• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How will the USSC rule on the Bakery vs the Gay wedding case?

How will the Supreme Court rule on the Bakery vs Gay wedding case

  • The Supreme Court will uphold the lower court ruling

    Votes: 10 30.3%

  • The Supreme Court will overturn the ruling

    Votes: 10 30.3%

  • The Supreme Court will affirm part of the lower court ruling

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • The Supreme Court will find against the Bakery but reduce damages

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • The Supreme Court will remand the case on some other grounds

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Total voters
    33
Chomsky said:
Since Obama's order making LGBT a protected class still stands I believe, I think the SC will go with the gays.
Click to expand...

I dont believe that Obama did that. Gays are not a federally protected class, altho they are in some states.
 
HonestJoe said:
That isn’t the legal argument being made though. The bakery aren’t saying any business should be free to refuse any service, only that religious business owners should be free to refuse service if they say it goes against their faith.

The problem is that they’re only thinking about Christians refusing the provide service for same-sex weddings but the logical precedent being set is that literally any law or regulation that applies to businesses is open to be ignored by any business owner who claims it goes against their religious beliefs. Of course, if anyone else tried to take advantage of that in a way they disapproved of, they’d quickly be making all sorts of noise about it.
Click to expand...
Which is why I think the bakery will lose. They're attempting to make the religious exemption too wide. I'm thinking the cake-making will not be found to be a matter of religious practice.
 
Lursa said:
Yes, they are discriminating against gay people marrying. Something that all straight people have a right to do.
Click to expand...

But a homosexual who wants a cake for a non homosexual marriage purpose would be served by the bakers in this case.

I mean change it to a cake celebrating a divorce and a catholic baker refusing to make it, discrimination against the purpose of the cake is not by necessity discrimination against the people
 
I don't see where there's a problem. Matter of fact this whole thing has gotten way out of hand but as usual the liberals and Demos blows everything out of proportion.
 
Lursa said:
Smart. It will read well in court. I wonder how it would have played when the courts decided Loving? There were religious reasons brought for that too.
Click to expand...

Well, Loving was entirely dissimilar. Loving was about the state not allowing people to enter into a marriage, i.e., the state preventing two people from doing what they want to do. If there was a religious component, it would be the state "establishing" a religion in law, which is prohibited. This would be about the state forcing someone into a contract they don't want to be in, and the religious component being the free exercise thereof, which is protected. So, pretty much the polar opposite.
 
Chomsky said:
Which is why I think the bakery will lose. They're attempting to make the religious exemption too wide. I'm thinking the cake-making will not be found to be a matter of religious practice.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be. There are other First Amendment issues, such as free expression and compelled speech.
 
Chomsky said:
Since Obama's order making LGBT a protected class still stands I believe, I think the SC will go with the gays.
Click to expand...

The President doesn't have any authority to do that.
 
Harshaw said:
It doesn't have to be. There are other First Amendment issues, such as free expression and compelled speech.
Click to expand...
That’s not an aspect of this case though, it’s only about a religious exception. The kind of argument you’re talking about wouldn’t just be about an exemption but entirely invalidating all equal rights legislation, at least in relation to private businesses, and not even the supporters in this case want that (because those laws protect them too).
 
I would hope that the SCOTUS will assert one can conscientiously object to violating their personal religious beliefs without being treated as a criminal. If one can refuse military (draft) service based on their personal religious belief, and thus force another to risk their very life in order to take their place, then surly one can refuse to take part in an activity which they personally find "sinful" without legal (criminal?) consequences.
 
HonestJoe said:
That’s not an aspect of this case though, it’s only about a religious exception.
Click to expand...

That's not correct at all. Artistic expression is something the baker has claimed all along. And even if it weren't, it's an obvious issue which can be argued at bar, and it's also something the Justices can take up entirely on their own, as they are often wont to do. The case is about whatever Justices say it's about.

The kind of argument you’re talking about wouldn’t just be about an exemption but entirely invalidating all equal rights legislation
Click to expand...

"Exemption" to what?

