I misread vlady's posts. He still glossed over the important parts of the courts decision.

Not really- it is a narrow decision focused specifically on the Commission's previous allowance. I stated that pretty clearly and is not "thought police" rhetoric. Also, yor WashPost article is an editorial from the baker's lawyer, hardly a unbiased person writing on the issue.

And again, the decision isn't about court hostility at all, but specifically the Colorado Commission. As noted:

Quote

The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the re-quested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell th- er products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant.

As I said pretty clearly above, the inconsistent treatment was the issue and, had they not held differently in the previous cases and showed consistency of treatment, the results of the Supreme Court case would have been very different.

I refer you to language in Kennedy's opinion:

Quote

Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. [snip] When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion. This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rightslaws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.\ [snip] At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. [snip] There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. [snip] Another indication of hostility is the difference in treatment between Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers who objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience and prevailed before the Commission. As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory,” [snip] The treatment of the conscience-based objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ objection. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the other cases with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery was willing to sell other products, including those depicting Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell“birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,” App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant.

The tl:dr version from Kennedy's opinion

Quote

The treatment of the other cases and Phillips’ case could reasonably be interpreted as being inconsistent as to the question of whether speech is involved, quite apart from whether the cases should ultimately be distinguished. In short, the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of these other objections.

So, what you are saying is that politically selected justices at the federal level decided politically selected judges at the state level screwed up.

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!?!?

Kagen and Breyer's concurring opinion went so far as to say that the Commission could have denied Phillips had they neutrally applied CADA, so even the so called inconsistency wasn't such for them, only that the Commission didn't apply CADA in both cases consistently.

I won't do a word by word, but we are saying the same thing, only you are glossing over the parts where the courts said that the man was treated unfairly both in the application of the law and the way he was demonized by the state.

I realize that your future career as a bigot on the colorado civil rights commission is at stake here, but let's not pretend those things were not said.

My whole point was to point out how the state had politicized what was supposed to be an impartial mechanism. We both understand that is what happened. Don't we?

I guess the compromise would be to make them a cake, but not decorate it for them? Then again, who knows how his religion looks at profiting from sin. It's interesting to think about like most unsolvable problems.

I can understand the couple pushing the topic because they're upset, but wouldn't most people just go to a different bakery and say "fuck you" to the one who wouldn't serve them?

Primate @ 7/6/2018 15:21

I won't do a word by word, but we are saying the same thing, only you are glossing over the parts where the courts said that the man was treated unfairly both in the application of the law and the way he was demonized by the state. I realize that your future career as a bigot on the colorado civil rights commission is at stake here, but let's not pretend those things were not said.

Again, you miss the main point, which is the inconsistent treatment, because you focus only on the word "hostile" in the Kennedy opinion. The key issue is still that he was treated differently and that a religious-basis alone (or a secular basis alone) should not determine public accommodations law findings. If the Commission had acted consistently, Kagen and Breyer and likely Kennedy would have all had a different opinion. Gorsuch and Alito, OTOH, made up the silly argument that because Phillips wouldn't have made a same-sex cake for a heterosexual person, then it was ok.

You appear unable to view this case dispassionately, which both sides have had a problem with. I've seen plenty of same sex folks up in arms with the decision and lots of religious folks all joyful thinking they can discriminate all they want against gay people now. The fact of the matter is this case had very specific circumstances that didn't set a precedent for any other decision and, if anything, actually signaled where many of the folks on the Court would go if given a clean case to decide on.

But also, most bakers would make anyone a cake. So yeah the whole situation is just stupid

Coming tomorrow: Primate and Vlady argue over the meaning of the slogan on the side of a 20 oz. bottle of Pepsi. Stay tuned!

Mittens @ 7/6/2018 15:40

I can understand the couple pushing the topic because they're upset, but wouldn't most people just go to a different bakery and say "fuck you" to the one who wouldn't serve them?

The issue, as stated in the opinion of Kennedy, is that to allow one business to do it means there would be a long list of businesses doing it. More so, the classic case imagines a small town with a single grocery store and gas station, with no other gas stations nearby. If the grocery store won't serve someone, then the person will starve, especially if the gas station won't give them gas to drive away. Public accommodations is pretty simple; people just want to be able to discriminate and still get the benefits of public accommodations, and it doesn't work like that.

And before Primate gets his panties in a knot and decides to cry bigotry again, I think the Colorado Commissions's earlier rulings on the Jack cases was wrong: those bakers should have made the cake with anti-gay marriage messages. It wasn't obscene and it is not the baker's decision to censor a message.

Spin @ 7/6/2018 15:45

Coming tomorrow: Primate and Vlady argue over the meaning of the slogan on the side of a 20 oz. bottle of Pepsi. Stay tuned!

I believe it is "The joy of Pepsi Cola".

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 14:45

Mittens @ 7/6/2018 15:40 I can understand the couple pushing the topic because they're upset, but wouldn't most people just go to a different bakery and say "fuck you" to the one who wouldn't serve them? The issue, as stated in the opinion of Kennedy, is that to allow one business to do it means there would be a long list of businesses doing it. More so, the classic case imagines a small town with a single grocery store and gas station, with no other gas stations nearby. If the grocery store won't serve someone, then the person will starve, especially if the gas station won't give them gas to drive away. Public accommodations is pretty simple; people just want to be able to discriminate and still get the benefits of public accommodations, and it doesn't work like that. And before Primate gets his panties in a knot and decides to cry bigotry again, I think the Colorado Commissions's earlier rulings on the Jack cases was wrong: those bakers should have made the cake with anti-gay marriage messages. It wasn't obscene and it is not the baker's decision to censor a message.

Did any of that apply in this case?

Mittens @ 7/6/2018 15:49

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 14:45 Mittens @ 7/6/2018 15:40 I can understand the couple pushing the topic because they're upset, but wouldn't most people just go to a different bakery and say "fuck you" to the one who wouldn't serve them? The issue, as stated in the opinion of Kennedy, is that to allow one business to do it means there would be a long list of businesses doing it. More so, the classic case imagines a small town with a single grocery store and gas station, with no other gas stations nearby. If the grocery store won't serve someone, then the person will starve, especially if the gas station won't give them gas to drive away. Public accommodations is pretty simple; people just want to be able to discriminate and still get the benefits of public accommodations, and it doesn't work like that. And before Primate gets his panties in a knot and decides to cry bigotry again, I think the Colorado Commissions's earlier rulings on the Jack cases was wrong: those bakers should have made the cake with anti-gay marriage messages. It wasn't obscene and it is not the baker's decision to censor a message. Did any of that apply in this case?

The concept applies- it's why Kennedy stated specifically that religious exceptions don't apply in public accommodations laws, as that argument had been used previously for discrimination (i.e., we don't serve black people because my church says they are bad). Kennedy specifically said:

Quote

Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.

That's why what was at stake here was not the religious element but the inconsistent and neutral application of the Commission's findings.