Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I see it going in the opposite way. More Justices are going to rule for the baker and against the State of Colorado for three key reasons:
1) The baker did not discriminate against the gay couple as persons. He's served them in his bakery on prior occasions.
2) Both the First Amendment and the Federal Civil Rights Act supercede state law, with Religion being a Federally Protected Class under the CRA while LGBT Status is not.
3) The baker cannot be forced to have his First Amendment Rights violated when there's a less restrictive alternate means of achieving the same outcome, which of course, there was.
No way Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Breyer support the baker. Kagan, unlikely. More likely is Kennedy going with Colorado.
Things you don't understand:
1. The Federal Civil Rights Act does Not preclude states from covering other classes, such as LGBTQ, veterans, people with bad credit, and others, from their own anti-discrimination laws. Are you actually claiming that Colorado and other states don't have the right to cover groups that aren't in the federal law.
2. The 'less restrictive alternative [not 'alternate'] means' is under the federal RFRA, which does not apply in this case. You'll notice that Hobby Lobby was brought under the RFRA specifically.
3. Lower courts and agencies have ruled it is discrimination to target some activities engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, i.e. same sex marriage. Your belief that the baker didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation is hardly the slam dunk you want it to be.
Last edited by jazzarama; 07-21-2017 at 03:58 PM..
No way Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Breyer support the baker.
How would they be able to justify elevating state law above the Constitution and the Federal Civil Rights Act? You seem to think they will, but there's no Constitutional or legal rationale for doing so. So, what do you suggest their reasoning would be?
Quote:
Things you don't understand:
1. The Federal Civil Rights Act does Not preclude states from covering other classes, such as LGBTQ, veterans, people with bad credit, and others, from their own anti-discrimination laws. Are you actually claiming that Colorado and other states don't have the right to cover groups that aren't in the federal law.
While that's true, states CANNOT violate the Federal Civil Rights of a specifically enumerated Protected Class in the process.
Quote:
2. The 'less restrictive alternative [not 'alternate'] means' is under the federal RFRA, which does not apply in this case. You'll notice that Hobby Lobby was brought under the RFRA specifically.
All the Federal RFRA does is legislate First Amendment Rights that already exist. You have no point.
Quote:
3. Lower courts and agencies have ruled it is discrimination to target some activities engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, i.e. same sex marriage.
No one can be compelled to act in violation of their First Amendment Rights. That's unConstitutional. That's why SCOTUS is hearing this case.
If what you assert applied in the case, SCOTUS would have remanded it back to the Colorado Court System. That didn't happen.
Quote:
Your belief that the baker didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation is hardly the slam dunk you want it to be.
False. We already know the baker didn't discriminate against the gay couple as persons. He's served them in his bakery on prior occasions, and he offered the gay couple alternative baked goods choices.
Put the "regulation of thought" rhetoric aside for a bit, and just try good old fashioned thought. Think.
No one can control your thinking other than you, no matter what you think about all those boogeymen out to get you, but do practice some thinking that will help you make better sense out of what is going on around you, like the reason we have laws, for example, and how they get enforced. Might help you sleep better at night...
You can pretend all you want that the thought police are ok, but that is only when you agree with them.
In the case of the baker, he didn't approve of gay wedding, so he didn't bake a cake. He took no action whatsoever except to think gay marriage wasn't right and do nothing.
The government pursued him for inaction. They pursued him when there was no harm. They pursued him because of his beliefs, thoughts.
You're justifying it because you agree that his thoughts were "wrong".
Of course, throughout history, people have allowed governments to penalize people for thinking the "wrong" things. There was a time when governments harshly punished those who didn't agree with the church.
You can pretend all you want that the thought police are ok, but that is only when you agree with them.
In the case of the baker, he didn't approve of gay wedding, so he didn't bake a cake. He took no action whatsoever except to think gay marriage wasn't right and do nothing.
The government pursued him for inaction. They pursued him when there was no harm. They pursued him because of his beliefs, thoughts.
You're justifying it because you agree that his thoughts were "wrong".
Of course, throughout history, people have allowed governments to penalize people for thinking the "wrong" things. There was a time when governments harshly punished those who didn't agree with the church.
Sounds nice but it's fallacious and your analysis is specious.
The baker acted by refusing to provide a service to the plaintiff which he provides to everyone else.
In so doing he treated them differently based not upon his thoughts but upon theirs. He said, in effect. I don't agree with your (marriage) or color or race or gender and in doing his action EXCLUDED a group of citizens. He cannot do that under the law.
