SC sides with CO baker

[row_33]

shudder....

 

 

[B-Man]

VIDEO: CNN Reacts to the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

2 of them wouldn't agree that today is Monday, the way they usually reason...

 

Actually, a great many SCOTUS decisions are 9-0. They just don't get press, because they're noncontroversial.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Actually, a great many SCOTUS decisions are 9-0. They just don't get press, because they're noncontroversial.

 

for sure

 

when they don't apply to liberal mindsets they don't exist

 

 

 

actually i would hope there would be few 9-0 decisions, why would something have to make it's way to the SCOTUS if it were that obvious?

 

 

 

 

 

so the uniqueness of cake baking is considered an artisan's work, so you can't FORCE THEM to do it.

 

as well the incredible anti-religious bigotry of the Colorado committee's statements played heavily here as well

 

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

actually i would hope there would be few 9-0 decisions, why would something have to make it's way to the SCOTUS if it were that obvious?

 

Disputes between circuits, etc.

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Disputes between circuits, etc.

 

sounds quite reasonable.

 

 

[B-Man]

From Professor Ann Althouse:

 

Now, I'll go read the opinions and see if I have anything special to say. But first, I would like to point out my post from last December that looked closely at what Justice Kennedy (author of today's opinion) said during the oral argument. After a long post about everything he said, I extracted his 3 concerns in order of importance to him. I think the second of the 3 things is what produced today's narrowly framed decision that won 7 of the Court's 9 votes:

1. Empathy for the human beings on both sides of this controversy. Kennedy showed empathy for the gay people who face discrimination: If the cake-maker wins this case, he could put "put a sign in his window: we do not bake cakes for gay weddings," and that would be "an affront to the gay community." And there might be a movement to get all cake-makers to stop making cakes for same-sex weddings. But Kennedy also showed empathy for the cake-maker as he criticized the state for its lack of tolerance and respect for the cake-maker's religious beliefs. Kennedy seemed troubled not only about compelling the cake-maker to make cakes for same-sex weddings but also about requiring him to teach his employees that his religion is subordinate to the dictates of worldly government. Kennedy never seemed interested in the much-proffered answer that the the religious man could solve his own problem by getting out of the wedding-cake business. I'd say: Kennedy seems to care about the consequences to real people (whichever side wins).

2. Government hostility toward religious people. Not only did Kennedy chide the government's lawyer for the state's lack of tolerance and respect for religion (as noted in #1), he seemed willing to look into the subjective attitude of individual members of the 7-person commission that made the original decision that the cake-maker had illegally discriminated. One commissioner had said that using religion to justify discrimination is "despicable." This connects to Kennedy's opinion in Lukumi, which was about when strict scrutiny applies in a Free Exercise Clause case. There needs to be discrimination against religion (as opposed to a neutral, generally applicable law), and Kennedy's opinion in that case looked at evidence of the lawmakers' animus toward religion. I'd say: Kennedy reacts to what he perceives as hatefulness coming from or through government. There is no current problem of government animus toward gay people (now that the Court has protected their rights in cases authored by Kennedy that were very sensitive to animus toward gay people). The problem now is government animus toward the religious people who are burdened by the success of the gay-rights advances. 

3. Judicial expertise in crafting a principled, limited exception to the state's anti-discrimination law. A big issue, throughout the oral argument was: How can the Court define a principled narrow exception to the state's law against discrimination against gay people, an exception that would allow the cake-maker with a religious compunction to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding? Justice Kennedy became involved in some of this discussion about where to draw the lines — the ready-made/custom cake distinction, the speech/conduct distinction, and the distinction between selling a cake in a shop and supervising the cutting of a cake at a ceremony. But Kennedy stayed out of the distinction between what is art and what is not art (that seemed to entrance Justices Ginsburg and Kagan) and the distinction between the artist and the artisan (that captivated Justice Breyer).  And Kennedy didn't get involved in Justice Breyer's talk about the the superiority of legislatures in crafting religious exceptions to generally applicable laws and the problem of too many picky little cases that might burden the judicial system if courts try to solve problems like this.

 

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/06/i-know-cake-must-talk-about-cake.html#more

 

 

.

