Baker's refusal to make gay wedding cake: SCOTUS poses tough questions
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices including pivotal jurist Anthony Kennedy on Tuesday posed tough questions to lawyers representing a conservative Christian baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but also raised concerns about religious liberty implications in the closely watched case. Several of the justices asked questions that suggested they are concerned about how far a ruling in favor of the baker might extend.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wondered about whether a hairstylist, chef or a makeup artist could refuse service, claiming their services are also speech protected by the Constitution. “Why is there no speech in creating a wonderful hairdo?” Kagan asked. Kennedy said that many examples of other businesses implicated involved free speech rights. He asked U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who backed the baker, what would happen if the court rules for the baker and bakers nationwide then started receiving requests to not bake cakes for gay weddings. “Would the government feel vindicated?”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/u-s-justices-pose-tough-questions-about-bakers-refusal-to-make-gay-wedding-cake-idUSKBN1DZ0H7
Tags
Who is online
34 visitors
It's pathetic that this has gotten to the point it has. This boils down to Phillips trying to exercise his 1st amendment right to a point it discriminates against others. Sadly he's hiding behind his belief to justify that discrimination thinking he's done nothing wrong.
The Piggie Park case in 1964 had the same argument made by a member of the very same Southern Baptist cult, that the owner should be free to deny service to the people his cult teaches him to hate. The only difference was that the people he denied service to were mixed-race couples and blacks.
The court ruled unanimously against the bigot and said that his religious claim was "frivolous."
Creating confectionery treats is speech? Good luck with that.
He's claiming his artistry in making wedding cakes is a gift from god so he shouldn't have to be forced to use that god given gift on something he doesn't believe in! I kid you not! That's his argument!
We'll see won't we?
Those bigoted videographers lost.
This bigot will lose as well.
Doubtful......even if Kennedy leans toward the baker (he never said he agrees) case law and precedence in other cases has to be taken under consideration first.
And, one would think that the rightwing "federalist" justices would be deferential to state laws but we often see that their definition of "federalism" is rather, shall we say, malleable?
How? What would be the legal basis so that it wouldn't gut every non-discrimination law in the country?
I think Kennedy is in the middle right now, but I see hope for decency here:
"Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual," Kennedy told Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, who was defending his state's anti-discrimination law.
"It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."
I think Kennedy realizes that the rights of the gay community have been expanded to the point where they override those of everyone else. A ruling for the baker here spares people of faith from the hateful rhetoric of the left. They can follow their religious beliefs without being called "bigots"
A lot of people who tried to second-guess Kennedy have had to eat their words, Vic.
I agree with you on that, that's why I said I think he's in the middle right now
I know, right? It's almost like those gays expect to be treated the same as everyone else!
By the way I suspect Kennedy understood exactly what Breyer meant when he said: "We want to find some kind of distinction that won't undermine every civil rights law since the year two,"
It's way beyond that and you know it
"We want to find some kind of distinction that won't undermine every civil rights law since the year two,"
Yup, and that's the problem. The states were well on the way to recognizing same-sex marriages, but the Court had to get into it and make it a RIGHT, therefore religious objection become equated with bigotry. Every hate filled progressive wanted it just that way.
How so? Please cite examples to support your false claim.
.
The reason the courts got involved is because gays were being denied civil rights like equal protection of the law, and because the states were unconstitutionally enforcing Christian sharia laws which were rooted in anti-gay animus.
And there's no reason any person should tolerate a violation of their civil rights until the dumb bigots who control a state eventually get around to recognizing those rights. That's why we have civil rights.....and despite the bigoted baker's erroneous views it's why he's in federal court.
You KNOW this because of ONE comment by Kennedy during the arguments?
You should go read what these same people said after the arguments in Obergefell.
Yes the anti-Religious Bigot will lose.
It's not anti-religious. How ridiculously stupid.
That's an erroneous interpretation given that Kennedy has previously ruled that there's no meaningful distinction between status and conduct in this area, ie that in regards to discrimination there's no difference between being gay and engaging in the things gay folks would do....like buy a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.
At most he was simply restating the argument made by the bigoted baker for rhetorical purposes.
Thank you Rush Limbaugh for you obtuse misinterpretation.
