Gay Wedding Cake Controversy Heads to Supreme Court

[Ethereal]

It's a mistake to attempt to discuss or understand legal matters using definitions from a general dictionary. Words have accepted and established meanings in the realm of law, which is why they make legal dictionaries. You see people going into court all the time trying to argue that the Constitution (or some other document) says such-and-such, and basing their arguments on what it says in their Webster's. They lose.

This isn't a court of law. And I'm under no obligation to surrender the English language to crooked politicians and their self-serving distortions.

[Ethereal]

Why shouldn't the 14th Amendment be incorporated into state and local matters?

Because it's inconsistent with the original intent of the US Constitution. And because a government powerful enough to enforce the rights (real or imagined) of every American in the country in every possible context is a government powerful enough to deprive people of their rights. Federalism requires a large amount of deference to state and local government, otherwise it cannot be rightfully called a "federal" government, can it?

What you are talking about it the ability to discriminate at will. What if there is no other baker, builder or whatever in town? Or they all practice discrimination?

Then I would question the wisdom and the sanity of someone who wants to live in a town where everyone is bigoted against them. At the very least, when problems are localized, escaping or resisting them is relatively less difficult.

[Chris]

Why shouldn't the 14th Amendment be incorporated into state and local matters? What you are talking about it the ability to discriminate at will. What if there is no other baker, builder or whatever in town? Or they all practice discrimination?

It makes a difference because the cake baker made an issue of the couple's homosexuality. They weren't even asking for a gay cake.

I have no problem imposing constitutional protections of right on state and local governments.

I am opposed to the government dictating social issues and private choices. Yes, people should be free to discriminate at will, and pay the social consequences of their actions.

What if there was no baker, builder or whatever in town? People'd go to the next town. Or bake or build or whatever themselves. What you're talking about is not rights but what you see as obligation on society to act for individuals, but no such obligations exist, other than government-imposed obligations.

Where rights are violated is the bakers, builders or whatever's right to choose whom to associate or contract with by forcing them to serve others against their will.

Think about it. A baker and a gay couple. Are the gay couple not free to choose to say no to a contract between them? No one would ever even imagine forcing them to contract with the baker. So where is the equality in forcing the baker into a contract?


They asked for a cake for their wedding. It doesn't take a whole lot of inference to figure out the rest.


Don't get me wrong, I personally find such discimination appauling. If I heard of it I'd stop going to that baker or builder or whatever. But I have no desire to impose my personal choices and values through the government on others.

[Ethereal]

Small scale tyranny is easier to resist or escape than large scale tyranny. That is one of the strengths of federalism. It dilutes power by distributing it across a multitude of localities. A central government that is the guarantor of the rights of everyone in the country is basically empowered to trample on those rights as well. Sometimes, I wonder if my fellow Americans understand their own glorious revolution and why it was fought.

[Chris]

According to this analysis of oral argument, the court might find in Phillips favor on religious grounds: Why The Supreme Court Is Likely To Rule For Jack Phillips While Dodging The Big Religious Liberty Question: Kennedy after dimissing the free speech claim...

What did concern Kennedy was evidence that the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights held an anti-religion animus. Here, the swing justice cited one commissioner’s comment that “freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch added their voices to this criticism, with Gorsuch casting comments from a second commissioner as anti-religion.

At this point, Justice Samuel Alito interjected his own similar concerns:

One thing that’s disturbing about the record here, in addition to the statement made, the statement that Justice Kennedy read, which was not disavowed at the time by any other member of the Commission, is what appears to be a practice of discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint. The — the Commission had before it the example of three complaints filed by an individual whose creed includes the traditional Judeo-Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, and he requested cakes that expressed that point of view, and those — there were bakers who said no, we won’t do that because itis offensive. And the Commission said: That’s okay. It’s okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned, and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage.

When one understands First Amendment jurisprudence, these exchanges together lay out the likely approach a majority of the Supreme Court will take to resolve this case.

I hadn't considered that angle, namely the the law is anti-religious.

[Nicole]

Because it's inconsistent with the original intent of the US Constitution. And because a government powerful enough to enforce the rights (real or imagined) of every American in the country in every possible context is a government powerful enough to deprive people of their rights. Federalism requires a large amount of deference to state and local government, otherwise it cannot be rightfully called a "federal" government, can it?
Then I would question the wisdom and the sanity of someone who wants to live in a town where everyone is bigoted against them. At the very least, when problems are localized, escaping or resisting them is relatively less difficult.

The original intent of the constitution was to permit discrimination? Where does it say that? Are other subsequent constitutional amendments inconsistent to the original intent? The 19th amendment? The 13th?

And yet it's ok to pass the reciprocity law, eliminating the laws individual states have passed with regard to concealed carry?

Ah, so the "unintended consequences" would be to send minorities packing. Convenient. I think you just explained why the federal enforcement of such laws are necessary.

[Nicole]

I have no problem imposing constitutional protections of right on state and local governments.

I am opposed to the government dictating social issues and private choices. Yes, people should be free to discriminate at will, and pay the social consequences of their actions.