You seem to think that the First Amendment is some kind of exception to law, and that said exception has to be justified. You actually have it backwards. It's law, any law, which must be justified against the First Amendment. What you're actually arguing for is an exemption from the First Amendment for the sake of "equal rights legislation."

It's not the First Amendment which should lose. It's legislation that runs afoul of the First Amendment which should. That is, if the Bill of Rights means anything.

Keep in mind what Justice Kennedy wrote in the Obergefell decision which legalized same-sax marriage:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
Click to expand...
 
Why guess and not just wait it out? Of course most of us hope one way or another, depending on personal opinion leading the interpretation of law.
 
Redress said:
It is truly a coin flip. There are legal arguments that can be made on both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...

What? Legitimately legal arguments both ways? Poppycock! If they side with the bakery it’s clearly only because they hate gays and don’t want to give gays the inherent rights they have because they’re gay hating bigots! And if they side with the couple it’s clearly only because their heathenist activist judges creating law out of thin air with no legal standing what so ever!

Get with the program Redress, they either side with you or they are doing so for the most nefarious, wrong headed, and illogical reasons ever. Garsh!!!
 
lol...this has got to be the most expensive cake in history, if you include the legal fees. :lol:

My two cents: I hope the bakery gets nailed. Not because I begrudge their personal beliefs, but because I reject the notion that anyone should be refused service on something as arbitrary as what race or sexual preference you were born with. If they win this, especially in the current situation in America, it will set an incredibly dangerous precedent. Much easier / fairer to say if you run a business serving the public, you serve all of it, or GTFO.

The funny part of all of this, and where I lose sympathy for the bakery owners, is that if the store hadn't made it about the fact that it was a same sex marriage (and they did, no matter what desperate, BS "explanations" show up in opinion pieces), but rather found any other way to not do the damn cake (ex: what was that date again, oh sorry, I'm full up for that date, but here, try these guys, they usually have capacity), it wouldn't have escalated. But they decided they had the moral high ground and from their lofty perch they could judge others and make them feel less than. If it goes poorly for them, they have no one to blame but themselves.
 
Harshaw said:
That's not correct at all. Artistic expression is something the baker has claimed all along.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the media but not in any of the court papers. They’re not arguing for artists to be free to discriminate, they’re explicitly arguing for the religious to be free to discriminate. I’ve no doubt the Supreme Court could (and may well) rule on the wider principles but that isn’t the stated purpose of the bakers legal challenge.

Harshaw said:
"Exemption" to what?
Click to expand...
An exemption for religious business owners from obeying anti-discrimination regulations if they say they go against their faith.

Harshaw said:
It's not the First Amendment which should lose. It's legislation that runs afoul of the First Amendment which should. That is, if the Bill of Rights means anything.
Click to expand...
Again, they’re not challenging the legislation, only the fact it applies to them in this specific circumstance. If it had been a non-religious baker who had refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, we wouldn’t be discussing this.
You can try to make a free speech argument in the context of this issue but of you do you need to acknowledge that it would have a much wider scope than Christian bakers and same-sex marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
What? Legitimately legal arguments both ways? Poppycock! If they side with the bakery it’s clearly only because they hate gays and don’t want to give gays the inherent rights they have because they’re gay hating bigots! And if they side with the couple it’s clearly only because their heathenist activist judges creating law out of thin air with no legal standing what so ever!

Get with the program Redress, they either side with you or they are doing so for the most nefarious, wrong headed, and illogical reasons ever. Garsh!!!
Click to expand...

lol...I get your sarcasm, but it comes from a place that died like 10 years ago. :)

There's always at least two sides to a story, but only one way a judge can rule. It's always difficult and controversial when you try to ram a non-binary issue into the very binary, right / wrong world of the law.
 
HonestJoe said:
Maybe in the media but not in any of the court papers. They’re not arguing for artists to be free to discriminate, they’re explicitly arguing for the religious to be free to discriminate.
Click to expand...