Justice Kennedy DID NOT say what is in that paragraph and IMHO, by posting it as a block quote, your comment is an INTENTIONAL misrepresentation and CLEAR proof that you are not, and perhaps are incapable of, participating here in good faith.
Oh and BTFW, the content of Rush Limbaugh's site are COPYRIGHTED, so it would behoove you to go back over there and copy the link and properly include it with the Limbaugh content.
Oh, and I'll ask you what I've asked the others. What was the lawyer's answer to Kennedy's comment?
It may seem trivial to some......but this is this man's livelihood....his "Art".....
It is clear that we have the freedom to express our religious beliefs in Art.
So, you consider every doughnut a work of art? Do you frame them or eat them? (Don't misunderstand me. I love doughnuts).
Doesn't matter whether you or I think something is art or not.......There is a lot of "Art" out there that I wouldn't call "Art".......Nonetheless, it is Protected.
This painting is considered art......I wouldn't give 27 cents for it.....but again....it doesn't matter what you or I think about it......Just about anything that someone creates could be considered a work of art.....
So would the barber who cut their hair for the wedding be considered an artist? How about the jeweler who sized and sold their rings?
we should also contact the fashion designer(s) who created the dresses and/or tuxedos for the same sex wedding guests (and same sex wedding party participants) and make sure they approve - oh and the landscaping company that did the lawn if its an outdoor ceremony because aren't those both works of "art" too ?
i wonder how far they want to take this and who they expect a same sex couple to contact when planning their wedding ?
If the lawn care company was asked to spell out.......Jesus is a Liar......and they were Christians......Would that be a problem?
What about the Taylor being asked to stitch out the phrase "Pork....the other white meat"....Would that be a problem for a Muslim Taylor?
How about if the Barber was asked to shave the phrase....."Eat more Beef"....Would that be a problem for a Hindu Barber?
How does that hypothetical example relate to this case? The couple didn't even discuss the specifics of the cake they wanted, the baker simply refused to sell them any kind of wedding cake.
You've also confused the content of a message with the identity of the customers who were being denied service. In general if you provide a custom service to the general public then you do have to comply with public accommodations laws. What a vendor doesn't have to do is fulfill orders which have generally offensive messages and which thus would reflect badly on his business. So if he doesn't make swastika cakes or sell them to anyone, he doesn't have to sell swastika cakes to Neo-Nazis. But that's completely different from what went on in this case because the baker does indeed sell custom wedding cakes.
So there was no discussion of any specifics to be on the cake?......If that is true....then I agree with you....However, if the baker was asked to depict a same sex couple in any way on the cake then......I believe there would be an issue.....
Wow, you sure have a vivid imagination. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on those scenarios.
There was a whole 20 second conversation, the baker refused when he heard the couple say it was for their wedding.
I'll take that as a compliment......but I "imagine" that isn't what you intended it to be.
"Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’”
So no, there was no discussion of any specifics to be on the cake.
The entire "artist" excuse is a red herring. It was never the issue, but when cornered that's likely what his attorneys advised he make his defense.
Just like you can't demand a Jewish deli serve you a BLT, or a gardener mow "I hate Jesus" or any other profanity, no gay couple would be allowed to demand a baker make a "gay" wedding cake decorated with anything he objected to. But that isn't the issue here, the baker simply dismissed the couple before any design was even discussed.
Actually, Phillips attorney argued the opposite. Waggoner stated that almost all of the other 'participants' in a wedding 'celebration' would NOT be protected. The MOST telling was that Waggoner said a Chef isn't an 'artist' like a baker is. Seriously, you can't make this shit up...
Why are you arguing the same old crap that you were already been corrected on way back to NV? You know damn well that Phillips was NEVER asked to put ANY message on anything. Read the freaking argument. Not ever Phillips own attorney argued this has anything to do with a WRITTEN MESSAGE. Sheesh, move on, we've been there, done that, long ago...
None whatsoever. The bigoted baker freely admitted that.
All the nonsense about "cake toppers" etc are pure fantasies spread by right wingers who don't know the facts of the case.
I don't know what you are talking about.
Short memory then. We've had this same discussion on NV. You've read the facts before.
Please proceed.
