Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by goofball, Jun 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    cerberus likes this.
  2. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then how do people do bad things?
     
  3. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:I knew you would, mate . . . onward and upward? 4000? Wouldn't surprise me! :mrgreen:
     
    chris155au likes this.
  4. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Mr Jack" mentioned below - was the Christian baker who was refused service for asking for cakes with messages disapproving of same sex marriage.

    Sure, but there is no way that the Commission COULD have remained neutral on the basis of religion if it refused to accept his religious freedom argument, which was based on the very well known and FUNDAMENTAL Christian belief of marriage. So I'm not saying that he should be allowed to murder and claim religious freedom! There is an obvious line.

    Basically if another wedding services case makes it to The Supreme Court, it will more than likely go the same way, at least with the current justices.
    Whether it would go the same way for a non-religious person, I'm not sure, but I certainly believe that it should. I've always said that this case shouldn't
    be a freedom of religion case, but rather a freedom of association case. Religious people should not have any more freedoms than secular people and
    SCOTUS would have no choice but to accept a secular person's case now that it has accepted a religious person's case. Anything less would breach the Equal Protection Clause.

    Anyway, the Supreme Court made the right choice with this case, regardless of how it came to its narrow decision. Its just a total disgrace that the useless bastards didn't make it a landmark case which would mean that states could no longer use their laws in this way.

    I'm not talking about the "impact on the customer", I'm talking about how the law was applied. If it was used against someone who has a 'no gays allowed' policy, then the intent to discriminate is obviously very clear.

    I think that you're smart enough to admit that it is far LESS clear in the case of this baker and with any of these wedding services cases.

    So you think that it should be illegal to refuse service to a person who has a certain religion, sexual orientation or race?
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2018
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,840
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your reference is to one of the concurring opinions, not the main court ruling. The court didn’t “slam” the commission for failing to prove intent.

    They could as long as they refused to accept any religious freedom argument. There is an implicit imbalance in the US legal system here though, in that the First Amendment (at least by current interpretation) deliberately introduces a bias in favour of religiously motivated actions over any other.

    That’s your main problem. You’re focusing exclusively on legalistic technicalities without any consideration of how they would actually apply in the real world.

    Please re-read and try again. :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2018
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pay no heed to the dictates of conscience, and you can hardly do otherwise.
     
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is the "dictates of conscience?"
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2018
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the First Amendment didn't exist, would you say that freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are unalienable rights that clearly fall within the scope of 9A? If so, what is the point in the First Amendment?
     
  9. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not actually an opinion though, it is all FACT! The commission DID presume that he harbored an intent to discriminate against a protected class! The commission DIDN'T presume the same intent in the case of the secular bakers! A state appellate court DID say that “no such showing” of actual “animus” or intent to discriminate against persons in a protected class was even required in this case! ALL FACTS I'm afraid!

    Not directly, no, but the failure to prove intent formed an important part of the overall decision which the commission WAS slammed in! Make no mistake, this useless, joke of a BIASED commission was indeed slammed to hell and back by the almighty Supreme Court of the United States! And it was GLORIOUS!

    No, that's got nothing to do with it. Not acting "neutral" toward religion simply means not respecting religion/religious views.

    You're the one who originally brought up the word "neutral" when you said, "the Commission failed to be neutral on the basis of religion." What did you mean by that?

    You're right, and that doesn't sit comfortably with me at all. However, this case could certainly be used as a precedent by a secular person who argues that they shouldn't be treated any differently by SCOTUS on the grounds of the Equal Protection Clause. However, I acknowledge that without this precedent it may not go in the secular person's favour and that would demonstrate a real weakness in the United States Constitution and I've thought for a while now that it is far from perfect, despite how awesome it is.

    What do you mean how they would apply in the real world?

    And do you admit that the intent to discriminate is far LESS clear in the case of this baker than someone with a
    'no gays allowed policy?' I just get the feeling that you're intelligent enough to admit that, although perhaps I'm mistaken.

    Okay. So you think that people who have a certain religion, sexual orientation or race should be treated the same?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2018
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,840
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the document quoted is called a "Concurring Opinion" because it is written by one or more justices who agree with the majority decision in general but have unique reasoning or opinions relating to it. Obviously it is based on the facts presented in court, but it expresses the justices opinion of the facts.That is exactly the same as the majority decision and the original commission decision.

    That's a matter of opinion. ;) I suggest they concluded rather than presumed. Regardless, there is still an open question as to whether they should have done so, legally or morally. I doubt we'll agree on the answer to that.

