RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 7100
In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court gave a boost to advocates of religious freedom on Monday, ruling that a Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, in a case that involved marriage equality and protection from discrimination.

But the opinion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might decide future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who have cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2015 same-sex marriage decision.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ke-n872946


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325
GLAAD has a new Twitter campaign out, #DropTheFWord, to signify that these stories are not about religious freedom but religious exemption.

Also, there have been a few statements out this morning from the ACLU, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Human Rights Commission, etc., emphasizing that this was a narrow ruling, meaning that the decision was narrow, not the vote count.

The take is that the Colorado Commission stepped on its d*** by calling out the bakery as homophobic and religious bigots, and that this was a case-specific i.e. narrow ruling. The other, larger analysis is that this was a setback in the sense that the SCOTUS failed to uphold LGBTQ equal rights.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16040
The Colorado court rightly had a hostile attitude toward this asshole. Reckon if it would be a violation of his free expression and his art if he were ordered to create a work for the wedding of a black man and a white woman?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
7 to 2 and they made sure it was obvious this case does not set a precedent for any cases other than for religous liberty.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10380
It sounds like it was overturned on the basis that the previous court was not fair. This means that nothing has changed insofar as setting president, other than this Colorado baker doesn't have to pay his judgment.

Basically it's a push.


I went to a same sex wedding some years ago when this issue was new. They had a cake and I didn't have to figure out how to ask about under what terms was it baked. The person who baked the cake was there and was thrilled to have been asked to bake the cake.

Had it been baked under adverse terms I wouldn't have eaten a slice of it. I would have taken a slice and somehow have managed to set it down, have lost it quite accidentally you know.

I learned a long time ago don't eat something cooked by someone who is at odd with you. I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to buy a wedding cake baked by anyone who was not thrilled to bake it for them. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:21 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325
It sounds like it was overturned on the basis that the previous court was not fair. This means that nothing has changed insofar as setting president, other than this Colorado baker doesn't have to pay his judgment.

Basically it's a push.


I went to a same sex wedding some years ago when this issue was new. They had a cake and I didn't have to figure out how to ask about under what terms was it baked. The person who baked the cake was there and was thrilled to have been asked to bake the cake.

Had it been baked under adverse terms I wouldn't have eaten a slice of it. I would have taken a slice and somehow have managed to set it down, have lost it quite accidentally you know.

I learned a long time ago don't eat something cooked by someone who is at odd with you. I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to buy a wedding cake baked by anyone who was not thrilled to bake it for them. :|


:problem:

Do you think all those kids sitting at Woolworths were there for the mouthwatering hamburgers and fresh delicious coffee served up by people just brimming with bright enthusiasm?

It's not about purchasing and eating cakes made by people who can't stand us in their precious private businesses or who are too good for our fabulous munny.

It's about equal treatment under the law. Hetero couples don't have to deal with this, and the last time they did, legally anyway, was in 1967 and even that was about interracial marriage, not sexuality.

It's barely been three years since our marriages have been legal in our country as a whole.

Think about that.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Last edited by carmenjonze on Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:25 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325
7 to 2 and they made sure it was obvious this case does not set a precedent for any cases other than for religous liberty.


Not quite. It does not set a precedent for any cases including so-called "religious liberty." So your pals can stop dusting off those white/colored signs and put them away; they're not going up again any time soon.

"Religious liberty" just means the same old violent, vengeful, self-loathing bigots get to kick around whomever they want, anyway.

They sure as heck don't believe in "religious liberty" for Muslims or religious LGBTQs, for instance.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:57 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10380

:problem:

Do you think all those kids sitting at Woolworths were there for the mouthwatering hamburgers and fresh delicious coffee served up by people just brimming with bright enthusiasm?

It's not about purchasing and eating cakes made by people who can't stand us in their precious private businesses or who are too good for our fabulous munny.

It's about equal treatment under the law. Hetero couples don't have to deal with this, and the last time they did, legally anyway, was in 1967 and even that was about interracial marriage, not sexuality.

It's barely been three years since our marriages have been legal in our country as a whole.

Think about that.


I get all of that Carmen and I agree with you. I'm not on the wrong side of this.