I don't know who you are.....Therefore, I don't know what discussion you are referring to.....What was your handle on NV?.....And yes...I do forget some details of some trivial discussions I have had on NV.
The discussion was over multiple days. Hey, you want to pretend ignorance of the facts? Please proceed.
It must have been more important to you than it was to me.......again....it might help if I knew who the discussion was with.
Speaking of facts........Don't accuse me falsely......I don't know the specifics of this case.....and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am not telling the truth about it.
Clearly.
Oh but you had an epiphany toward the end and claimed you were trying to become a better person. Sorry to hear that you've forgotten about that.
Again.....the discussion must have been much more important to you than me. Is there some reason that you refuse to answer my question about your identity on NV. I made thousands of posts with hundreds of people.......so if you really care about having this discussion.....answer my question. Otherwise .....Move on.
Because it's irrelevant and a little mystery in one's life is good.
As for moving on...Please proceed.
How about you send us a link to the website. Just remember to black out your account #.
a business owner voluntarily opens a public business to provide a service and voluntarily submits him(her)self to secular anti-discrimination laws by opening a public business and obtaining the corresponding licenses. this business owner refuses to serve the public and do his(her) job that he(she) voluntarily decided to do because it might offend his(her) fragile, sensitive religious beliefs. so when should we require all business owners to send out surveys to all potential customers to determine if those potential customers might offend the business owner's fragile, sensitive religious beliefs ?
should the business owner take "personal responsibility" for their actions of not doing their job they voluntarily decided to do ??
(according to many of the religious conservative minded - the answer is "no" and that the business owner should be able to not do his(her) job that he(she) decided to voluntarily do and blame someone else for it)
hate to break the news but engaging in commerce does not cause one to forfeit their religious beliefs.
religious liberty will win this case. count on it.
there is no way the supreme court will rule an artist must produce art against their beliefs/ never going to happen.
so you believe fragile, sensitive religious beliefs should surpass our secular laws and held higher than our secular laws - thusly turning us into a country ruled by religion, correct ?
or do you believe that our secular laws rule the land and in the secular business environment, religion should be kept at a personal level that doesn't interfere ?
(i don't remember anyone stating that this baker couldn't still hold his beliefs that same sex marriage is wrong - even if he provided the service of baking/decorating a wedding cake for a same sex couple's wedding ceremony. Please point that out to everyone where that is state or admit that his religious beliefs weren't forfeited and that he still has the ability to believe same sex marriage is wrong. thanks
)
I believe you will soon be reminded, against your wishes, that this indeed is a christian nation.
ah, you are a proponent of a theocracy - tell me about all the other theocratic countries you admire
which sect of christianity should we adhere to and who's interpretation is correct ?
being a christian nation does not make us a theocracy.
you should work on your education a bit and when we have clergy running the supreme court instead of judges? you let me know k?
Cheers
you wish to rule by religion and have religion surpass secular laws - tell me who the religious leaders are again ? didn't you state you are under the impression we are a christian nation (and christianity is a religion) ? you should work on your education a bit
cheers ! 
Except this is not a Christian country and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law.
nice try but no dice. like it or not. this is a christian country and all religions are allowed by law.
there are religious exemptions, for all faiths, on a number of subjects, and those protections will continue unabated.
the court will not put access to commerce over one's religious beliefs. and they will not allow one to be removed from commerce for following their religious beliefs... simply NEVER going to happen.
(issues like this are why we denied obama another supreme court judge
mark my words I am never wrong about such things...
religious liberty will win this case regardless what the lefts says or does.. it is what it is.
Show me in the Constitution were it says this.
when you figure out that allowing religious belief is not the same as ruling by religion?
you will know the difference between a republic and a theocracy.
hit the books... it is never too late to further ones education
When you figure out he's still allowed his religious beliefs unless you can prove that anyone somehow stopped his religious beliefs and he can no longer hold those beliefs
Already do. How many republics are ruled by religion that supersedes secular laws again ?
That is wonderful advice for you to take
please let us know how it goes, ok ?
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.
it is that "free exercise" part that will be cited by the court in their decision for the baker.
they will not prohibit the baker's free exercise of religion or deny him the ability to engage in commerce because of it.