What if there was no baker, builder or whatever in town? People'd go to the next town. Or bake or build or whatever themselves. What you're talking about is not rights but what you see as obligation on society to act for individuals, but no such obligations exist, other than government-imposed obligations.

Where rights are violated is the bakers, builders or whatever's right to choose whom to associate or contract with by forcing them to serve others against their will.

Think about it. A baker and a gay couple. Are the gay couple not free to choose to say no to a contract between them? No one would ever even imagine forcing them to contract with the baker. So where is the equality in forcing the baker into a contract?


They asked for a cake for their wedding. It doesn't take a whole lot of inference to figure out the rest.


Don't get me wrong, I personally find such discimination appauling. If I heard of it I'd stop going to that baker or builder or whatever. But I have no desire to impose my personal choices and values through the government on others.

See my reply to Etheral for starters.

Where does the freedom to discriminate exist in the constitution? Freedom of association covers private organizations. Not businesses operating in the public square.

The person who pays the immediate consequences of discrimination is the person refused a service. Businesses in "like minded" communities, would likely not incur consequences to their businesses, while minorities would likely experience undue hardships because of the lack of options.

Think about it. A baker and a gay couple. Are the gay couple not free to choose to say no to a contract between them? No one would ever even imagine forcing them to contract with the baker. So where is the equality in forcing the baker into a contract?

Those are not two equal situations. The law of the land makes it illegal to discriminate. I agree with their taking it to court. If it's resolved in their favor, it will eliminate the possibility of the next gay couple being discriminated against. Moving on with finding a better person to deal with, leaves the next gay couple open to discrimination. At this point, it's not a matter of them forcing that baker to make a cake for them. If the decision of the lower court is reversed, you'll be closer to getting what you want, the ability to discriminate.

Making it illegal to discriminate limits the "rights" of fewer persons while allowing for the rights of greater citizenry. The greater good.

[MisterVeritis]

See my reply to Etheral for starters.
Where does the freedom to discriminate exist in the constitution? Freedom of association covers private organizations. Not businesses operating in the public square.
The person who pays the immediate consequences of discrimination is the person refused a service. Businesses in "like minded" communities, would likely not incur consequences to their businesses, while minorities would likely experience undue hardships because of the lack of options.

Those are not two equal situations. The law of the land makes it illegal to discriminate. I agree with their taking it to court. If it's resolved in their favor, it will eliminate the possibility of the next gay couple being discriminated against. Moving on with finding a better person to deal with, leaves the next gay couple open to discrimination. At this point, it's not a matter of them forcing that baker to make a cake for them. If the decision of the lower court is reversed, you'll be closer to getting what you want, the ability to discriminate.

Making it illegal to discriminate limits the "rights" of fewer persons while allowing for the rights of greater citizenry. The greater good.

What you describe is the nature of centralized tyranny. We have the right to govern ourselves.

[Chris]

See my reply to Etheral for starters.

Where does the freedom to discriminate exist in the constitution? Freedom of association covers private organizations. Not businesses operating in the public square.

The person who pays the immediate consequences of discrimination is the person refused a service. Businesses in "like minded" communities, would likely not incur consequences to their businesses, while minorities would likely experience undue hardships because of the lack of options.



Those are not two equal situations. The law of the land makes it illegal to discriminate. I agree with their taking it to court. If it's resolved in their favor, it will eliminate the possibility of the next gay couple being discriminated against. Moving on with finding a better person to deal with, leaves the next gay couple open to discrimination. At this point, it's not a matter of them forcing that baker to make a cake for them. If the decision of the lower court is reversed, you'll be closer to getting what you want, the ability to discriminate.

Making it illegal to discriminate limits the "rights" of fewer persons while allowing for the rights of greater citizenry. The greater good.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, so the question doesn't make much sense.

The right is freedom of association. WHere was the government granted the power to interfere with that?

The person who pays the immediate consequences of discrimination is the person refused a service.

I've been asking in several threads on this what exactly is the consequence? What is the right violated? What is the harm?

Those are not two equal situations.

Those are two perfectly equal situations. The customer can say no, so to should the business owner be able to.

The law of the land makes it illegal to discriminate.

Justifiy the law. Why is the law just?

you'll be closer to getting what you want, the ability to discriminate

Ah, now, that's where you're wrong. I want liberty, I want rights protected, here the right to associate with whom you please.

And I clearly stated in my response to you "I personally find such discimination appauling. If I heard of it I'd stop going to that baker or builder or whatever. But I have no desire to impose my personal choices and values through the government on others." So no false accusations, please.

allowing for the rights of greater citizenry

What rights are those?

The greater good.

You'd need to make an argument for that. How would you determine that? How would you implement it? How would you measure the results?

[Chris]

Reading When civil rights and religion collide, which reviews the case in court, I found this:

There was a strange sense of deja vu in the Supreme Court Tuesday morning. Twenty-five years ago, Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, which nullified protections for gay people statewide, and which the Supreme Court later struck down.

Many liberals argue for such laws because they represent the will of the people. Colorado voters voted against the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. So it's not the will of the people. It doesn't serve the greater good. It only serves though who think the people stupid and that they know better.