    SCOTUS doesn't "slam" and most certainly shouldn't. SCOTUS (like all courts) should reach legal decisions calmly and rationally. If you want entertainment, watch Judge Judy.

    I was directly quoting the SCOTUS document you referenced. The practical meaning of legal concepts like that is one of the key questions here.

    We can talk principles and legal wording all we want, every single real world situation will be different, with it's own conflicts, contradictions, uncertainties. Even if we could come up with a perfectly solution that everyone agreed on in this case, it probably wouldn't work in any other case in the future.

    I think the "discrimination" against same sex marriage was as obvious. The question is whether that effectively discriminates against homosexuals, even if that isn't directly intentional. I don't deny that this case is much more difficult to reach a conclusion on - it wouldn't have gone this far otherwise. I'm not sure how significant that is to the wider principles though.

    No. I think people should be treated the same regardless of their race, religion or orientation. Whichever of those characteristics and individual has (or is mistakenly thought to have) shouldn't make any difference to their general treatment.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  11. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you have one, I hardly need draw you a map.
    Yes.
    That was decided centuries ago. All that matters now is that it's the law.
     
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just didn't know what you meant by the "DICTATES" of conscience.

    And is there a limit to these unalienable rights of 9A?
     
  13. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct, but the extract that I quoted contains no opinions. To confirm, the "document" that I quoted is more than just a concurring opinion, but rather the entire case file.

    Majority decision of what? And do you mean the "original commission decision" of finding the baker guilty?

    How could they have properly "concluded" anything if no evidence of intent to discriminate was acquired?

    Well that depends on your definition of the word "slam." The Supreme Court VERY firmly called out the Commission in no uncertain terms for its disrespect towards religion and the disgraceful double standard that was demonstrated with the secular baker's case. That certainly fits MY definition of "slam!"

    And saying that "SCOTUS should reach legal decisions calmly and rationally" was unnecessary as I wasn't saying that they should reach decisions non-calmly and irrationally.

    I don't think that, I KNOW that! The baker makes that clear himself! And if there was a law which said that same sex marriages should not be discriminated against, he would have very clearly broken the law and I would say that the law could be properly used against him, even though I would disagree with such an awful law!

    Well if it is found to be unintentional then I can't imagine the person could be found guilty. I hardly think that it is akin to manslaughter, or any other unintentional crime.

    And so then what would your ideal law look like that would achieve the above? How would you roughly write it?
     
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,840
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The majority decision of SCOTUS and yes. The point is that all judicial rulings consist of opinion based on the presented evidence.

    Of course there was evidence, it just wasn’t definitive. The evidence presented in court, primarily the statements given by all the individuals directly involved, will have been assessed to reach a conclusion.

    No laws could achieve it entirely as it’s a cultural issue rather than a legal one. That’s why I’m less interested in the messy legalistic technicalities of this case but more the moral and social principles behind it.

    That said, I see these laws as a necessarily evil that do need to be enforced and the actual wording of most anti-discrimination law I’ve seen is on the right lines. The main problems are media misrepresentation, resultant flawed public perceptions and sometimes influencing the application of it too.
     
  15. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Conscience dictates that you should do this, shouldn't have done that, and so on, irrespective of what you may have heard from others. Surely you've experienced that.
    If it's exercised responsibly, there is no limit to any such right.
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly, and sometimes things that people "do" is bad, right?

    Wouldn't the definition of "responsibly" be open to interpretation?
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think you quite understand - there was NO evidence of INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE with the appellate court saying that “no such showing” of actual “animus” or intent to discriminate against persons in a protected class was even required!"

    Why are they an "evil?"

    How does the media misrepresent the laws?

    Why do you mean "influencing the application?"
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  18. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If they're done in obedience to conscience, never.
    No, responsibility is being respectful of the rights of others.
     
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is your definition of "conscience?"
     
  20. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The faculty by which humans know right from wrong, irrespective of what they're told by others.
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then "obedience to conscience" is obedience to right or wrong?
     
  22. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's hard to avoid the impression that you're determined to misunderstand.
    What the hell does that even mean?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2018
  23. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These Judicial picks are very important:

    Kavanagh approaches confirmation hearings:

    [​IMG]
     
    chris155au likes this.
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then "obedience to conscience" is obedience to WHAT IS right or WHAT IS wrong?
     
  25. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ing-cake-case.534233/page-151#post-1069372648
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page