What A Travesty of Justice: Oregon court rules Christian bakery must pay $135K to lesbian couple (agent, slavery)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

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.





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.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - SCOTUSblog

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).



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.

SCOTUSblog has no actual affiliation with SCOTUS. Its better to quote the actual case itself

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
This case concerns the application of the First
Amendment to a state statute that bars discrimination
in places of public accommodation on the basis of several
protected characteristics. The United States has a
substantial interest in the preservation of constitutional
rights of free expression. It also has a substantial interest
in the application of such rights in the context of the
state statute here, which shares certain features with
federal public accommodations laws, including Title II
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.,
and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq

Edit: add on

Phillips views the creation of custom wedding cakes
as a form of art, to which he devotes his creativity and artistic talents. Pet. App. 277a, 279a. To design a custom
wedding cake, he first consults with his clients to
learn about their personalities, preferences, and wedding
celebration so that he can tailor a product for the
specific couple and event. Id. at 278a-279a. Phillips
next sketches a design of the cake on paper and works
with the couple to develop a model that accommodates
their desires. Id. at 279a. Alternatively, his clients may
select one of the unique designs that Phillips previously
created. Ibid. Phillips then bakes the cake, sculpts it
into a particular design or shape if desired, creates and
colors the frosting and decorations, assembles and decorates
the cake, and delivers it to the site of the wedding
celebration. Id. at 279a-280a. In some cases, he also
interacts with people at the wedding itself. Id. at 280a

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...1-tsac-USA.pdf

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by moneill

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.

Yeah, I suppose they were looking for a fight, because they could have used that as a permissible excuse -- an excuse that underscores why it wasn't "refusal of service" as that term is used in a public accommodation context. Unlike everyone else commenting in this thread, I looked up the operative statute and posted a link, and the court clearly misconstrued the law.

It is a "public accommodation" statute. One of the rationales for allowing anti-discrimination laws in a "public accommodations" context is that the concern you raised in your second paragraph isn't implicated. If you've got cookies ready-made and ready to sell, it's a relatively small imposition if you're required to sell them to people you'd rather not do business with. But it's a huge imposition if the government says you can't say no to someone who wants you to do something special for them. Where does it end? Why should you have to prove that you're too busy or whatever? Your body, your choice. This is why the "involuntary servitude" argument is legitimate.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

SCOTUSblog has no actual affiliation with SCOTUS. Its better to quote the actual case itself



Edit: add on




http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...1-tsac-USA.pdf

SCOTUSblog typically writes the issue exactly as its been presented by the Supreme Court. And if it doesn't write the question verbatim, its written in layman's terms that accurately reflects what the Court is asking. Its actually a very favorable site and the Supreme Court has recognized the site and its writers for their excellent work. It is the go-to site for Supreme Court issues and is pretty darn neutral.

What you cited to is a brief for the United States. The part of your statement that is in bold is not the question presented by the Court. The question presented by the Court is what is on the SCOTUSblog site. Each party to the case will write their own "question presented," but the Supreme Court actually chooses the question presented.

Here is the recommended question presented by the United States:

Whether Colorado’s public accommodations law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a) (2016), violates the First Amendment as applied to an individual who declines to design and create custom wedding cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations that violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...1-tsac-USA.pdf

And the recommended question presented by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act forbids businesses engaged in sales to the public from denying service because of a customer’s sexual orientation. The question presented is whether the First Amendment grants a retail bakery the right to violate this equal service requirement by refusing to sell a wedding cake of any kind to any same-sex couple.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...111bs-ccrc.pdf

And the recommended questions presented by the gay couple:

1. Whether the Free Speech Clause permits a business to discriminate in making sales to the public in violation of a regulation of commercial conduct that does not target speech?

2. Whether the Free Exercise Clause permits a business to discriminate in making sales to the public in violation of a state law that is neutral and generally applicable?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...-cc-and-dm.pdf

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

SCOTUSblog typically writes the issue exactly as its been presented by the Supreme Court. And if it doesn't write the question verbatim, its written in layman's terms that accurately reflects what the Court is asking. Its actually a very favorable site and the Supreme Court has recognized the site and its writers for their excellent work. It is the go-to site for Supreme Court issues and is pretty darn neutral.