But on personal side I don't want to eat someones boogers or spit. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:11 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325

I get all of that Carmen and I agree with you. I'm not on the wrong side of this.


But on personal side I don't want to eat someones boogers or spit. :|


It's not about cake or eating cake or buying cake where "you're not wanted". How many billions of times have basically every minority in the country heard that - some of us are still told that many times over.

And despite the "narrowness" of the ruling, the SCOTUS still decided to take it to placate this dumb bigot's snowflake feelings. :roll:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:13 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325
Honestly, I hope there's another one of these so-called "religious liberty"/religious exemption/special-rights-for-christian-whites cases.

Now every joe who hates gays can wrap themselves in Bible verses and claim religious belief when the're they biggest sinners in town; watch 'em try. :problem:

I want these people with these supposed "strongly-held beliefs" to mop themselves into a corner trying to prove it to a court.

dumb bigots

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:40 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10380
Honestly, I hope there's another one of these so-called "religious liberty"/religious exemption/special-rights-for-christian-whites cases.

Now every joe who hates gays can wrap themselves in Bible verses and claim religious belief when the're they biggest sinners in town; watch 'em try. :problem:

I want these people with these supposed "strongly-held beliefs" to mop themselves into a corner trying to prove it to a court.

dumb bigots


I didn't click on it, but I did see something about a case in the works today in that headline. A case involving a wedding florist from somewhere.

Other than broccoli and cauliflower I generally don't eat flowers at a wedding so that case won't have a side of boogers and spit to concern me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:10 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325
It's not really about the goods and services. Businesses open to the public have to serve the public, regardless of the goods or services offered. Conservative Christians think they get to pick and choose based on their supremacist hatreds and based on their perceptions. They are mistaken.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:26 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16040
Honestly, I hope there's another one of these so-called "religious liberty"/religious exemption/special-rights-for-christian-whites cases.

Now every joe who hates gays can wrap themselves in Bible verses and claim religious belief when the're they biggest sinners in town; watch 'em try. :problem:

I want these people with these supposed "strongly-held beliefs" to mop themselves into a corner trying to prove it to a court.

dumb bigots


As the Annville, Pennsylvania restaurant owner said to some college students who walked into his place the day after the election...

"Niggers get out. Trump is president and I can do what I want."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:02 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16040
It's not really about the goods and services. Businesses open to the public have to serve the public, regardless of the goods or services offered. Conservative Christians think they get to pick and choose based on their supremacist hatreds and based on their perceptions. They are mistaken.


The news is not talking about the actual reason for the decision in this case. Nobody's talking about it. It has nothing to do with free expression or religious freedom. The decision by 7 of the justices was made because they were of the opinion that the judge in the Colorado case was hostile to the baker and to his religion and that he did not get a fair trial. Of course conservatives and confederates are going to spin this as a win for religious freedom and freedom of expression. But it isn't.

Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented. I don't know what was specifically stated in the dissent, but I'm pretty sure I know what they were thinking. They were thinking that this asshole baker, or some asshole county clerk from Kentucky, cannot deny service to gays, or to mixed race couples or to anybody else based on his fucked-up interpretation of the bible or some fucking delusional "god's law" bullshit. Sotomayor and Ginsburg don't give a shit in Roger B. Taney's racist hat for the lower court judge's bad attitude. They see their job as making the law right, not just reversing iffy lower court decisions...and they dissented because it's not OK for asshole bakers, or asshole restaurant managers (see above) to deny service to anybody.

There will be another case...and the asshole baker is going to lose.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:48 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325

As the Annville, Pennsylvania restaurant owner said to some college students who walked into his place the day after the election...

"Niggers get out. Trump is president and I can do what I want."


Haha, God's Favorite Triggered Snowflakes just want their safe whites-only/whites-rule space, boo hoo.

Plus, that white konservative klown isn't serious. We can tell because a lot like Milo and Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter and the rest of those propagandists N-E-V-E-R take their traveling circus to 1- community colleges or 2- HBCUs, that guy will never, EVER, go down to the local hood or barrio and stand on the corner and make that claim.