None of this is correct. And no one's arguing to be "free to discriminate," at least not the way you're saying it -- that's your prejudicial spin on it.

Free speech issues have been part of the argument and rulings all along.

I’ve no doubt the Supreme Court could (and may well) rule on the wider principles but that isn’t the stated purpose of the bakers legal challenge.
Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps you should see, for example, the petitioner's Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari (to the CO supreme court), particularly section 1, starting on page three, entitled:

The Free Speech Issues Raised by the
Petition are Concrete and Pressing.
Click to expand...

Free speech issues have been a part of the case since the beginning.

An exemption for religious business owners from obeying anti-discrimination regulations if they say they go against their faith.
Click to expand...

No, it's not an "exemption." The First Amendment is not an "exemption." They are stating their First Amendment rights are being violated, on multiple fronts.

You really do seem to think the Bill of Rights is an "exception," rather than the rule.

You can try to make a free speech argument in the context of this issue but of you do you need to acknowledge that it would have a much wider scope than Christian bakers and same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

The free speech arguments are already there. And yeah, it may well have a much wider scope, and by rights it ought to. It's not the Bill of Privileges As Long As They Don't Get in the Way.
 
Harshaw said:
Free speech issues have been part of the argument and rulings all along.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I've been grossly misinformed by much of the coverage, including that supporting the bakers. Maybe the consequences will shock even more people then.

Harshaw said:
No, it's not an "exemption." The First Amendment is not an "exemption." They are stating their First Amendment rights are being violated, on multiple fronts.
Click to expand...
There are multiple fronts and I’m addressing them separately. I’ve never said the First Amendment is an exemption. The exemption element still applies on the religious basis; the bakers don’t want the regulations removed, only for them not to apply where it goes against their faith. The free speech aspect clearly isn’t an exemption, indeed the problem would be that it would apply to, and significantly against, everyone.

Harshaw said:
The free speech arguments are already there. And yeah, it may well have a much wider scope, and by rights it ought to. It's not the Bill of Privileges As Long As They Don't Get in the Way.
Click to expand...
So would you support all anti-discrimination law applying to businesses being scrapped? Would you change your mind if you were in one of the groups likely to be widely discriminated against in such a scenario?
 
Zyphlin said:
What? Legitimately legal arguments both ways? Poppycock! If they side with the bakery it’s clearly only because they hate gays and don’t want to give gays the inherent rights they have because they’re gay hating bigots! And if they side with the couple it’s clearly only because their heathenist activist judges creating law out of thin air with no legal standing what so ever!

Get with the program Redress, they either side with you or they are doing so for the most nefarious, wrong headed, and illogical reasons ever. Garsh!!!
Click to expand...

I really don't handle yes or no options well. Any case that gets to SCOTUS has strong arguments for both sides. Otherwise it would not reach SCOTUS. Just as any complex law(say the tax cuts that passed both houses of congress) almost certainly have good and bad points.

I am not above tribalism to an extent(I do not think any one really is), but you should never let your belief in your tribe overcome your ability to at least see where the other tribe is coming from. The reason discussions on IP, guns, abortion are so ugly is because the people involved refuse to look at other viewpoints, other facts, anything that defies their position, and we end up with insults back and forth instead of debate. If we reject any viewpoint other than our own out of hand, then clearly anyone with an opposing viewpoint is a mouth breathing small handed moron.
 
I think they will rule a public company doesn't have the right to discriminate.

I think if they rule in favor of the baker they are pretty much opening the door to discrimination by businesses.
 
iliveonramen said:
I think they will rule a public company doesn't have the right to discriminate.

I think if they rule in favor of the baker they are pretty much opening the door to discrimination by businesses.
Click to expand...

Kinda like Trump supporters not being served, that’s probably ok .
The bakery should have just did that cake and pissed in the bater, then those f**s would be happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
Kinda like Trump supporters not being served, that’s probably ok .
The bakery should have just did that cake and pissed in the bater, then those f**s would be happy
Click to expand...

Or they should just grow the hell up and do their jobs, but that isn't even an option it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom