Does this reverse the huge lawsuit against the bakery? I'm guessing not.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

They need to keep their mouths shut about their objections to his objections.

How would they be able to argue or prosecute the case if they didn't address his position?



.

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:
I've been to the shop a few times and threw a twenty into his legal defense fund coffee can. I think I'll give him another twenty today.

So have I. Jack and his crew make delicious treats.

quote:

Originally posted by jasonthechief:
I expect this baker will now be the target of vile hatred from those who preach tolerance, if he hasn't already.

Good point. As we both likely know, tolerance is a one-way street.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Note that it is the government entity, not the gay couple, which is on the losing end.

It's the gay couple that doesn't get their gay cake.

Still a narrow ruling in my mind if it's based on religion-only.

Point missed!

Colorado can make this baker bake a cake if they keep their mouths shut about his religious objections.

I just finished reading the majority and dissenting opinions, and I'm not sure I'd even view this as a victory at all on the issue. SCOTUS completely side stepped the real issue here, and decided nothing more than the Colorado Civil Rights Commission behaved badly, and as such, got a smack on the knuckles by the high court. The next pair of militant homo's who opt to target another baker, or florist, or whatever, will likely have the state of Colorado as an ally in their attack on the next victim's personal religious rights and they'll likely get to start this dance with the courts all over again.

No one on the Left is going to back off on this issue, and SCOTUS did nothing with this decision to change that reality.

A Footnote In The Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Ruling Bodes Ill For Religious Liberty

Don’t be fooled by the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling. A menacing view of the First Amendment lurks in the details of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Federalist
John Daniel Davidson
JUNE 5, 2018

The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was widely hailed by conservatives and religious liberty advocates on Monday as a win for religious liberty, even though the court dodged the larger First Amendment questions at the heart of the case.

The court ruled that Colorado unconstitutionally discriminated against Jack Phillips, the baker who refused to create a specialty cake celebrating a gay wedding, by showing open hostility to his religious beliefs. But the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is confined to the particular circumstances of this one case, as my colleagues Ilya Shapiro and David Harsanyi explain here and here.

It tells us little about how the Supreme Court views the core claim of Phillips, that Colorado violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by compelling him to endorse same-sex marriage against his sincerely held religious beliefs. A footnote in Justice Elena Kagan’s separate concurring opinion, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, points to the reasoning the court might have employed if it had engaged this larger question—and it doesn’t bode well for advocates of free speech and freedom of religion.

Kagan’s Footnote Belies the Left’s Animus Against Religion

Kagan’s footnote is a reply to Justice Neil Gorsuch, who issued a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito that noted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission applied a different standard in three others cases in which bakers had been asked to bake cakes with specific religious messages and had refused, citing secular beliefs (a customer had asked for a Bible-shaped cake decorated with a verse, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22”).

In those cases, the commission had upheld the bakers’ right to refuse their services. Gorsuch notes that the commission clearly applied a double standard, effectively engaging in discrimination against Phillips because of the substance of his belief.

For the commissioners, who openly expressed their animus toward Phillips’s religious beliefs, there is no double standard because the secular beliefs of the other bakers are legitimate, while Phillips’ beliefs are not. Kagan’s footnote encapsulates the Left’s thinking on this issue—namely, that Phillips’s First Amendment claim amounts to nothing. Kagan writes:

As Justice Gorsuch sees it, the product that Phillips refused to sell here—and would refuse to sell to anyone—was a ‘cake celebrating same-sex marriage.’ But that is wrong. The cake requested was not a special ‘cake celebrating same-sex marriage.’ It was simply a wedding cake—one that (like other standard wedding cakes) is suitable for use at same-sex and opposite-sex weddings alike… And contrary to Justice Gorsuch’s view, a wedding cake does not become something different whenever a vendor like Phillips invests its sale to particular customers with ‘religious significance.’

In other words, Phillips’s religious beliefs about marriage—beliefs, by the way, which are orthodox teachings in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—are not to be taken seriously. Nor is the notion that a baker who is asked to make a specialty cake that celebrates what is, for the baker, a religious ceremony, might be engaging in protected speech by creating that cake, in much the same way a photographer or any other artist does.

For Kagan, the law may be construed to achieve a desired outcome, so long as those enforcing it don’t betray their animus toward certain religious beliefs.

