OK, so I'm going to backtrack a little. Read Justice Kagan's concurring statement (with Breyer also in support), about one-third of the way down in this copy of the decision:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2018/06/04/supreme-court-ruling-in-colorado-bakers-case-read-decision.html

 

She points out that the same commission had reacted differently when someone, a William Jack who is probably a religious conservative seeking to grind an axe, asked three different bakers to make him cakes with anti-gay verbiage on them. The commission had upheld those bakers' rights to not make such cakes.

 

I'm going to take a hopeful view, and guess that the centrists on the court are looking for a less tainted case than this one, in order to make a lasting precedent on the merits of the subject, namely the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) itself.

Hate speech is not protected.

 

They could have written clear statements that it was discrimination, but they still side with the bakers door to process issues.

 

This will embolden bigots, bigots aren't known for nuance. And in the meantime, individuals will be discrimated against.

So let's see if I got this right.

 

Couple wants a wedding cake made. Cake guy refuses. Couple files complaint with commission against guy. Commission gets in cake guy's face. Cake guy sues commission. No one backs down. Supreme Court splits the baby in half, no one is happy.

 

The end.

parse it all you want, it allows **** to happen.

Unbiasedly parsing for fairness/truth is the essence of their jobs.

 

I may prefer to see state laws handle such cases differently, but I applaud the SCOTUS for staying true to their role. Not enough of our government is doing that.

 

Unbiasedly parsing for fairness/truth is the essence of their jobs.

I may prefer to see state laws handle such cases differently, but I applaud the SCOTUS for staying true to their role. Not enough of our government is doing that.

Agreed. And while my wife hasn't had time to read the entire decision, her initial take on it is that the decision was extremely narrow and doesn't impact much of anything outside this singular case (apparently Thomas, in his typical role of trying to be the biggest ass on the court, wanted a broader decision).

 

There's a reason why the vote was 7-2. Half the liberal judges didn't suddenly lose their moral compass. There appears to be a lot more (or, maybe more accurately, less) to this decision than "bigotry is okay".

Election note—today is the California primary. Several vulnerable Republican seats could stay Republican because of the “jungle primary”, but statewide it is possible that Republicans could be locked out of both the Senate seat and the governorship.

Is the House Majority Leader's congressional seat up for grabs or will he be able to hold back whichever Democrat challenges him in November?

Edited June 5, 20188 yr by jimmer

Agreed. And while my wife hasn't had time to read the entire decision, her initial take on it is that the decision was extremely narrow and doesn't impact much of anything outside this singular case (apparently Thomas, in his typical role of trying to be the biggest ass on the court, wanted a broader decision).

 

There's a reason why the vote was 7-2. Half the liberal judges didn't suddenly lose their moral compass. There appears to be a lot more (or, maybe more accurately, less) to this decision than "bigotry is okay".

No one said it said that.... But does anyone here think bigots feel less empowered today? Do we think they are carefully parsing this decision?

No one said it said that.... But does anyone here think bigots feel less empowered today? Do we think they are carefully parsing this decision?

Sure, they probably spin this as a win.

 

But your comments seem to be toeing a line of abandoning the right way to do things in the name of appeasing personal politics. And that is as dangerous as anything I can imagine.

Edited June 5, 20188 yr by TheLeviathan

 

No one said it said that.... But does anyone here think bigots feel less empowered today? Do we think they are carefully parsing this decision?

It's not the court's responsibility to rule with the goal of preventing misinterpretations by stupid people, though. They should follow the law and do what the law requires them to do (and that's mostly what they do, IMO).

The court can find one way, but be more clear in their belief of what should have happened, or found a different way, and still been clear the commission was wrong.... You know, like in the minority opinion.

Edited June 5, 20188 yr by Mike Sixel

 

The court can find one way, but be more clear in their belief of what should have happened, or found a different way, and still been clear the commission was wrong.... You know, like in the minority opinion.

Well, the majority opinion (written by Kennedy, a moderate) had to fill the requirements of six justices while the minority opinion had to fill the requirements of only two.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter. The ruling was clear and narrow. You're arguing that people who want to misunderstand the intent of the ruling would somehow be swayed by different wording in the majority decision, which assumes that people who want to misinterpret something are going to dig deeper and read the ruling at all.

 

Lower courts judges will understand this ruling just fine and that's all that matters.

