-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake.
- Thread starter Deleted member 431
- Start date
Reading the ruling, this is an example of 1). The ruling's basically "Colorado screwed up, go back and do it again".
Well, what "everyone wanted" doesn't mean anything when dealing with SCOTUS (thank gawd..and it was designed that way). Most SCOTUS opinions are exceedingly nuanced pieces of law. They rarely tee up issues and knock them off the block like you are wanting.
This was a well reasoned and wise decision that will help tee up the NEXT decision when this undoubtedly comes up again. Law is slow and incremental. This case will be useful going forward. SCOTUS was right (and the lawyers arguing).
This absolutely is not a technicality. I'm sorry you view it that way, but anytime a state does not apply its own laws in a neutral matter and infringes on someone's elses rights, then it is a big deal.
The problem is that, like with all supreme court cases, there is a reason the ruling was made the way it was and understanding the reasoning is extremely important moving forward.
Reactionary hot-heads who assume the Supreme Court just ruled against gay people aren't doing anyone any favors.
The SCOTUS rules on technicalities all the time, and it could be argued that if the original courts had done their due diligence in this case instead of just fast tracking it up to SCOTUS we'd be getting a completely different ruling.
I have to wonder why people are downplaying this, it's a pretty big deal. Just because it's going back to the Courts here doesn't mean that prejudice wasn't a cause in the decision especially with the knowledge of this countries systemic issues of racism.
No but he did send me an offensive convo to be glib.
He will elaborate by insulting you in the PMs because he's a coward, thing is you can report DMs.
Neither are the "both sides" people trying to rationalize why discrimination should be legal and failing even on the most basic level to understand the precedent of the civil rights act, but somehow that's not the target of ire here, despite being FAR more harmful. No, the most annoying thing is people misinterpreting this as a horrible and perfectly likely thing that our mess of a government might do.
Bottom line is this: you can't be too harsh on someone that discriminates. Whatever their "reason" is.
I believe the baker refused to make a custom cake for a gay wedding, regardless of who was the customer ordering it.. so refusal of service, which in this case IS the product he is selling.
The Court is not supposed to look to make grand sweeping rulings. They are supposed to decide the case at hand and not look any further once a law/case at hand provides a "solution." I'm butchering the term of art applied to this guiding judicial principle, but you should understand what I mean. It's also why many cases won't even reach the merits because some procedural issue will decide the case.
There is no "both sides". The SCOTUS punted. This happens all the time, this isn't a precedent for anything but this specific case and this specific lower court.
That's where people are getting confused I guess? Maybe they just like being dramatic I dunno.
What?
This thread is really revealing about who is thoughtful and seek as much information as possible about issues.
The court didn't say the end decision was wrong so I don't see what could be downplayed. It's not a big deal unless you think "fair consideration" on the part of the CCRC is going to come to a different conclusion.
Yes, you can because adherence to due process and fairness before the law is the first and foremost priority we should be supporting at all times. Everyone celebrates when "fuck your religion" motivates a decision but the last thing we want is to open a crack for "fuck your sexual orientation" to be legitimized in a courtroom through allowing evidence of bias to go unaddressed.
The problem is that this can go back to remediation, re arbitration and ultimately re-ruling by colorado judges, and they could rule in favor of the cake maker, which would pretty much be the Supreme Court sending a civil rights case to die due to bias, I mean I don't know how you can have faith or not question anything this government does, or think any rulings are made without bias.
I don't think you're understanding what happened. And this 7 - 2 ruling says nothing about any current administration.
They could, but what specific reason is there to believe they would at this point? We're very literally dealing with court system that once already concluded in the outcome you wanted. Why the overt concern of a flip before any real indication of it occurring? And even if it did, how does that equate to the SCOTUS failing their duties?
It's not dead precisely because they didn't rule on the core constitutional issue at hand.
They don't even need to wait for it to make its way up to SCOTUS again; the justices are going to decide whether to hear the Arlene's Flowers case in the next few weeks.
A couple filled a complaint alleging a baker didn't follow Colorado statute, the commission that handles these things found the baker's acts illegal, the baker takes it up the chain until now.
I would suggest re-reading the opiinon (the majority isn't that long), and really try and look at what the Court was saying here.