The same idea crops up in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, joined by Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in which she argues that there is no First Amendment question at all in the Masterpiece case, because “when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service (the couple) were denied.”

Ginsberg, like Kagan, doesn’t seem to care that for people with certain religious convictions, weddings are religious celebrations, even sacraments. For Phillips, as indeed for many Christians (and Jews and Muslims), same-sex weddings are not legitimate weddings at all, and participating in them is prohibited by the teachings of their faith.

Forcing such participation, argues Justice Clarence Thomas in an separate opinion joined by Gorsuch, is a violation of Phillips’s First Amendment rights because it would force him to “affirm a belief with which he disagrees.” This kind of coercion, argues Thomas, isn’t just a violation of Phillips’s right of free exercise of religion but also his right to free speech. Compelling him to make a custom wedding cake is the same as compelling protected speech, because Phillips is an artist who is engaged in expressive speech.

Don’t Take Too Much Comfort In The Masterpiece Ruling

That is not the view most Americans take, according to a Morning Consult poll released yesterday in the wake of the court’s ruling. Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed oppose “allowing small business owners to refuse service to LGBT individuals if doing so violates their religious beliefs.”

Of course, the poll doesn’t distinguish between types of small business owners. As Thomas argues, a baker, like a photographer or a florist, is an artist whose work is expressive speech. It’s inaccurate to compare such businesses to a restaurant that refuses to serve same-sex couples in general, because no one is asking the restaurant owner to endorse a message or espouse a belief that violates his or her conscience or religious beliefs.

But even Kennedy’s majority opinion casts doubt on whether a majority of justices really share that view. Kennedy, in a passage that echoes Kagan’s reasoning, even suggests that Colorado might have gotten away with compelling Phillips to violate his religious beliefs if only the commissioners hadn’t been so obvious about their bias:

The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.

All of which to say, conservatives and religious liberty advocates should not take too much comfort in Monday’s ruling. The currents underneath this decision suggest a far more menacing posture toward people who share Jack Phillips’ religious beliefs than the outcome of his particular case might suggest.

Link

quote:

Don’t Take Too Much Comfort In The Masterpiece Ruling

Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed oppose “allowing small business owners to refuse service to LGBT individuals if doing so violates their religious beliefs.”

I would not only go much further than the Court in this case... I would go even further in the direction of individual liberty than the question posed by this survey. In my opinion, it should not be necessary to show a "violation of religious beliefs” has occurred.

I agree with Dr. Walter Williams that freedom favors voluntary transactions between willing participants. That would mean no coercion of any type and no one would be required to transact any business with anyone and no reason would need to be given.

But I realize that my view is so far out of favor that it isn't even addressed.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Don’t Take Too Much Comfort In The Masterpiece Ruling

Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed oppose “allowing small business owners to refuse service to LGBT individuals if doing so violates their religious beliefs.”

I would not only go much further than the Court in this case... I would go even further in the direction of individual liberty than the question posed by this survey.

I agree with Dr. Walter Williams that freedom favors voluntary transactions between willing participants. That would mean no one would be required to transact any business with anyone and no reason would need to be given.

But I realize that that view is so far out of favor that it isn't even addressed.

That train left the station a long time ago. Given the precedents, statutes which have been interpreted, and the interpretation of the 13-15th Amendments confirmed in precedents, that train isn’t coming back.

quote:

That train left the station a long time ago.

Ya... I know.

I am very bothered by the persistent recurrence of the phrase "violation of deeply held religious beliefs".
Don't we have a right to express "shallowly supported religious beliefs" or "our mere personal opinions" ?
It seems like the opponents of free expression are trying to create an artificial distinction so that only people who can document a long-standing and deep commitment to an organized religion are allowed to express or act in accordance with traditional moral and ethical principles.
All others must yield to the post-modern dogmas, because they don't have a "legitimate excuse" to be reactionaries.

quote:

I am very bothered by the persistent recurrence of the phrase "violation of deeply held religious beliefs".
Don't we have a right to express "shallowly supported religious beliefs" or "our mere personal opinions" ?

Exactly.
That's the point I try to make above.
I'm a lawyer and a financial advisor. There are people I don't want to work with... and I should not be compelled to do so. It doesn't have to have anything to do with race or religion. But I only have so much time and maybe I just like some people more than others.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
LOL Reuters called 7-2 a narrow win.