Edited June 4, 2018 by B-Man

[/dev/null]

5 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Recent Republican presidents not named George W. Bush and Donald Trump have an awful track record when it comes to that.  Based on his Gorsuch pick I don't think Trump would make the same mistakes Reagan and H. W. did.

 

Kinda hoping Kennedy and Thomas retire at the end of this session so Trump can nominate successors.  And holding out the unlikely hope that maybe Master Bader Ginsberg retires too

[row_33]

Not sure why you want Thomas out, he’s done just fine

 

The Colorado Committee immediately knee jerked that religion led to the Holocaust and slavery. No mental issues there.....

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

Not sure why you want Thomas out, he’s done just fine

 

Clarence is getting a little long in the tooth.  Would rather he not have a heart attack or double tap suicide during a Democrat administration

[B-Man]

Gorsuch has it 100%

 

 

 

"It was the kind of cake, not the kind of customer that mattered to the bakers.

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by B-Man

[LeviF]

15 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Kinda hoping Kennedy and Thomas retire at the end of this session so Trump can nominate successors.  And holding out the unlikely hope that maybe Master Bader Ginsberg retires too

 

Ginsberg will die on the bench.  Then we'll find Chuck Schumer playing weekend at Ruthie's until at least 2024.

 

 

[DC Tom]

14 hours ago, row_33 said:

Not sure why you want Thomas out, he’s done just fine

 

The Colorado Committee immediately knee jerked that religion led to the Holocaust and slavery. No mental issues there.....

 

Link?

 

I've got to see the "religion led to slavery" thing directly.  That's hilarious.

[Koko78]

25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Link?

 

I've got to see the "religion led to slavery" thing directly.  That's hilarious.

 

“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote. “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided."

 

Kennedy seized in particular on one commissioner’s comment that invoked slavery and the Holocaust before blasting Phillips’ religious freedom claim as “one of the most despicable piece of rhetoric that people can use to ... to use their religion to hurt others.”

 

“This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law — a law that protects discrimination [sic] on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation,” Kennedy wrote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-case-620661

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote. “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided."

 

Kennedy seized in particular on one commissioner’s comment that invoked slavery and the Holocaust before blasting Phillips’ religious freedom claim as “one of the most despicable piece of rhetoric that people can use to ... to use their religion to hurt others.”

 

“This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law — a law that protects discrimination [sic] on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation,” Kennedy wrote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-case-620661

 

Oh, not "the commission."  One commissioner.

[row_33]

43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Oh, not "the commission."  One commissioner.

 

it was poisonous enough to state in the grounds for the arguments and decisions.

 

Thankfully.

 

Not sure how many sat on the commission, usually it's 3 for appeals I've worked on.

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

it was poisonous enough to state in the grounds for the arguments and decisions.

 

Thankfully.

 

Not sure how many sat on the commission, usually it's 3 for appeals I've worked on.

 

 

 

Yeah, but it sounded like you were referring to some sort of rebuttal to the SC decision by the Commission.  I would have loved to see the Commission issue a rebuttal to the SC stating that Christianity is the root cause of slavery.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Yeah, but it sounded like you were referring to some sort of rebuttal to the SC decision by the Commission.  I would have loved to see the Commission issue a rebuttal to the SC stating that Christianity is the root cause of slavery.

 

fair enough, I read a few sources on the matter and the comment was on the official record, that's bad enough

 

it's probably coming DC Tom where we get this as official diktat

 

for someone in a position of civil authority to be that pigheaded and moronic with a public comment, not even having the decency to reflect for 2 seconds, or shut the hell up, is quite entertaining

 

 

[LeviF]

12 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

fair enough, I read a few sources on the matter and the comment was on the official record, that's bad enough

 

it's probably coming DC Tom where we get this as official diktat

 

for someone in a position of civil authority to be that pigheaded and moronic with a public comment, not even having the decency to reflect for 2 seconds, or shut the hell up, is quite entertaining

 

 

 

Not to mention that none of the other members of the Commission objected to the language used (I think there were 7 overall).

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Not to mention that none of the other members of the Commission objected to the language used (I think there were 7 overall).

 

I would assume that the majority on a liberal panel think that religion is the worst possible evil on earth, at least some would try to couch their prejudice in words that sound like justice and common sense.