Supreme court rules in favor of colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Until a mind reading device is created sincerity can never absolutely be known. Such subjective variables should not be the bases for court rulings. 

Like it or not, courts form an opinion on the veracity of evidence every minute of every day. You have no choice, when two sides are giving opposite versions of the same event. 

It's not like it's a capital charge, where you have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. In a civil case, you are supposed to find for the more convincing case. 

[Ten oz]

43 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Like it or not, courts form an opinion on the veracity of evidence every minute of every day. You have no choice, when two sides are giving opposite versions of the same event. 

It's not like it's a capital charge, where you have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. In a civil case, you are supposed to find for the more convincing case. 

Courts form an opinion based on Law. What law states is and should be the singular factor considered. Any time a Court deviates from that it trouble in my opinion. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Ten oz

[mistermack]

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Courts form an opinion based on Law. What law states is and should be the singular factor considered. Any time a Court deviates from that it trouble in my opinion. 

You won't find many cases so simplistic or black-and-white in real life. As I said, courts are constantly having to evaluate who is telling the truth, and who is feeding them a story. There is no third option in civil cases. They have to find for one party, or the other. 

In the case of the cake, one side is going to bang on about how shattered and humiliated they feel, by being refused the cake of their dreams. The other side will drone on about how they believe every word of the bible and how their souls will go to hell if they bake it. One side or both could be lying, and it's almost a certainty that both will be exaggerating. And the court is stuck in the middle, trying to sort out fact from fiction.

That's why, if I was the judge, I would try to get a handle on the sincerity of the complainant. Did they deliberately choose a baker who they knew would be likely to refuse, did they go for the most provocative text on the cake, etc. etc.  And if they did, they would lose, and I wouldn't be blaming any court who saw it the same way.

On the other hand, if it was clearly a case of wanton discrimination, in an unwarranted fashion, I would find for the customer.

Edited June 8, 2018 by mistermack

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You won't find many cases so simplistic or black-and-white in real life. As I said, courts are constantly having to evaluate who is telling the truth, and who is feeding them a story. There is no third option in civil cases. They have to find for one party, or the other. 

In the case of the cake, one side is going to bang on about how shattered and humiliated they feel, by being refused the cake of their dreams. The other side will drone on about how they believe every word of the bible and how their souls will go to hell if they bake it. One side or both could be lying, and it's almost a certainty that both will be exaggerating. And the court is stuck in the middle, trying to sort out fact from fiction.

That's why, if I was the judge, I would try to get a handle on the sincerity of the complainant. Did they deliberately choose a baker who they knew would be likely to refuse, did they go for the most provocative text on the cake, etc. etc.  And if they did, they would lose, and I wouldn't be blaming any court who saw it the same way.

On the other hand, if it was clearly a case of wanton discrimination, in an unwarranted fashion, I would find for the customer.

Actually most all cases including this one are that black and white. Sincerity had nothing to do with SCOTUS ruling. The Court ruled against a previous 2012 Commissions position regarding CO's Public Accommodations Law. The bigger questions regarding religious expression weren't addressed. So this issue actually isn't resolved. Local laws simply need to be written more clearly.

Quote

 

While journalists and analysts believed that the Court would make a landmark decision in the case, the Court instead ruled on more narrow grounds, ruling (in a 7-2 decision) that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise. The Court reversed the Commission's decision, and avoided ruling on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

 

 

[mistermack]

Appeal court ruling usually are on fine legal points. That's the nature of an appeal. 

 

[CharonY]

39 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You won't find many cases so simplistic or black-and-white in real life. As I said, courts are constantly having to evaluate who is telling the truth, and who is feeding them a story. There is no third option in civil cases. They have to find for one party, or the other. 

The job of the court is not truth-finding, especially not if it does not pertain to the case. Specifically, assuming the plaintiff chose that particular baker for its views does it really matter if they reject them? Either the discrimination laws are applicable, or they are not. This is what the court should be testing. The lower court said that it is, and the Supreme Court through it out mostly because the procedure was faulty. Whether they deliberately targeted that particular baker has AFAIK nothing to do with it.

[mistermack]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The job of the court is not truth-finding, especially not if it does not pertain to the case. Specifically, assuming the plaintiff chose that particular baker for its views does it really matter if they reject them? Either the discrimination laws are applicable, or they are not. This is what the court should be testing. The lower court said that it is, and the Supreme Court through it out mostly because the procedure was faulty. Whether they deliberately targeted that particular baker has AFAIK nothing to do with it.