(no chance in hell of it going down any other way = pun intended
The US Constitution does not reference God. However, the Declaration of Independence predates our Constitution and claims that our Rights come From God. In addition, every State Constitution in the United States references God or the Devine.
the left likes to ignore the fact that the "legal framework" known as the constitution is based on the notions contained in the declaration of independence which is our nations most cherished document.
somehow in the liberal mind, one has nothing to do with the other.
anyways.... I am building me a new shower, so going to do that for a few hrs... you kids have fun
the government is no longer allowing this baker to attend his favorite house of worship ? the government is no longer allowing this baker to hold his fragile, sensitive religious beliefs ? the government is no longer allowing this baker to wear icons of his religion (ex: cross) ? if the answer is "yes" then you would have a case, right ?
He wasn't asked to forfeit anything. He was asked to bake and decorate a fucking cake. It was his business, open to the public, and subject to the licensing and civil rights laws of the state of CO.
Demonstrably false!
That means all religion are equal according to the law so no one religion trumps any other, including Christianity.
I wasn't aware baking a cake or providing a service to the public was a religious belief.
A legend in your own mind, eh?
The 1st Amendment through the Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the SCOTUS, with established legal precedent. Or do you think something must be explicitly written in the constitution to be legally applicable or valid?
That also means keeping religion from dominating or influencing the government, like they saw with Britain.
That's for the courts to decide. Of course, if Christians can have their crosses or such bullshit, the Satanists or other religions can have theirs. But then, when that happens, it only seems to be Christians who complain.
And the US Constitution is the law of the land and trumps all state constitutions.
The DoI does not establish our system of laws or government. Neither does it enumerate our rights. The Constitution does.
See first statement!
Wrong! The Constitution is based on English Common Law and previous similar documents like the Magna Carta. The DoI simply declares our sovereignty as a nation and lists our grievances with the King of England.
How is his free exercise being denied exactly? As far as I know, the baker is still free to believe whatever he wants, attend the religious service of his choice, and practice his religion as he sees fit. How is providing a product violating that exercise or a religious exercise in itself?
We understand that there are over 41,000 sects of Christianity.
So many choices...
Seems simple enough.
IF he had just changed his businesses name to Evangelical Masterpiece Bakery he probably would filter out a lot of the people he doesn't want to business with.
i know ! which one do you think they will try to rule with that will supersede secular law ? or should we just leave it up to everyone's individual interpretations of their religion and just allow their sensitive, fragile religious beliefs supersede all secular laws ?
so many questions to answer ! lol
Noone says it did...but when you decide to open a business accommodating the public your religious beliefs doesn't give you the right to openly discriminate against the public
It never has in the past when it involves public accommodation....so why is now any different?
They already have in the past
Plus, the Solictor General's argument is that right to discriminate doesn't extend to race but only to gender, religion, and sexual orientation!.....basically he is saying you can be a bigot and discriminate, as long as you claim it's against your religious beliefs, you just cant be a racist and claim that!.....wow! the logic of the rightwing!
Hate to break it to you, but when you buy a license to do business with the public, you do give up personal feelings and agree to abide by the law. If you don't want to serve all of the taxpaying public, get a job and forget about doing business any way you choose. I guarantee that if you have a job, an employer will demand that you leave that personal shit in your car in the parking lot. I suggest those that are easily tormented by their religiosity should probably find a job or employment that doesn't deal with the public sector.
I believe you will be reminded that the US Constitution is the law of the land, not a book filled with the allegorical tales of ancient sheep herders.
Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there?
Just because the exact phrase is not there, does not mean that the principles do not exist.
We're definitely not a "Christian nation" but if any preference were given to Christianity in the law then the government would be a theocracy, just like most of the colonies were theocracies.
That's the best part.....SCOTUS cannot give any preference to the bigoted baker's particular anti-gay cult. They'll either need to affirm the unanimous lower court rulings or they'll need to figure out how to rule in a way which doesn't gut every public accommodations law in the country at the state and federal level. I very much doubt they can do the latter.
A good article that you might find interesting Gordy.
Would you believe the same thing if it were a Muslim baker who refused to make a cake for a Jew. Or a Christian baker who refused to make a cake for a Hindu. How about an atheist baker who refuses to bake a cake for any religionist, or anyone who wishes religious iconography on their cake.