What you cited to is a brief for the United States. The part of your statement that is in bold is not the question presented by the Court. The question presented by the Court is what is on the SCOTUSblog site. Each party to the case will write their own "question presented," but the Supreme Court actually chooses the question presented.

Here is the recommended question presented by the United States:

All that if fine and good, but you seem to be correcting yourself without acknowledging your original flaw.


Your first quote from SCOTUS blog is not the same as the actual question posed in the PDF of the case.

SCOTUS blog puts religion first where as the Brief states that Religion is the basis(inspiration) for the creation itself.


there is a gigantic difference between the 2.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

All that if fine and good, but you seem to be correcting yourself without acknowledging your original flaw.


Your first quote from SCOTUS blog is not the same as the actual question posed in the PDF of the case.

SCOTUS blog puts religion first where as the Brief states that Religion is the basis(inspiration) for the creation itself.


there is a gigantic difference between the 2.

No, you are pointing out distinctions without meaningful differences. Indeed, the question presented on the SCOTUSblog site (which is the question presented) is identical in scope to the question recommended to be presented by the couple and the United States. In fact, the recommended question to be presented by the couple, while broken up into two separate questions, asks the free speech question first and then the free exercise question next, which is exactly what the SCOTUSblog question asks. Whereas the actual recommended question presented by the United States only touches on religion.

Your flaw is that what you quoted to in no way, shape or form purports to be the question presented. You focus in on a point made by the United States in its brief, which represents part of the United States' position in the matter. But, note, the United States is not an actual party to this case; this is a case against the Colorado Human Rights Commission and the baker. The U.S. is free to make any argument that it wants, but that does not mean that it is representing the question the SCOTUS has raised in the case.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

Yeah, I suppose they were looking for a fight, because they could have used that as a permissible excuse -- an excuse that underscores why it wasn't "refusal of service" as that term is used in a public accommodation context. Unlike everyone else commenting in this thread, I looked up the operative statute and posted a link, and the court clearly misconstrued the law.

It is a "public accommodation" statute. One of the rationales for allowing anti-discrimination laws in a "public accommodations" context is that the concern you raised in your second paragraph isn't implicated. If you've got cookies ready-made and ready to sell, it's a relatively small imposition if you're required to sell them to people you'd rather not do business with. But it's a huge imposition if the government says you can't say no to someone who wants you to do something special for them. Where does it end? Why should you have to prove that you're too busy or whatever? Your body, your choice. This is why the "involuntary servitude" argument is legitimate.

They were not asking for a special service, they were asking for a service that the baker chose to offer. The statute includes goods and services so not only ready made goods but also any services offered by a business.

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:
(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

No, you are pointing out distinctions without meaningful differences. Indeed, the question presented on the SCOTUSblog site (which is the question presented) is identical in scope to the question recommended to be presented by the couple and the United States. In fact, the recommended question to be presented by the couple, while broken up into two separate questions, asks the free speech question first and then the free exercise question next, which is exactly what the SCOTUSblog question asks. Whereas the actual recommended question presented by the United States only touches on religion.

Your flaw is that what you quoted to in no way, shape or form purports to be the question presented. You focus in on a point made by the United States in its brief, which represents part of the United States' position in the matter. But, note, the United States is not an actual party to this case; this is a case against the Colorado Human Rights Commission and the baker. The U.S. is free to make any argument that it wants, but that does not mean that it is representing the question the SCOTUS has raised in the case.

Your opinion is that it is a distinction without a difference, I disagree, and so does scotus. if they didnt, they would have rejected this case just like they did all the others.

In the case of the Photographer in New Mexico, she was actually being forced to participate in the wedding by being there.

Mr. Phillip(while saying he wants to attend the weddings) wasnt being forced to go to perform his job.

I fthe case was a simple as you claimed, it would have been rejected.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your opinion is that it is a distinction without a difference, I disagree, and so does scotus. if they didnt, they would have rejected this case just like they did all the others.

In the case of the Photographer in New Mexico, she was actually being forced to participate in the wedding by being there.