I would disagree. If it's obvious to the baker that he's being targeted for political reasons, then he can claim that he's not refusing on grounds of sexual orientation, but on grounds of feeling that he's being deliberately targeted and provoked and used as a political tool. 

If I were a judge, I would find that argument valid, if the evidence made it clear that that is what was happening. Of course, it would then depend on what grounds the baker made his argument.  If he was prepared to bake a cake with a traditional kind of wedding message for a gay couple, but not one that had a militant gay message, then I would say that the baker could win.

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would disagree. If it's obvious to the baker that he's being targeted for political reasons, then he can claim that he's not refusing on grounds of sexual orientation, but on grounds of feeling that he's being deliberately targeted and provoked and used as a political tool. 

That does not make sense at all. First of all the defendant claimed first amendment rights as grounds for refusal, not somehow being targeted (i.e. it clearly has no legal bearing), second of all what legal grounds would could there possibly be to refuse service because somehow you feel targeted?  And again, unless you are targeted by government entities, how would that matter for the legal standing? Rather, precedence have been the opposite, many SCOTUS rulings have been pushed to set legal precedence and as such is political in nature. The way you describe how you would be ruling does not seem to be how the US legal system works.

I.e. what you advocate seems like a complete rework of how legal proceedings are handled. To get back on topic, the ruling of this particular case is essentially that a) the cakeshop owner did not receive a fair tribunal hearing and therefore overturned the ruling but also b) limited the decision to the particulars of this case and c) upheld the principles that business owners cannot discriminate against protected individuals.

Edited June 8, 2018 by CharonY

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That does not make sense at all. First of all the defendant claimed first amendment rights as grounds for refusal, not somehow being targeted (i.e. it clearly has no legal bearing), second of all what legal grounds would could there possibly be to refuse service because somehow you feel targeted?  And again, unless you are targeted by government entities, how would that matter for the legal standing? Rather, precedence have been the opposite, many SCOTUS rulings have been pushed to set legal precedence and as such is political in nature. The way you describe how you would be ruling does not seem to be how the US legal system works.

The point is that you can refuse to serve anyone if you don't like their attitude. That's not discrimination. That's why I said it would depend on how the baker framed his defence. It's perfectly legal to refuse service, if someone is trying to cause you trouble. But not just on their sexual orientation. If the baker just said I don't serve gays, then he wouldn't have much of an argument.

[CharonY]

That is at best weird conjecture and has no application in this ruling. Is there any evidence that the pair did anything but request a regular wedding cake? Where they disruptive in any way? There is no indication that they were or that being disruptive was the reason they were denied service.

Quote

If the baker just said I don't serve gays, then he wouldn't have much of an argument.

Funnily that is close to the argument of the defense. While they did not say that they flat out deny service, their argument was that they would non express messages that were against his beliefs (which, are, in this case targeted at sexual orientation) and cited freedom of creative expression. At no point did the defense bring up being targeted or other willfulness by the plaintiff. So again, your argument does not make a lot sense.

Edited June 8, 2018 by CharonY

[mistermack]

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is at best weird conjecture and has no application in this ruling. Is there any evidence that the pair did anything but request a regular wedding cake? Where they disruptive in any way? There is no indication that they were or that being disruptive was the reason they were denied service.

Funnily that is close to the argument of the defense. While they did not say that they flat out deny service, their argument was that they would non express messages that were against his beliefs (which, are, in this case targeted at sexual orientation) and cited freedom of creative expression. At no point did the defense bring up being targeted or other willfulness by the plaintiff. So again, your argument does not make a lot sense.

Not to this particular case, but I wasn't commenting on this case, but on the general principle. In my first post, I said that if I was the judge, and it looked like the baker was being targeted for political purposes, I would be inclined to find for the baker. This case already has mileage on it, and positions have already been taken. Like I said, if the baker made it clear he was just discriminating on sexual preference, he wouldn't stand much chance. Their best response, in my opinion, would be to make it clear that they were willing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, so long as it had a traditional and non-controversial message on it.  

Would a committed republican be forced to bake a cake with a rabidly democrat message on it?

Edited June 8, 2018 by mistermack

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Not to this particular case, but I wasn't commenting on this case, but on the general principle. In my first post, I said that if I was the judge, and it looked like the baker was being targeted for political purposes, I would be inclined to find for the baker. This case already has mileage on it, and positions have already been taken. Like I said, if the baker made it clear he was just discriminating on sexual preference, he would stand much chance. Their best response, in my opinion, would be to make it clear that they were willing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, so long as it had a traditional and non-controversial message on it.  