The problem with this case is the slippery slope that this right wing religionist is espousing. If you are a public company, you cannot discriminate. Opening that door leads to more and more blatant bigotry. If you can refuse serving the LGBT-Q community, you can refuse the black or brown community. Totally unacceptable on all counts.
No, not really. Just a politician giving lip service and rhetoric.
But it also it does not give the business person the right to discriminate and break laws.
What specifics in the article led you to believe it was "Lip Service"
And it should be noted that the bigoted baker already has an easy out and a very simple way to avoid non-discrimination laws.....he can run his business as a private members-only club. That's how Rush Limbaugh is able to attend a whites-only country club.
The legal implication is that the bigoted baker doesn't need any additional legal exceptions in his favor.
Right after you show me in the Constitution where the phrase OWN A GUN is actually written.
" Jefferson, in an anti-Christian fit of irrationalism, claimed otherwise. He was wrong."
"Jefferson's views on this issue were wacky, and were not accepted by anyone else, and had no impact on the Constitution or the Supreme Court for generations. Only recently have his embarrassing views been exhumed"
"Jefferson is groping desperately."
"The basis for declaring that the Common Law is based on Christianity is not the judicial fiat of one judge centuries ago. It is an inescapable fact evident over centuries of law, recognized by all scholars (except those with severe axes to grind)."
Kevin Craig is a self proclaimed "Christian Anarchist" wannabe congressman who pushes a lot of nonsense while demeaning one of our founding fathers. His opinions are ridiculous as are his attempts to sound educated.
Bet you're an originalist. Love you guys.
On the original hand written Declaration of Independence, the word 'god' is NOT capitalized. Now this document was written, and edited, by some of the most well educated men this country ever produced. I for one, believe that IF they wanted the word 'god' capitalized, they would have CAPITALIZED it. Note that they DID capitalize 'the King of Great Britain'.
Now ONLY Christians think that every freaking reference to 'god', the 'creator', or 'divine providence' means the GOD of Jesus. Y'all really should get over yourselves.
Please post where I claim that "every freaking reference to 'god', the 'creator', or 'divine providence' means the GOD of Jesus."
Right after you post where I claimed that you did.
BTW, glad you didn't try to refute my factual statements about the DoI.
They are all originalists, until the see shit like that.
Oh.....my bad......You responded to me......and made the comment in that post......if you didn't direct it to me or imply it toward me.....then why say it at all?
Why bother......
Pretty much everything. And what Dismayed said.
It isn't my fault that you internalize a broad statement.
If you are not writing to me......don't post something to me.....it's a simple concept.
Actually the way it works around here is that any member can COMMENT on any other member's COMMENT. It's a simple concept.
They want to make sure what happened to them does NOT happen to anyone else.
This couple never sent death threats to this bigot. The couple received death threats from a bunch of deplorables. They sued him so that he would not do this to anyone else. This bigot is destroying himself - not this couple.
What is a radical extremist gay?
What complete and utter nonsense.
there are many public businesses currently that are owned by people of some kind of faith - yet they have no issues owning their public business and no issues serving the public. seems you are indulging in a bit of hyperbole
if court doesn't rule in favor of the baker - it makes no negative impact to current public business owners of any kind of faith who currently have no issues serving the public, it seems they know how to do their jobs and what they signed up for when they voluntarily opened their public business and voluntarily submitted themselves to secular anti-discrimination laws.
No one's religious freedom is being compromised.
Sorry but that's not what the law requires. You should read it before you comment because the bigoted baker has lost unanimously at each step of the process, including the Colorado supreme court. I know I've discussed this with you before and you still seem incapable of understanding the plain English of the statute:
.
What do you think is meant by the phrase "full and equal"?
Flat wrong. The bigot is still free to hold his superstitions. But if he wants to avoid public accommodations laws because they don't permit him to deny service to the classes of people he hates, then he can run his business as a private members-only club and deny membership to blacks, Jews, gays, women or anyone else his nutty cult teaches him to hate.
Pretty much meaningless unless one can prove there's a god. But regardless, it was written in a way the King of England, as the head of the church, would understand.
And the Constitution does not reference any god or religious deference.
A cake is for a reception, not a marriage.