These guys haven't gotten the memo yet: that's the best they've got, AND it goes right up on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Periscope, etc.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:00 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325

The news is not talking about the actual reason for the decision in this case. Nobody's talking about it. It has nothing to do with free expression or religious freedom. The decision by 7 of the justices was made because they were of the opinion that the judge in the Colorado case was hostile to the baker and to his religion and that he did not get a fair trial. Of course conservatives and confederates are going to spin this as a win for religious freedom and freedom of expression. But it isn't.

Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented. I don't know what was specifically stated in the dissent, but I'm pretty sure I know what they were thinking. They were thinking that this asshole baker, or some asshole county clerk from Kentucky, cannot deny service to gays, or to mixed race couples or to anybody else based on his fucked-up interpretation of the bible or some fucking delusional "god's law" bullshit. Sotomayor and Ginsburg don't give a shit in Roger B. Taney's racist hat for the lower court judge's bad attitude. They see their job as making the law right, not just reversing iffy lower court decisions...and they dissented because it's not OK for asshole bakers, or asshole restaurant managers (see above) to deny service to anybody.

There will be another case...and the asshole baker is going to lose.


Yeah the national LGBTQ legal and advocacy groups like Lambda Legal, HRC, NCLR, Trevor Project, PFLAG, etc., and of course the ACLU, were all over it like white on rice yesterday morning. Press releases, videos, blog posts, official statements...social media people have been primed for this for days. Plus, all the lawyers basically know each other, anyway.

But yeah, this ruling was just really stupid. Too bad the SCOTUS is more concerned about the delicate sentiments of conservative white snowflakes than the people whose rights were actually, actively usurped. :problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:09 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8180
Location: miles from nowhere
they stipulated that the case wouldn't set a precedent? bullshit. you can bet your ass that there will be far more test cases regarding this crap. each and every one will be based upon religion as this one was. the rationale regarding hostility of the judge in the lower court is crap. the seven justices that went along with that gag are either naive as hell which is highly unlikely or they just don't give a crap. yes, I would not be surprised if there are analysts who would back up that bullshit position but the reality is that this opened the door for denial of service for anyone no matter the circumstances. and along with that who has the money, time and willingness to fight a religion based denial of service.

congrats to the scotus who got this completely wrong.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:21 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1057
There will be another case...and the asshole baker is going to lose.
Yep...or some baker, or photographer, or writer, or artist like him...or like you and I.

Seems like the different sides of Court were looking at different issues. Sotomayer and Ginsberg focused on: no, a public facility can not discriminate. Some of the more rightwing members of the Court (maybe Gorsuch, maybe Thomas) were probably thinking: yes you can discriminate if you want. But overall the decision seems to be saying that Americans have various rights....freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, etc. And that courts have to balance all of these. The courts in Colorado, they decided, didn't. So this baker got a pass, apparently because of that. The court is always letting people off on technicalities. Depending on the issue sometimes we like it, sometimes we don't.

Everybody is pretty clear that there will be more cases to test this issue and figure out where the line is appropriately drawn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16040
Yep...or some baker, or photographer, or writer, or artist like him...or like you and I.

Seems like the different sides of Court were looking at different issues. Sotomayer and Ginsberg focused on: no, a public facility can not discriminate. Some of the more rightwing members of the Court (maybe Gorsuch, maybe Thomas) were probably thinking: yes you can discriminate if you want. But overall the decision seems to be saying that Americans have various rights....freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, etc. And that courts have to balance all of these. The courts in Colorado, they decided, didn't. So this baker got a pass, apparently because of that. The court is always letting people off on technicalities. Depending on the issue sometimes we like it, sometimes we don't.

Everybody is pretty clear that there will be more cases to test this issue and figure out where the line is appropriately drawn.


So what do you think of Breyer and Kagan voting with the cons? As you posted, sometimes we like it, sometimes we don't, depending on the issue. But do we think it's the job of the high court to remedy every iffy bad attitude of every judge on every case that shows up on their schedule? Or is it the high court's job to make sure the law is right. It's too bad it happened in this case as it was a new approach...freedom of expression by some asshole cake "artist" :roll: , as opposed to religious freedom vs equal access. If the Colorado judge hadn't "misbehaved" how would the cons and the semi-con on the court have opined? Oh well...next time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:55 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1057
My guess is that they voted with the "there are multiple sides to our rights" rather than the 'its ok to discriminate' position.