Well, the majority opinion (written by Kennedy, a moderate) had to fill the requirements of six justices while the minority opinion had to fill the requirements of only two.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter. The ruling was clear and narrow. You're arguing that people who want to misunderstand the intent of the ruling would somehow be swayed by different wording in the majority decision, which assumes that people who want to misinterpret something are going to dig deeper and read the ruling at all.

 

Lower courts judges will understand this ruling just fine and that's all that matters.

You clearly trust the lower courts more than I do .

 

And counties, and cities, and state representative. I predict more discriminatory laws, not less, will be coming. Or at least more looking the other way in some parts of the country.

 

This is a bad decision for equality.

 

You clearly trust the lower courts more than I do .

And counties, and cities, and state representative. I predict more discriminatory laws, not less, will be coming. Or at least more looking the other way in some parts of the country.

This is a bad decision for equality.

If a lower court judge makes a bad decision, it will be appealed immediately and a higher court judge (also likely a smarter judge) will rip it to shreds.

 

This isn't a bad decision for equality. Colorado f-ed up here and you should be blaming them for doing such a shoddy job investigating and ruling on this case, not the Supreme Court for calling them out for bad behavior.

http://www.foxnews.com/

 

You'll note today's Fox News website makes no mention of their incredibly clumsy and misleading use of pictures of Eagles football players kneeling (in prayer, not in protest) while reporting on Trumps "uninvite" to the White House.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/

 

You'll note today's Fox News website makes no mention of their incredibly clumsy and misleading use of pictures of Eagles football players kneeling (in prayer, not in protest) while reporting on Trumps "uninvite" to the White House.

 

And not during the anthem as no Eagles player once kneeled during the season. Malcom Jenkins for much of the year had one fist in the air, and Chris Long had his hand on his shoulder. That was the extent of their "protest".

Ellison is leaving the House? Why?

 

Ellison is leaving the House? Why?

 

I think he could probably make more of an impact as the state's AG, then as a Congressmen. Minnesota's AG is a rather high-profile position after the Castile foul up. 

Edited June 6, 20188 yr by PseudoSABR

 

 

If I get pulled over for being spotted on the radar doing 75 in a 55 zone, can I contest the ticket if the officer mentions, "I've been seeing more and more gray-haired guys thinking they own the road," as he hands me the paperwork?

 

 

Cops often target certain people for traffic violations but that group usually isn't gray-haired drivers.

Cops often target certain people for traffic violations but that group usually isn't gray-haired drivers.

That one bit was tongue in cheek. I certainly am not in any groups that feel especially targeted by law enforcement.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sd-state-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color/ar-AAygx1w?ocid=sf

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29552615?__twitter_impression=true

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29552615?__twitter_impression=true

Makes me want to buy a ball of twine at his hardware store, and then announce on my way out the door that my gay lover wants me to tie him up.

 

_{^{/ except someone will follow me home and light my very butch house on fire}}

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29552615?__twitter_impression=true

I think this kind of thing was inevitable in the quest for gay rights, sad as that may be to say.

 

This kind of buffoonery may actually expedite things legally.

 

I think this kind of thing was inevitable in the quest for gay rights, sad as that may be to say.

This kind of buffoonery may actually expedite things legally.

Yep, this kind of **** will expedite sexuality ultimately being considered a protected class in this country (as it should be).

 

So keep at it, dip****s.

That article has an odd date... I am not 100% sure it is legit. I will investigate later

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hardware-store-no-gays-allowed-sign/

I still haven't had a chance to read over the SCOTUS ruling, but the court I work for (Arizona Court of Appeals) issued a ruling that cites to the case in an encouraging manner.

 

Simply stated, if Appellants, as an economic entity, want to operate their for profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation. It bears repeating that Section 18 4( regulates conduct, not speech. Accordingly, the conduct at issue is not the creation of words or images but the conduct of selling or refusing to sell merchandise either pre fabricated or designed to order equally to same sex and opposite sex couples. This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech. Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in “a community wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., slip op. at 10.

 

Edited June 7, 20188 yr by PseudoSABR

That article has an odd date... I am not 100% sure it is legit. I will investigate later

Good catch. I flatter myself to think that my radar goes up when news concerning viewpoints I oppose seems "too good to be true" (think of most of the "Sarah Palin quotes" seen in the past decade), but I whiffed on that one.

 

I'll still go to his store and buy a [content redacted]. Hardware stores are just the best.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/29552615?__twitter_impression=true

I wonder how this guy would react if a business refused to serve Christians.