Narrow refers to the basis of the decision - not the margin of the votes.

The legal basis is narrow, meaning that the ruling in this case is mostly confined to the specific facts of this case and that it does not announce a more generally applicable rule.

Commentators seem to believe there are other cases coming up in which the court may take up the bigger issues.

The Supremes prefer narrow rulings. It is judicially conservative (not politically conservative) to rule as simply and as little as possible. Judges should make decisions on the narrowest basis possible. They avoid should avoid making new law as much as possible. If they can dispose of cases without making new law, they should do so. It isn't the job of the courts to make pronouncements or policy decisions.

When they do (think "Roe v. Wade") all they do is stir up trouble. When the Supremes go out of their way to make a broad decision they don't need to make, they are becoming policy-makers or legislators.

If you are in favor of them doing that when the decision goes your way, just remember that enables that to happen in situations when it doesn't go your way.

Plus, it does violence to our Constitution.

Let's erase the blackboards.

Let's address the so-called "supremes".

In a national catastrophe they'd die first.

Why?

They are an animatronic simulacrum of humans who can't exist without perpetuating the myth what they say goes.

When (fill in the blank, ems strikes, famine comes across the land, pestilence) - in other words when reality bites, they'd all instantaneously die because it wasn't fraud, the only sustenance they thrive on.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I'm a lawyer and a financial advisor. There are people I don't want to work with... and I should not be compelled to do so. It doesn't have to have anything to do with race or religion. But I only have so much time and maybe I just like some people more than others.

How can you or I trust somebody, no matter how smart or well-educated, who can't even figure out the right way to screw?

Kicking the can down the road may not be the worst outcome. If things fall into place, future decisions may end up in the hands of a more conservative Court. We need to make sure Trump gets another term to make more conservative appointments to the bench.

This is a case where substantive due process/equal protection are in tension with speech/religious freedom.

I agree with Chellim that this thread of substantive due process/equal protection law is illegitimate in the first place, but as JAllen noted earlier, that ship has sailed and is unlikely to return to port. What is at issue here is will it be expanded by another increment.

So, if the Supremes start out the opinion that really decides these questions with something along the lines of "this is a First Amendment Case" you will know that the outcome most of us favor will prevail. It the Court calls that case an equal protection or a civil rights case, then bakers will be in trouble.

It is both a way of signaling which way they will go, but it is also true that which right you think is more important forces the decision.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Note that it is the government entity, not the gay couple, which is on the losing end.

It's the gay couple that doesn't get their gay cake.

Still a narrow ruling in my mind if it's based on religion-only.

Point missed!

Colorado can make this baker bake a cake if they keep their mouths shut about his religious objections.

I just finished reading the majority and dissenting opinions, and I'm not sure I'd even view this as a victory at all on the issue. SCOTUS completely side stepped the real issue here, and decided nothing more than the Colorado Civil Rights Commission behaved badly, and as such, got a smack on the knuckles by the high court. The next pair of militant homo's who opt to target another baker, or florist, or whatever, will likely have the state of Colorado as an ally in their attack on the next victim's personal religious rights and they'll likely get to start this dance with the courts all over again.

No one on the Left is going to back off on this issue, and SCOTUS did nothing with this decision to change that reality.

SCOTUS doing what SCOTUS does best - the Time Warp.

Is it discriminatory if two gays come in and want a cake, and Mr Baker simply says "wow, I'm slammed right now, but can do it for $14,000".

Now matter how far in the future they want it, I'm busy and that's the price.

quote:

Originally posted by Poacher:
Is it discriminatory if two gays come in and want a cake, and Mr Baker simply says "wow, I'm slammed right now, but can do it for $14,000".

Now matter how far in the future they want it, I'm busy and that's the price.

As long as that’s the price for every cake, or for every buyer, no inference of discrimination appears.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Dodge Sets Up An Epic Fight For The Next Supreme Court Vacancy

The food fight over Masterpiece Cakeshop shows how pivotal the next Supreme Court vacancy will be.

Federalist
Ilya Shapiro
JUNE 5, 2018

There were many ways to slice Masterpiece Cakeshop: the Supreme Court chose an exceedingly narrow cut that leaves all the big questions for another day. While it’s gratifying that, by a 7-2 vote, the court reversed Colorado’s persecution of Jack Phillips—the baker who had no problem serving gay people but wouldn’t bake a cake for a same-sex wedding—it did so only on the basis that the state commission that enforces antidiscrimination law displayed overt hostility to religion and treated secular refusals to bake religious messages differently. That’s an unusual circumstance, and one not typically in play in these wedding-vendor cases.