Mr. Phillip(while saying he wants to attend the weddings) wasnt being forced to go to perform his job.

I fthe case was a simple as you claimed, it would have been rejected.

Again, you cannot look at a denial by the Supreme Court (which only grants 80 or so cases at year out of nearly 10,000 requests for certiorari if I recall correctly) as an indication of where SCOTUS stands. Particularly for this and similar issues, where there really hasn't been a circuit split, which is one of the main reasons why SCOTUS traditionally takes up a case.

And, no, the Supreme Court takes "simple" cases all the time, ruling 9-0 on an issue; over a third of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously every year actually. And the Supreme Court affirms cases and overturns cases. It has even affirmed cases where there is no circuit split just to create a single, national standard on an issue. Likewise, it has reversed where there was no circuit split either. You're expressing a fundamental misunderstanding of why/how the Supreme Court operates.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Again, you cannot look at a denial by the Supreme Court (which only grants 80 or so cases at year out of nearly 10,000 requests for certiorari if I recall correctly) as an indication of where SCOTUS stands. Particularly for this and similar issues, where there really hasn't been a circuit split, which is one of the main reasons why SCOTUS traditionally takes up a case.

How exactly is the Colorado case a split circuit LOL ?????

And, no, the Supreme Court takes "simple" cases all the time, ruling 9-0 on an issue; over a third of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously every year actually. And the Supreme Court affirms cases and overturns cases.

Flawed logic.

You called 9-0 "simple", not I.

My use of the term simply had to do with whether or no the court believed the scope of the case warranted an intervention either way.

It has even affirmed cases where there is no circuit split just to create a single, national standard on an issue. Likewise, it has reversed where there was no circuit split either. You're expressing a fundamental misunderstanding of why/how the Supreme Court operates.

I have never argued otherwise on any of that... Other than the last line of course.

If you want to argue that every case is different because of the circumstances, im fine with that, but earlier you tried to say the opposite with 3 cases which are all clearly different than Colorado or Oregon.

My argument is based on the Court rejecting 10+ cases of Religious based discrimination cases that involve public accommodations. In those cases, the Court would have clearly taken them up if they felt the lower court got it wrong, which is exactly where you fundamental misunderstand the Court.

The supreme court has never once rejected a case where they felt the ruling was wrong.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

How exactly is the Colorado case a split circuit LOL ?????



Flawed logic.

You called 9-0 "simple", not I.

My use of the term simply had to do with whether or no the court believed the scope of the case warranted an intervention either way.



I have never argued otherwise on any of that... Other than the last line of course.

If you want to argue that every case is different because of the circumstances, im fine with that, but earlier you tried to say the opposite with 3 cases which are all clearly different than Colorado or Oregon.

My argument is based on the Court rejecting 10+ cases of Religious based discrimination cases that involve public accommodations. In those cases, the Court would have clearly taken them up if they felt the lower court got it wrong, which is exactly where you fundamental misunderstand the Court.

The supreme court has never once rejected a case where they felt the ruling was wrong.

LOL Who said the Colorado case was a split circuit? Not I. I explicitly stated that we are not dealing with a split circuit here. Or even a split in case law period on this issue.

Yes, I called 9-0 cases simple just as an example of such cases that the Court decides each year. And they generally are, especially as far as Supreme Court cases go. The complex cases are usually the more contentious cases where there is less agreement on how to interpret the law; hence, in these cases, we'll have a split court.

And I acknowledge that cases have different circumstances and factual situations. Fundamentally, however, even cases with different facts and circumstances can hit at a central theme (in this case, the power of government to compel someone to do something against their sincerely held religious beliefs). That's all I argue. Its not really controversial.

And the Supreme Court has never once rejected a case where they felt the ruling was wrong (this is just nonsense now)? Are you in the justice conference room when they decide to reject the OVERWHELMING majority of the cases that are brought before them each year??? That's the thing. You can't make such assumptions. From a pure caseload perspective, it wouldn't be feasible for the Supreme Court to hear every single appeal that comes to its door. Nor would it be "necessary" to do so. But one can think of a number of reasons why the Supreme Court will not hear certain cases that some justices believe that lower courts got wrong.