Wrong. He offers wedding cakes as a service. he denied that service to a gay couple.
Oh BS! No one's religious freedom is threatened in any way!
What are "rebellious beliefs?" If a person of faith cannot operate a business or comply with the law because of their faith, they either need to be in a different business or operate a 'members-only' business.
Actually bigoted bible-babblers like Phillips are demanding the right to discriminate against gays even when a state prohibits such discrimination........while simultaneously demanding that these same public accommodations laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
So once again the bible-babblers are asking for special rights which they want denied to the people they hate.
Here's the first amendment,
Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about the first amendment in 1802,
I think that someone who was there when the first amendment was written would understand what it actually meant.
I'm not arguing what the first amendment says, I am arguing that this is a Christian nation based on Christian laws, in other words our laws come straight from the Bible, they don't.
are you suggesting that "Godless secularists" are actively engaging in trying to institute Sharia Law in America to supersede our current secular laws ?
In the case of these stupid bakers, it's not religious freedom they are practicing. It's discrimination and they are using their religion as a smoke screen.
That's Fine if your goal is to be confusing, deceptive and phony.......It's pretty obvious what the intent here is......
Again, it isn't my fault if you internalize a broad statement. You may note that I didn't say ALL or even MOST, I just said ONLY.
If you take a minute and review the comments in multiple seeds, you shouldn't have any problem noticing that the conservatives regularly make broad comments about 'leftists', 'Godless progressives' and 'left wing fascists'.
I made a factual broad statement about 'Christians', it's one you whether you believe it describes a part of your nature or not. Judging from your reaction, I'd say that it hit a nerve.
The only thing that was hit was my BS detector when you claim that you were not directing your statement toward me.....when you chose to make the statement.... in response to my post.........
The statement was silly anyway.......who thinks that when someone makes a reference to God......that they are always referencing the God of Jesus?.......everyone knows that other people worship other Gods......Christians just believe that there is only one true God.
This dialogue has went on about enough......it's off topic....and I suggest that we drop it.
As a member of NT, you'll just have to get used to nuance and try not internalize everything.
EVERY freaking evangelical in this country, that's who.
So do Muslims, Jews and many others. BTW, that sentence proved my point.
Please proceed.
Exactly, it's hard to refute facts, though all too many here try.
If a Muslim man can win 240 grand for being fired because he Fucking "Felt" delivering beer was against his religious beliefs in this country, cake man NEEDS to win for not doing a wedding cake due to religious beliefs, and cake man should be reimbursed for ALL the business he has lost because of this ludicrous lawsuit the courts decided to take on !
Really?! Apples to dump trucks! The Muslim EMPLOYEES won because Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts states employers must make accommodations for workers' religious beliefs unless doing so would impose "undue hardship" on the business, and seeing as though the company admitted they regularly let drivers switch their assignments it would have been more reasonable to accommodate the men's request, rather than firing them.
Whereas the baker refused to serve the a certain member of the PUBLIC a product he normally makes for the PUBLIC everyday in a retail store that caters to PUBLIC accommodations due to HIS religious beliefs NOT the PUBLIC's
Religious belief is religious belief.
A client wanted the product, and the drivers refused to deliver the product to the client.
Apparently, the drivers were refusing every delivery of alcohol. Now, as has also been written on that subject, employee's were always accommodated in switching if there was someone to cover you. No harm no foul. But, these two just flat out refused any and All, with no coverage for their wants.
Circumstances and feelings only matter if it's a non-Christian religion huh.
By the way...isn't it against the law for companies to ask someone"s religious belief ?
Since that is the case, why is a company held liable for not accommodating what they aren't allowed to know.
The world has turned sideways and it’s becoming increasingly hard to keep up.
Good article:
I read the whole thing yesterday. I really don't have a feel for WTF they are going to do [been wrong b4] but it sounded that they realized that the can of worms they would be opening is as bad as Pandora's box.
The most ironic part is that Phillips' lawyer claimed that bakers are protected as 'artists' while Chefs are not. It cracked me up. One of the Justices actually said 'WHOA", can't remember which one...
Yeah, there's literally no way to draw a distinction for this case which wouldn't massively undermine all non-discrimination laws in the country.