Indeed, the petition of a Washington florist who declined to provide arrangements for a longtime gay client’s wedding, Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, is pending. With Monday’s narrow ruling, the justices can’t simply send that case back to the state court for reevaluation, because Monday’s rule of decision is fact-specific rather than announcing some clarifying principle.

Even if they do (we should learn by Monday), all they could ask of the Washington Supreme Court is to evaluate whether the state showed any anti-religious animus in its proceedings against Barronelle Stutzman. That perfunctory exercise would only buy a few months until a renewed petition arrived back at the marble palace.

That’s why this ruling is “narrow,” effectively a ticket good for this confection only. You’re simply not going to have too many cases where a government official will, in a public hearing, liken orthodox Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) beliefs about marriage to religious justifications for slavery and the Holocaust. (I’m not exaggerating; that’s why Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, was so upset with Colorado’s lawyer during oral argument.) Cynics may even say the rule is now that legislators and bureaucrats may indeed punish those whose views they don’t like, but only if they hide their motives.

Still, there’s plenty of resonance with Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v, Hodges, the case that struck down laws that didn’t allow same-sex marriage. He wrote then that “[m]any who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises,” just as he wrote now that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.”

Regardless, all this talk of “animus”—the flipside to Kennedy’s jurisprudence regarding the right to “dignity”—ignores the bigger questions that Masterpiece Cakeshop raised and aren’t going anywhere. Is a decision not to work a gay wedding no different than a decision not to serve gay people? Can an artistic or expressive professional be compelled to produce something for an event he disagrees with?

How do we decide what kinds of professions get that kind of First Amendment protection? Does it matter whether the objection is religious? Does it matter that, unlike the oft-invoked Jim Crow analogy, gay couples can generally get cakes, flowers, and other wedding products and services without having to travel too far?

All of these questions are left for some future case, when the swing vote may belong to someone other than Kennedy. In that way, this squib of a ruling—18 pages, most of which just recites factual and procedural background—underlines how the battle over the 81-year-old Kennedy’s successor will be, whenever that happens.

On those big issues, when the Supreme Court is forced to “go for it” rather than punting, we see a glimpse of the playbook in the food fight among the concurring and dissenting opinions. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, emphasized how striking it was that the commission applied different standards and levels of definitional generality to achieve different legal results based on the viewpoint at issue. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, joined the majority but took issue with Gorsuch’s characterizations and argued that if one is in the business of making wedding cakes, one must make such cakes for all weddings.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, went into the free-speech aspect that had dominated the briefing and commentary (including mine) before argument, showing how Phillips was engaged in expressive behavior whose constitutional protection can’t be blithely undermined. “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to bear witness to these facts or to affirm a belief with which he disagrees,” Thomas concluded, citing the Hurley case, where the Supreme Court ruled that a parade can’t be forced to allow all comers to march.

Meanwhile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, found even Kennedy’s milquetoast decision to be over-yolked, seeing the commissioners’ anti-religious statements as irrelevant to the resolution.

It’s a shame that, the superficial agreement in this narrow ruling notwithstanding, Masterpiece Cakeshop split the court—and the country—so sharply. After all, the most basic principle of a free society is that the government can’t willy-nilly force people to do things that violate their beliefs. Some may argue that these wedding-vendor cases present a conflict between religious freedom and gay rights, but that’s a “false choice,” as a recent president liked to say.

People have simply forgotten the distinction between state and private action. There’s no clash of individual rights except when the government itself declines to consistently protect everyone. County clerks must issue marriage licenses regardless of their personal beliefs, but bakers aren’t government agents and so should maintain freedom of conscience.

Kennedy could’ve forestalled some of this mischief by making clear in Obergefell that the Constitution protects not just the right to “advocate” and “teach” religion but also to “exercise” it, and that regardless people on either side of the debate shouldn’t be forced to convey messages they don’t like. But he didn’t, so it’s left to the better angels of our pluralistic nature to tolerate views and lifestyles we may not like. And to fight like hell for judges who agree with that sentiment.

Link