If you don't see "both sides" arguments in this thread, you need to look again.
I'd be careful of framing "oh god our government did something really bad and really discriminatory" as reveling in drama.
At least there's no precedent set. It's all a fight for another day then.
"Clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection."
Well, I guess the important thing is that the religious beliefs that support outright bigotry are sincere. That excuse has always bothered the crap out of me. Religious beliefs do not excuse bigotry and discrimination as they don't excuse any crime.
"Clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection."
Well, I guess the important thing is that the religious beliefs that support outright bigotry are sincere. That excuse has always bothered the crap out of me. Religious beliefs do not excuse bigotry and discrimination as they don't excuse any crime.
Goes against previous civil rights cases and if it were to set a precedent for the future it would be pretty bad across the board. But i kind of feel like this is what the current majority SC will do. Instead of striking down big decisions they will simply throw out complaints that would benefit leftists through technicalities to not have to worry about fair representation.
The left better hope they have a strong candidate for 2020 to beat Trump, or else we can expect this to continue far into the future
The left better hope they have a strong candidate for 2020 to beat Trump, or else we can expect this to continue far into the future
Not reading the articles linked in the OP is dumb and sets a dangerous precedent
You are focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. I bolded the part the Court truly found important. The sincere part was just saying that the guy was not making it up as a farce.
You're missing that I'm not talking about this particular court decision; I'm talking about the thinking of people like the baker. That's what I meant by the "fight for another day".
edit: I'm Australian. We just got through a shitshow of a vote for marriage equality during which I heard the "sincere religious beliefs" excuse countless times, so I'm a little sensitive to it. Sorry I wasn't clear in my post.
Last edited:
So what exactly was decided today? Simply that the baker didn't get a fair process from the state? And that none of the other stuff about not having to serve people based on one's religious beliefs were considered in this ruling?
The baker basically won lawsuit on a technicality, not a 1st Amendment rule. Right? It's still not legal for a company to deny a service to someone based on their sexual orientation, correct?
The baker basically won lawsuit on a technicality, not a 1st Amendment rule. Right? It's still not legal for a company to deny a service to someone based on their sexual orientation, correct?
It's the entire issue of the case. The decision sidesteps the issue for a ruling on process; it doesn't change the central issue. I'm not sure what your point is here except to limit discussion?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but don't cases where there were findings that process was violated typically go back for reconsideration to the court that made the decision rather than being an outright "win?"
That isn't what happened at all. And please keep in mind that, when returned to Colorado, they're going to assess this case through a very narrow lens: was this a permissible action back in 2012, when gay marriage wasn't even legal in Colorado?
This fact pattern will never again be repeated.
This isn't even a civil rights case, at least not in the traditional sense, because — and it's a very interesting fact pattern — it involves two constitutionally protected positive rights and turns on where one sees mechanical creation turn into artistic expression.
(Kinda wonder whether they'll import from copyright law here.)
I'm sure thankful we have your blistering legal analysis to tell us what the case was about instead of the 7-2 (59 pages) worth of legal analysis saying its something different.
You want to talk about the sincerity of the dude's religious beliefs, knock yourself out. It wasn't a huge factor in the legal analysis of the case.
Im glad they didn't address this issue in this case. This was just not the one to make good law. As you said, its too unique of a fact patter.
On a side note, I have enjoyed your posts on this thread. Are you a lawyer?
Im not here to be rude. Im posting to remind folks to stay focused on what the decision actually is. To read it. Not to wander into conjecture or wanting something that isn't there.
Lots of folks on this thread are not giving this opinion (like most SCOTUS opinions, honestly), the respect by reading it and understanding it deserves to intelligent discuss where we are. Sure, there can other discussions that come from that.
If you read the decision, which its obvious you haven't, then you would see there is plenty there for states to continue with their anti-discriminatory laws.
Why do you think this is going back to Colorado? The CO court of appeals was simply reversed. It wasn't remanded for further proceedings.
This is a pretty bad decision. Kennedy really reached to characterize some of these statements as showing anti-religious animus.
This isn't a very unique fact pattern. This is going to be fairly typical. The only thing unique about is Kennedy straining to turn statements by a commissioner into religious persecution. This was a total punt and a pretty unprincipled one.