 

There's an explicit contract between a shop owner and his/her customers, 'this is what I sell, you are welcome to buy it'.

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Would a committed republican be forced to bake a cake with a rabidly democrat message on it?

That's a strawman argument; if a baker sells wedding cakes with a lovey-dovey message, the content of that message is not his/hers to decide, if it's lovey-dovey.

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Not to this particular case, but I wasn't commenting on this case, but on the general principle. In my first post, I said that if I was the judge, and it looked like the baker was being targeted for political purposes

That still would not be your job as a judge. Rather the judge (or jury) has to hear the arguments. I.e. if the defendant claims that service was denied because of e.g. harassment then both can present their respective evidence and arguments and the judge rules on that basis. It is not their job to figure out what the real reason was for a complaint but on the matter presented. And that specific situation as virtually no bearing on the case being discussed, so why bring it up in the first place?

[mistermack]

As I said before, In my first post, I never responded to the specifics of this case. Rather to an hypothetical case where it was clear that the case was manufactured to push a political point. Why bring it up? I think it's relevant.

In that kind of scenario, I think the baker would be able to argue that he's not discriminating on grounds of sexuality, but simply refusing to be used for political ends. 

If I was the baker they could have whatever they liked. And if I was gay getting married, I wouldn't want a cake from a baker who didn't want to bake it. But I don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There's an explicit contract between a shop owner and his/her customers, 'this is what I sell, you are welcome to buy it'

What about the Catholic Church? They offer a wedding service. Are gays welcome to buy it?

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

As I said before, In my first post, I never responded to the specifics of this case. Rather to an hypothetical case where it was clear that the case was manufactured to push a political point. Why bring it up? I think it's relevant.

In that kind of scenario, I think the baker would be able to argue that he's not discriminating on grounds of sexuality, but simply refusing to be used for political ends. 

If I was the baker they could have whatever they liked. And if I was gay getting married, I wouldn't want a cake from a baker who didn't want to bake it. But I don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

And that's the reason for:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers.aspx

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If I was the baker they could have whatever they liked. And if I was gay getting married, I wouldn't want a cake from a baker who didn't want to bake it. But I don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

I wouldn't either.The motives of the complainants seems to be purely one of principle. No artist is going to give you their best work if they are not happy with the commission.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What about the Catholic Church? They offer a wedding service. Are gays welcome to buy it?

It seems our definition of a shop is somewhat different.

[iNow]

Also, the church doesn't pay taxes and is generally exempt from most laws governing business

The amount of mental gymnastics and fictional narratives required to support the "this discrimination should be allowed to continue" argument highlights the weakness inherent in the position.

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It seems our definition of a shop is somewhat different.

So you would like all discrimination cases restricted to shops? I don't get that.

The church provides a service and money changes hands. Some gays have been paying in all their life to the church. 

[iNow]

Just now, mistermack said:

So you would like all discrimination cases restricted to shops? I don't get that.

Probably because it's a strawman and has nothing to do with dimreeprs point

[Ten oz]

Just now, mistermack said:

So you would like all discrimination cases restricted to shops? I don't get that.

The church provides a service and money changes hands. Some gays have been paying in all their life to the church. 

You don't seem to care much about law. A business must be licensed and registered as such. Likewise so must a Church. In the eyes of the Law the 2 are different.

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You don't seem to care much about law. A business must be licensed and registered as such. Likewise so must a Church. In the eyes of the Law the 2 are different.

That's nothing to be proud of.

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

That's nothing to be proud of.

It is fairly simple, actually. What Dimreepr is talking about is well defined under public accomodations, which includes stores, rentals, educational institutions etc. These public accomodations fall under the discrimination laws, which is actually also highlighted in the SCOTUS report, if you had read it. Under federal law specifically private clubs and religious organizations are exempt. 

[Ten oz]

Many Conservatives are up in arms over Sarah Huckabee Sanders being refused service at a Restaurant in Northern VA.  It seems hypocritical on their part considering the numerous arguments launched defending a businesses right to refuse service to members of the LGBTQ community. 

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Many Conservatives are up in arms over Sarah Huckabee Sanders being refused service at a Restaurant in Northern VA.  It seems hypocritical on their part considering the numerous arguments launched defending a businesses right to refuse service to members of the LGBTQ community. 

We're making progress if conservatives are launching instead of lynching. It wasn't that long ago....