Skip the legal jargon - if there was another bakery across town who would help them then these folks were just being jackasses to try and out jackass the baker.

Mittens @ 7/6/2018 15:56

Skip the legal jargon - if there was another bakery across town who would help them then these folks were just being jackasses to try and out jackass the baker.

Nope- if one baker can discriminate, why wouldn't the next? You can't argue "surely someone will serve them" when the past has shown that no service is exactly what will happen.

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 15:00

Mittens @ 7/6/2018 15:56 Skip the legal jargon - if there was another bakery across town who would help them then these folks were just being jackasses to try and out jackass the baker. Nope- if one baker can discriminate, why wouldn't the next? You can't argue "surely someone will serve them" when the past has shown that no service is exactly what will happen.

Not everyone hates people? Let that guy's business suffer and he'll be on his merry way. I dislike that these stupid disagreements make their way into our court system and bog it all down

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 14:40

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.

I agree that there were very specific circumstances. Mainly a cited bias held by the state.

We are both saying the same thing. I'm saying the unfair treatment was cited in this specific case, as well as the unfair application across several cases.

The rest is just me trying to start an argument for fun.

I know you are OK with the decision. Are you OK with the treatment the baker got by the courts? (Accused of faking his beliefs, compared to Nazis, etc by a supposedly impartial state funded agency.)

Primate @ 7/6/2018 16:08

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 14:40 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. I agree that there were very specific circumstances. Mainly a cited bias held by the state. We are both saying the same thing. I'm saying the unfair treatment was cited in this specific case, as well as the unfair application across several cases. The rest is just me trying to start an argument for fun. I know you are OK with the decision. Are you OK with the treatment the baker got by the courts? (Accused of faking his beliefs, compared to Nazis, etc by a supposedly impartial state funded agency.)

You are still misrepresenting this as "the courts". The Commission is the case here, the lower courts just didn't bring any of that into their arguments. It was one specific Commissioner that made the comment about religion being used to justify lots of discrimination, including the Holocaust. Applying that to the entire lower court is erroneous and the kind of fact bending that leads to Fox News viewership. And determining if his belief was sincerely held is part of the Commission's job (apparently dude also hadn't made a divorce cake, but I'm still trying to figure out who gets a divorce cake in the first place). One biased Commissioner spouting shit should have been reined in by the other Commissioners, but that is pretty typical in these types of boards, whether pro or anti-religious. What they need is people like you and I running these commissions, since we'd definitely not keep our mouth shut if an idiot spouted off like he did.

Yeah. I got the courts and the commission confused. The lower courts still showed a clear and illegal bias in their very decisions. That's not fact bending. It's just fact.

I couldn't be on one of those commissions. Shit might actually get done.

Primate @ 7/6/2018 16:26

I couldn't be on one of those commissions. Shit might actually get done.

You say that now, but when all that sweet sweet commissioner money starts rolling in, you might not be as productive.

Spin @ 7/6/2018 15:29

Primate @ 7/6/2018 16:26 I couldn't be on one of those commissions. Shit might actually get done. You say that now, but when all that sweet sweet commissioner money starts rolling in, you might not be as productive.

I could play a lot more golf

Primate @ 7/6/2018 16:34

Spin @ 7/6/2018 15:29 Primate @ 7/6/2018 16:26 I couldn't be on one of those commissions. Shit might actually get done. You say that now, but when all that sweet sweet commissioner money starts rolling in, you might not be as productive. I could play a lot more golf

See! It's starting already!

Mittens @ 7/6/2018 16:05

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 15:00 Mittens @ 7/6/2018 15:56 Skip the legal jargon - if there was another bakery across town who would help them then these folks were just being jackasses to try and out jackass the baker. Nope- if one baker can discriminate, why wouldn't the next? You can't argue "surely someone will serve them" when the past has shown that no service is exactly what will happen. Not everyone hates people? Let that guy's business suffer and he'll be on his merry way. I dislike that these stupid disagreements make their way into our court system and bog it all down

That's part of the underlying reasoning in the old Plessy vs Ferguson "separate but equal" concept. The issue becomes that things may be separate but they are rarely equal. After all, if Morton's decides to not serve, say, Xians, then can you say those same Xians can get an equal experience at Outback Steak House? Is a wedding cake made at a grocery store equal to one made by a professional cake maker?

Spin @ 7/6/2018 16:29

Primate @ 7/6/2018 16:26 I couldn't be on one of those commissions. Shit might actually get done. You say that now, but when all that sweet sweet commissioner money starts rolling in, you might not be as productive.

And you bring down a gaggle of commissioner ass.

The article you have shared here very awesome. I really like and appreciated your work. I read deeply your article, the points you have mentioned in this article are useful
gun mayhem 2

The article you have shared here very awesome. I really like and appreciated your work. I read deeply your article, the points you have mentioned in this article are useful
gun mayhem 2

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/08/618299605/prosecutors-expand-manafort-charges-add-new-russian-defendant-in-his-case?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180608

watergate 4 morons