Anyone who thinks Kennedy will rule for the bigoted baker is forgetting that not only has Kennedy written all the gay rights rulings since 1996, but his ruling in Romer v Evans was about Colorado's effort to remove gays from all civil rights protections.....in particular from public accommodations like bakeries.
If he ruled for the baker in this case he'd be directly undermining his own 1996 ruling which underlies all his subsequent gay rights rulings.
It's rather ironic that bible-babblers and other conservatives were ranting about "state's rights" when their bans on mixed-race and same-sex marriage were struck down........but now they're ranting against the "right" of a state to enact and enforce non-discrimination laws.
It seems that "state's rights" are merely a rhetorical convenience (not surprising since states have powers not rights).
I heard the term for that used today about Roy Moore. Situational ethics. I've always been particular to cognitive dissonance myself...
this is an easy prediction to make.
there is no way the court will rule an artist must create art against their religious beliefs, or even against their will for that matter... simply no way.
Cheers
Unfortunately for you SCOTUS already decided these issues in 1968 with the Newman v Piggie Park case.
Coincidentally the dumb bigots in both cases were Southern Baptists.
So in your warped and depraved little universe, everyone with a sincere and devout religious belief is a bigot...whatever that is supposed to mean?? With thinking like yours, no wonder the left wing nut jobs have lost the moral high ground, which, apparently, they never had to begin with. Why are you so obsessed with this case??
This isn't really a discrimination case, since it was set up to cause a court case. They sought out this out of the way bakery almost 50 miles from the airport on a divisive mission. They were sent there because Phillips had turned down a lesbian couple previously. They could have gone to countless other bakeries, which I think will enter into their siding with Phillips when the judgement comes down.
Actually, the Supreme Court did not hear the actual case, just the portion regarding attorney's fees:
.
The court reviewed the defense arguments and determined that Bessinger's religious claims were "frivolous" and not presented in good faith, and thus Bessinger was liable for the plaintiff's attorney fees.
So in fact SCOTUS has directly addressed the issue of using religious views as an excuse to violate public accommodations laws. That's why the case was repeatedly cited during oral arguments yesterday and in the plaintiff's & amici briefs.
Certainly the Southern Baptist cult to which Phillips belongs has a very long history of promoting bigotry and hatred of blacks, mixed-race couples, gays, women, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, etc. So it's no surprise that Phillips is homophobic.
.
Sorry but that's a lie which RWNJs have endlessly repeated. It was the mother of one of the men who recommended the bakery - she lived in the immediate area and had used them before.
The other people who Phillips illegally discriminated against didn't make their complaints public and thus the plaintiffs had no way of knowing that Phillips was a dumb bigot. However it wouldn't matter even if it were a "set up".......many of the protests against Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s were quite deliberate in that way.
Again, you REALLY should READ the ruling. The part of the statute about legal fees requires that the case brought was 'just' and showed a 'pattern of practice' [legal terms, try to keep up] . They had to REVIEW the case, find it JUST and based on a 'pattern of practice' and THEN rule that lawyers fees were appropriate.
In short, they confirmed the lower court ruling with their review.
Sheesh, it would be great if one of y'all had a legal mind and could curtail some of this nonsense.
Where do you see anything that points to what you said. Heck, I even went to the cited link and read what it said there and the Supreme Court ruling was about ONLY legal fees collected in a Class Action lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act:
STATUTE!
The part of the statute about legal fees requires that the case brought was 'just' and showed a 'pattern of practice' [legal terms, try to keep up].
Footnotes are a part of the ruling tom. THEN you have to READ the part of the STATUTE cited in the Footnotes.
BTFW, when the SCOTUS rules something is NOT 'unjust', it means they are ruling that it is JUST. Sheesh.
They weren't even commenting on the ruling of the case, only the legal fees; which is what my point was. They were not hearing the case of whether the actual Civil Suit was a just ruling or not; but whether the lawyer could collect fees from the Plaintiff in the ruling. THAT was what the Supreme Court ruling was about. Look at the facts of the case, instead of just the statute as it was the interpretation of the statute about legal fees that was disputed not the actual Civil Case ruling.
From your citation:
.