Sounds nice but it's fallacious and your analysis is specious.
The baker acted by refusing to provide a service to the plaintiff which he provides to everyone else.
In so doing he treated them differently based not upon his thoughts but upon theirs. He said, in effect. I don't agree with your (marriage) or color or race or gender and in doing his action EXCLUDED a group of citizens. He cannot do that under the law.
What law? State law? The Constitution and Federal law supercede State law. That's why SCOTUS is hearing the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case instead of remanding it back to the Colorado State Court System.
If someone doesn't want to make me a cake, I don't want them to make me a cake. I'll take my business elsewhere. This is all about the power to force someone to violate their beliefs. Only a twisted soul would want that.
Sounds nice but it's fallacious and your analysis is specious.
The baker acted by refusing to provide a service to the plaintiff which he provides to everyone else.
In so doing he treated them differently based not upon his thoughts but upon theirs. He said, in effect. I don't agree with your (marriage) or color or race or gender and in doing his action EXCLUDED a group of citizens. He cannot do that under the law.
You would have acted by refusing to go to church. Sounds like you aren't attending due to you not agreeing with a group of people's religion. It's for your own good to be part of society and spreading good values. The government should sanction you due to this.
Sounds nice but it's fallacious and your analysis is specious.
The baker acted by refusing to provide a service to the plaintiff which he provides to everyone else.
In so doing he treated them differently based not upon his thoughts but upon theirs. He said, in effect. I don't agree with your (marriage) or color or race or gender and in doing his action EXCLUDED a group of citizens. He cannot do that under the law.
Why not? We've gone overboard in the wrong direction. We've introduced tyranny and political correctness. People should be free to offer or accept business from anyone they want at any time for any or no reason. Notice I am saying should. Not what is. What we have now is wrong.
Let's not be afraid of freedom. Let's let the citizens decide what flies. If a baker doesn't want to bake cakes for blacks or gays or the handicapped, let it happen. Let the public, and the Internet, and the power of big data and big data availability determine what is acceptable in a free and open market.
Freedom of association implies freedom of disassociation.
If it's bad or evil, it will get taken care of by public shaming and Internet dissemination. That's much more powerful than arbitrary laws that limit our freedoms and provide the basis for cancerous tyrannical incrementalism.
Freedom works better. So let's eliminate all laws on discrimination and let people decide for themselves who they want to deal with and when. For any or no reason.
If it leads to something that is truly unfair or unjust, it will be shamed into bankruptcy or marginalized into obscurity.
If some bakery opens that is willing to expose their hatred for certain groups, it will die much quicker under freedom. This is not the year 1800 of course, but guess what, it's also not 2000. Public shaming is THAT powerful nowadays.
What if I was a racist realtor and decided not to sell homes to a certain race? And what if there were no laws pertaining to this practice. How long would I be in business today? About 10 minutes. As soon as my irrationality and malice became public, I would be unemployed and unemployable. We don't need courts or SJW snowflakes. We need free speech and freedom of expression. Total and unregulated and unmodulated freedom.
Actually, I see it going in the opposite way. More Justices are going to rule for the baker and against the State of Colorado for three key reasons:
1) The baker did not discriminate against the gay couple as persons. He's served them in his bakery on prior occasions.
2) Both the First Amendment and the Federal Civil Rights Act supercede state law, with Religion being a Federally Protected Class under the CRA while LGBT Status is not.
3) The baker cannot be forced to have his First Amendment Rights violated when there's a less restrictive alternate means of achieving the same outcome, which of course, there was.
Regarding #1, I really don't think that because someone serves someone else on prior occasions that this de facto NECESSARILY means that discrimination is not occurring when later the same someone else is not served. Or, a thief is not a thief if first he doesn't rob the store when he enters the first time but only robs the store after visiting a 5th time. Right? (Bad analogy, but point hopefully made that "no foul" one time doesn't mean "no foul" on future occasions.
#2, I think we all know how federal law supersedes state law, no need to keep repeating what we all know. There have been cases when state law has been upheld in federal court, or not, and there have been cases that have lead to changes to federal law. The SC is faced with the question whether there was discrimination in this case, maybe not discrimination of a protected class but discrimination nevertheless, in keeping with the civil rights of all Americans.
#3, whether the baker had his 1A rights violated also remains to be seen. That someone can be asked to "simply go somewhere else" is not a defense even if that someone can simply go somewhere else.
My explanation in post #1112 of what my sentence means is plain as day, and quite correct. Do you, also, not understand the English language?
Would you write this comment to me if you didn't know I do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
