Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS will hear Colorado Bakery/Same Sex Cake case in the next term.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS will hear Colorado Bakery/Same Sex Cake case in the next term.

    Next term starts in October and the case: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights, will be on the calendar. We'll not know the specific day until the next term starts in Oct.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    The case of the Gay Wedding Cake is one of my all time favourites on the ACG

    and Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts. Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to bake the couple a wedding cake, which resulted in a lawsuit.[1] The case was decided in favour of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."[2] The decision was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court on appeal.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_...piece_Cakeshop
    Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

    Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
      Next term starts in October and the case: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights, will be on the calendar. We'll not know the specific day until the next term starts in Oct.
      This should be interesting, do you have a link to the story?
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
        This should be interesting, do you have a link to the story?
        When I posted it was 'breaking'. For anything SCOTUS related I always use SCOTUSBlog.com.

        However today is a big day, because the term ends Thursday I believe, and we've had lots of orders released. Since this was just a one sentence order saying they accepted it, we'll not hear much more than that.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Should be pretty straight forward, businesses aren't afforded the legal right to discriminate. I wonder what the response would be if a black bakery turned away whites. Similarly you can't turn away homosexuals.
          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
          - Benjamin Franklin

          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
            Should be pretty straight forward, businesses aren't afforded the legal right to discriminate. I wonder what the response would be if a black bakery turned away whites. Similarly you can't turn away homosexuals.
            That's where it has to be settled in court. It there it will come back down to what the laws (and precedent) say. If they entirely reject racial discrimination, then it will be hard to claim that one can discriminate on the basis of orientation. However, there are always ways of framing the issue differently. I would be hard-pressed to demand a kosher bakery use a special pork frosting on my birthday cake. And it is entirely legal to refuse to serve people who don't meet certain standards held by the operators. But then again we go back to the original issue of discrimination and dozens of hypotheticals and it cycles around again.

            But man, it has been a long time since I even considered this case. Would need to see a summary of the legal arguments on both sides to really wrap my head around it again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
              Should be pretty straight forward, businesses aren't afforded the legal right to discriminate. I wonder what the response would be if a black bakery turned away whites. Similarly you can't turn away homosexuals.
              Win or lose, the bakery could simply demand that they be allowed a disclaimer on their product to be displayed with it. That is, they put a sign next to the cake saying "This cake does not reflect the views of Bakery XYZ or its employees." That satisfies both sides. The bakery makes the cake for the customer, but also makes it clear that as a business it doesn't reflect the business's or owner's views.

              I suspect that the gay couple would go elsewhere for their cake as I also suspect this was done specifically to force a bakery with contrary views into court.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                That's where it has to be settled in court. It there it will come back down to what the laws (and precedent) say. If they entirely reject racial discrimination, then it will be hard to claim that one can discriminate on the basis of orientation. However, there are always ways of framing the issue differently. I would be hard-pressed to demand a kosher bakery use a special pork frosting on my birthday cake. And it is entirely legal to refuse to serve people who don't meet certain standards held by the operators. But then again we go back to the original issue of discrimination and dozens of hypotheticals and it cycles around again.

                But man, it has been a long time since I even considered this case. Would need to see a summary of the legal arguments on both sides to really wrap my head around it again.
                That is because the Kosher Bakery does not make Pork Frosting Cakes for ANYONE. The bakery in question sold cakes to the public. They refused in this case in violation of State Laws concerning public accommodations.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  It will be an interesting case.

                  As for the kosher bakery, if they are open to the public they can be asked to make something against Jewish practices and would be forced to comply according to the Colorado precedent.

                  I'm not sure how that would affect the current standards policy, such as "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

                  My question will always be: why was it necessary to go to that bakery in the first place? Why not just take the business elsewhere? I agree with TAG that this was a setup from the beginning, and I'm not in favor of forcing people to do things in that fashion. And I'm tired of special interest groups forcing themselves on everyone else.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    It will be an interesting case.

                    As for the kosher bakery, if they are open to the public they can be asked to make something against Jewish practices and would be forced to comply according to the Colorado precedent.

                    I'm not sure how that would affect the current standards policy, such as "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

                    My question will always be: why was it necessary to go to that bakery in the first place? Why not just take the business elsewhere? I agree with TAG that this was a setup from the beginning, and I'm not in favor of forcing people to do things in that fashion. And I'm tired of special interest groups forcing themselves on everyone else.
                    No, they can't be. PA laws do mean you have to sell something you don't make nor sell normally, they just say you have to sell WHAT you make to everyone.

                    I can't go into a restaurant and make them serve me something not on the menu. Same with a Kosher Baker.
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The problem is a dangerous precedent can be set. In a majority Christian nation, it's very possible that there are many business owners who share the same ideals. So particularly if someone is in a small town, what happens when the only, or one of the few local bakers refuse service. Or, they all refuse service... Then, where does it stop? What other businesses are you opening the door for, to legally refuse service to a specific group of people. We would be creating 2nd class citizens by essentially legalizing discrimination against them.
                      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                        Should be pretty straight forward, businesses aren't afforded the legal right to discriminate. I wonder what the response would be if a black bakery turned away whites. Similarly you can't turn away homosexuals.
                        The bakers did not "turn away homosexuals" and the case has nothing to do with discrimination based on race. If it were about the "right to discriminate" the SCOTUS would not have taken the case. That issue has been resolved. The case is about balancing constitutional rights.

                        Unfortunately, the issues in the case are all too often misrepresented for political purposes.
                        The issue is whether the government can force individuals to violate their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. The bakers weren't refusing to serve homosexuals, they were refusing to become involved in the celebration of a gay wedding.

                        Beware of taking sides too quickly on this issue, the real one, not the pretend ones about turning away homosexuals.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                          The problem is a dangerous precedent can be set. In a majority Christian nation, it's very possible that there are many business owners who share the same ideals. So particularly if someone is in a small town, what happens when the only, or one of the few local bakers refuse service. Or, they all refuse service... Then, where does it stop? What other businesses are you opening the door for, to legally refuse service to a specific group of people. We would be creating 2nd class citizens by essentially legalizing discrimination against them.
                          So which right is more important?

                          Should we ignore the constitutionally protected religious rights and force the bakers to engage in a service against their will? Or look for some other way to resolve the issue.

                          Both sides have legitimate interests in this case.
                          At what point do you become uncomfortable with the idea of the government forcing people to violate their religious beliefs?
                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            So which right is more important?

                            Should we ignore the constitutionally protected religious rights and force the bakers to engage in a service against their will? Or look for some other way to resolve the issue.

                            Both sides have legitimate interests in this case.
                            At what point do you become uncomfortable with the idea of the government forcing people to violate their religious beliefs?
                            At what point can people use religion as a cover to discriminate against anyone they choose to?
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                              The bakers did not "turn away homosexuals" and the case has nothing to do with discrimination based on race. If it were about the "right to discriminate" the SCOTUS would not have taken the case. That issue has been resolved. The case is about balancing constitutional rights.

                              Unfortunately, the issues in the case are all too often misrepresented for political purposes.
                              The issue is whether the government can force individuals to violate their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. The bakers weren't refusing to serve homosexuals, they were refusing to become involved in the celebration of a gay wedding.

                              Beware of taking sides too quickly on this issue, the real one, not the pretend ones about turning away homosexuals.
                              In what way were they involved in the Celebration? Answer they were not. They make and sell cakes, that is all they were ask to do. They refused to perform the service they advertise and practice to a specific customer based that they routinely provide to all others that come into the bakery.

                              The can't participate in something that happened around a year earlier.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X