The first part is from the SCOTUS ruling, and the indented paragraph is from the appeals court ruling. So it's clear that SCOTUS found frivolous the attempt to use "free exercise" as a defense against a generally applicable public accommodations law.
And in fact the Piggie Park case (aka Ollie's Barbecue) is mentioned several times by the justices and by the attorneys. Here are just two of several referring to the same issue, the fact that the court has consistently rejected free exercise and free expression claims in this very context.
I'm starting to think that trying to explain this to tom is the equivalent to pounding sand.
Not true, they were there because he had previously turned down a lesbian couple. Try to keep your facts straight.
You'll need to provide a citation to support your false claim. All of this is a matter of public record and nowhere does the couple make any statements which support your false claim - not in any of the court proceedings or anywhere in the news media. Your claim is simply a lie spread by RWNJs.
However it wouldn't matter even one bit if your claim were true. All that matters is that the dumb bigot violated the law. The customers' motive for going to that particular bakery is completely irrelevant.
This was a very good response by the attorney for the gay couple:
And, walking into someplace and FORCING your views on another is not being a law unto yourself?
Who is forcing their views onto anyone?
And said owner of business is forcing his views onto his customers by refusing service after a 20 second conversation.
wait a minute, expecting a public business owner - who voluntarily opened their public business and voluntarily submitted themselves to secular anti-discrimination laws - to do their job is forcing a view onto them ?
Hmmmm......if the dumb bigot didn't want gay couples as customers all he needed to do was run his bakery as a private members-only club and deny membership to anyone his cult teaches him to hate like gays, Jews, blacks, Muslims, Catholics, women, etc.
He can still do that even after he loses in court again.
Note that's how Lush Dimbulb is able to enjoy his membership at the whites-only & gentiles-only Everglades Club.
that is already true enough.
If I don't want to work for someone "for any reason" (regardless)
I do not work for them. it is very simple like that and no one on this earth will ever change that.
I am a builder, some could say everyone has a right to a home, but they also have the right to find another builder.
don't like the bakery having rights? find another bakery.
in all of my yrs as a builder = not once have I worked for a lawyer. I refused every lawyer every time and always will.
that rule is non-negotiable, not even SCOTUS could change my mind about that.
Cheers
Not a problem unless you refused only Jewish lawyers which makes it discriminatory. As a builder you might be wise not to work for the trump family unless you prefer to work for free.
it is never a problem.
I work for who I choose to work for... the rest can go fish.
if I were to think they wanted to make it a federal case out of it?
I would just triple my rates and demand half down up front
I wonder.....in the off chance that they do win......will they force have him to bake the cake?......
Nope but the world will know what a bigot this loser is and the winners may get a substantial cash settlement.
The baker broke the law, period, end of story.
after the supreme court rules in the bakers favor, which they will, then it will be "end of story.
who wants to eat a cake that was forced to be baked?
ya know what they say about pissin off the cook
And when they rule in favor of the couple that will be the nail in the coffin for the bigot fake christian baker.
That's not the point, the point is the baker broke the law. If he doesn't want to bake cakes for same sex couples then he better make his bakery a private club.
It will also be the nail in the coffin for all the similar claims by dumb bigots like the florist in WA.
The funny part is that the bigots are expecting a different result this time despite SCOTUS having rejected similar claims ever since 1878 in Reynolds v US. Simply put as a constitutional matter, religious views have never been permitted as an excuse to violate a generally applicable law. In Reynolds the court said this (a phrase reiterated by Scalia in 1990):
I know, right? And why couldn't those black folks just find a different lunch counter to sit at? Why did they demand to be served in Lester Maddox's whites-only restaurant?
Even Gorsuch seems to understand the civil rights issue:
I'm so glad that you didn't post Waggoner's answer. None of them care what the lawyer's answer was. I bet they don't like that quote from their hand picked Justice though.
Her response was so disjointed and non-responsive to the question that I suspect she didn't understand what Gorsuch was asking.
However I have no doubt that Gorsuch will vote for the bigot.
So will Kennedy, and I can't wait to see the butt hurt reactions
LOL. You're obviously unaware that Kennedy has written all the gay rights rulings since 1996.....and he wrote a concurrence in "Christian Legal Society v Martinez" where he states that the court makes no distinction between status and conduct in this area.