And yes, the high courts role is to remedy 'iffy' bad attitudes of the judicial branch (at least partially), rather than to simply 'make sure the law is right.' So may of the Supreme Court's decisions focus on the technicalities of legal decisions and actions. Their job is to make sure the law is legal, in keeping with the constitution, is properly, equally and fairly enforced and to balance competing interests in relations to the law. Had the Court overturned the Colorado decision, I'm sure it would have been based on equally and fairly enforcing laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325
My guess is that they voted with the "there are multiple sides to our rights" rather than the 'its ok to discriminate' position.

And yes, the high courts role is to remedy 'iffy' bad attitudes of the judicial branch (at least partially), rather than to simply 'make sure the law is right.' So may of the Supreme Court's decisions focus on the technicalities of legal decisions and actions. Their job is to make sure the law is legal, in keeping with the constitution, is properly, equally and fairly enforced and to balance competing interests in relations to the law. Had the Court overturned the Colorado decision, I'm sure it would have been based on equally and fairly enforcing laws.


What is equal and fair about this decision?

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:07 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16040

What is equal and fair about this decision?


Beats me. Everybody gets to be equally and fairly fucked over? It's a great country.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:43 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17325

Beats me. Everybody gets to be equally and fairly fucked over? It's a great country.


Well check this out. This is a really interesting take. For the queer religion nerds around here, anyway. :p

Supreme Court Ruling for Anti-Gay-Marriage Baker Could Spell Bad News for Trump’s Travel Ban - MJ

Quote:
“What the court says here is that where there is a claim of religious discrimination, that you do look at the statements of lawmakers to try to get at their motivation,” says Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the UCLA School of Law. “And that issue is a live one in the travel ban case.”

The two blockbuster cases this term were considered separate until Monday’s opinion, when Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to link them.
In fact, it is at the heart of the travel ban case, which the Supreme Court will decide sometime this month, although the government has argued that it shouldn’t be. In April, government lawyers urged the justices to disregard Trump’s prior statements, making the case that displays of animus toward a religious minority are not enough to prove a violation their First Amendment rights. Moreover, the government urged the justices to ignore Trump’s public comments and focus instead on the policy itself.

But in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court took the opposite view. Kennedy quoted a 1993 opinion from the late conservative justice Antonin Scalia arguing that when determining the constitutionality of a government action, the court should consider “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.”

Kennedy continued, “The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires.” In other words, if the commission had acted neutrally but reached the same conclusion, he may have ruled against the baker.


There were a couple analyses I saw yesterday that seemed to me to go way out on a limb trying to find the silver lining, given that the court didn't actually smack down LGBTQ equal rights. This take may be another. But it's a possibility.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 13173

Well check this out. This is a really interesting take. For the queer religion nerds around here, anyway. :p

Supreme Court Ruling for Anti-Gay-Marriage Baker Could Spell Bad News for Trump’s Travel Ban - MJ



There were a couple analyses I saw yesterday that seemed to me to go way out on a limb trying to find the silver lining, given that the court didn't actually smack down LGBTQ equal rights. This take may be another. But it's a possibility.

God that would be awesome. Personally I wish 50 million Muslims and gay people and POC would storm the border, peacefully that is, and come into the country and...that is never gonna happen so forget it I guess.

I cant decide, either NOBODY should come here again until the NAZIS are out, or EVERYBODY should come here and overpower the NAZIS.

_________________
I dont criticize other liberals, even when I disagree with them. United fronts work better! But that is just me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1057
What is equal and fair about this decision?
I would say it was not fair or equal....certainly not as it relates to providing services on a fair and equal basis to all people. The decision in the end, I believe, instead focused on the issue of whether competing claims/rights need to be evaluated.

Unfortunately, so often Courts don't deal with the real issue at hand...instead they focus on some technicality. But that's how attorneys often present the case. Sometimes murders get off because they weren't questioned properly, the initial lead came from a 'tainted' source, or a trial/prosecution technicality.

So they didn't deal with the real societal issue of discrimination. They just let it pass...which in in this case, essentially, continues to permit it.


Last edited by Viewer on Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group