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.
You may honestly believe the bold, And if so, I simply ask you to remember that The Supreme Court has rejected multiple cases about things like Wedding Cakes, wedding photography and catering gay weddings.
They clearly disagree with your assessment.
Again, not a public service, it was a benefit to the employees. The same is true of the Parade case(you would actually be arguing what could be sold, rather than who it was sold to).
The Supreme Court rejects many cases each year, including cases that it ultimately decides to take up years later. There are many reasons why the Court will choose to take up/deny hearing a case, including whether there is a circuit split, etc. The refusal of the Supreme Court to take up a case is hardly an indication that it approves or disapproves of something. Nor does the refusal to take up a case have any precedential value.
Also, the Supreme Court has taken up (held oral argument earlier this month) a wedding cake case in the Masterprice Cakeshop matter out of Colorado. Many court observers, based on the oral argument, expect the Court to rule for the baker in that case, which would have the impact of invalidating much of the ruling in the Oregon case (the emotional distress part of the Oregon case that's the result of posting the names/phone numbers/etc. of the couple would not be invalidated by a ruling for the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker, though). Eagerly awaiting to see how that case is decided.
And, again, the fundamental issue is about compulsion of an idea/creation/etc. that the government seeks to require of an individual or business. And we see this argument play out in each and every case (and more) that I pointed out, where the state makes the same fundamental argument that it makes against the bakers here.
I wonder if the owners of the bakery had said at the time...something to the effect of
"We can bake you a cake and it will be perfect, but we have to be honest -- we don't support your lifestyle, understand it." if the customer would have insisted.
In this case, as in most cases, I suspect the problem was that the baker took aggressive, defensive attitude and that set off the couple.
I know -- just my view but.....what if they had just said that....135,000
richer.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6031
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
The Supreme Court rejects many cases each year, including cases that it ultimately decides to take up years later. There are many reasons why the Court will choose to take up/deny hearing a case, including whether there is a circuit split, etc. The refusal of the Supreme Court to take up a case is hardly an indication that it approves or disapproves of something. Nor does the refusal to take up a case have any precedential value.
The court releases reasons as to why they did not take some of these cases, and they have indeed said that it is because the lower courts made the right decision.
Quote:
Also, the Supreme Court has taken up (held oral argument earlier this month) a wedding cake case in the Masterprice Cakeshop matter out of Colorado. Many court observers, based on the oral argument, expect the Court to rule for the baker in that case, which would have the impact of invalidating much of the ruling in the Oregon case (the emotional distress part of the Oregon case that's the result of posting the names/phone numbers/etc. of the couple would not be invalidated by a ruling for the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker, though). Eagerly awaiting to see how that case is decided.
Master Cake is about artistry, not religion(at least that is the argument his supporters and lawyers have made)
That is specifically why the court took the case.
Quote:
Many court observers, based on the oral argument, expect the Court to rule for the baker in that case
I wonder if the owners of the bakery had said at the time...something to the effect of
"We can bake you a cake and it will be perfect, but we have to be honest -- we don't support your lifestyle, understand it." if the customer would have insisted.
In this case, as in most cases, I suspect the problem was that the baker took aggressive, defensive attitude and that set off the couple.
I know -- just my view but.....what if they had just said that....135,000
richer.
That’s what I think about the baker too. The far right white religious bigots are very accustomed to “getting their way” and don’t like it when some ppl get uppity by demanding equity/fairness.
The court releases reasons as to why they did not take some of these cases, and they have indeed said that it is because the lower courts made the right decision.
When denying certiorari, I have never seen the Court explain why it did not take a case. What I have seen, however, are disgruntled justices write briefly about why the Court should have taken a case.
Quote:
Master Cake is about artistry, not religion(at least that is the argument his supporters and lawyers have made)
That is specifically why the court took the case.
This is the question presented in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case:
Issue: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
The two issues are intertwined. The art piece comes in specifically for the free speech part of the question. But its tied at the hip to the free exercise part of the question as the "art" that the state seeks the baker to create violates the baker's free exercise (or so the baker argues).
Quote:
Both sides have made that argument.
Not to the same extent. And I've seen much more panic from leftist commentators and legal analysts over the potential outcome in this case than I've seen from the right. We will see, though.
For the record, they didn't "refuse service" to anyone.
So are you saying their refusal to bake a cake for the couple was not refusal of service?
Also -- let's be honest -- what if the baker had said -- gosh we would love to but oh my we are too overbooked -- we couldn't guarantee our quality blah blah.
They wouldn't have compromised their religious integrity -- and 135,000 richer.
I suspect that if this story was Bible ready -- Jesus would have said -- Thou should not judge the sinners, be a good Christian and bake them a cake that is your best cake and let God be the judge of them and you.
That’s what I think about the baker too. The far right white religious bigots are very accustomed to “getting their way” and don’t like it when some ppl get uppity by demanding equity/fairness.
LOL. That hasn't happened anywhere in 50 years. The Left has been stampeding over the right for decades. Everything is stacked in favor of non-whites, non-Christians, an foreigners, The people who need to demand "equity/fairness" are whites, Christians, and Americans.
The far right white religious bigots are very accustomed to “getting their way” and don’t like it when some ppl get uppity by demanding equity/fairness.
Only difference is leftists start riots which induce smashing cars, breaking windows, lighting stuff on fire, and attacking people. Stuff like that is why some people can't take them serious.
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.
