And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments [W:744]

[maxparrish]

The colorado cake arguments are, as most expected, pivoting around the uncertain vote of Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is almost always the key swing vote, and is usually unpredictable; you may get a coherent and traditional legal smackdown of the State of Colorado OR a Constitutionally dubious and semi-mystical confirmation of the states authority make all bend the knee to serve gay marriage.

While both sides heard good news from Kennedy (conveyed in questioning) there is an impression that Kennedy gave slightly more deference to court conservatives.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in the Colorado cake maker case. The issue is whether Colorado can coerce a baker, Jack Phillips, into making a custom cake for a gay wedding when he objects to gay marriage on religious grounds.
It quickly became apparent that, to no one’s surprise, Justice Kennedy’s vote will likely decide the case. he questions Kennedy asked created some discomfort for both sides, but more for the gay couple.
Amy Howe of ScotusBlog reports:

With Kennedy seemingly holding the key vote, the couple and their supporters at first seemed to have reason to be optimistic. Discussing the impact that a ruling for the baker could have for gays and lesbians, Kennedy told Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the United States in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop, that if the baker were to win, he could put up a sign indicating that he would not bake cakes for same-sex couples. That, Kennedy suggested, would be “an affront to the gay community.”
But the tide seemed to shift later in the argument, as Kennedy asked Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, representing the state, about a statement by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who noted that religious beliefs had in the past been used to justify other forms of discrimination, like slavery and the Holocaust. It is, the commission member contended, “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use their religion to hurt others.” If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?
​

David French is fascinated and encouraged by Kennedy’s fixation on “Colorado’s” animus towards religious belief. He writes:

Justice Kennedy labels a common leftist talking point — that freedom of religion is used to justify discrimination — a “despicable piece of rhetoric.” Kennedy then went on to raise the question of whether there was “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case.” ...​

Photographers, bakers, and other personal service providers may yet win the right to not "bend the knee" to the PC gaystopo

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The colorado cake arguments are, as most expected, pivoting around the uncertain vote of Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is almost always the key swing vote, and is usually unpredictable; you may get a coherent and traditional legal smackdown of the State of Colorado OR a Constitutionally dubious and semi-mystical confirmation of the states authority make all bend the knee to serve gay marriage.

While both sides heard good news from Kennedy (conveyed in questioning) there is an impression that Kennedy gave slightly more deference to court conservatives.



Photographers, bakers, and other personal service providers may yet win the right to not "bend the knee" to the PC gaystopo

I hear lefties freaking out and I get the idea that maybe SCOTUS might just get one right, which is never a sure thing with the way they suck now.

LET FREEDOM RING!

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The colorado cake arguments are, as most expected, pivoting around the uncertain vote of Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is almost always the key swing vote, and is usually unpredictable; you may get a coherent and traditional legal smackdown of the State of Colorado OR a Constitutionally dubious and semi-mystical confirmation of the states authority make all bend the knee to serve gay marriage.

While both sides heard good news from Kennedy (conveyed in questioning) there is an impression that Kennedy gave slightly more deference to court conservatives.



Photographers, bakers, and other personal service providers may yet win the right to not "bend the knee" to the PC gaystopo

Oh look. Multiple Nazi references and comparing gay people to the Gestapo. Despite the fact that the Nazis tried to exterminate gay people.

The level of hysterics the right is willing is indulge in is truly amazing.

 

[graeme104]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Hopefully the SCOTUS proves America to be a truly free country where businesses can refuse to serve if they want to (they will suffer public backlash if the public deems the decision to be unecessary or stupid). The government shouldn't get involved in stuff like this. The gay couple should just go to a different baker where the cake can be baked without violating anyone's religion.

 

[maxparrish]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Oh look. Multiple Nazi references and comparing gay people to the Gestapo. Despite the fact that the Nazis tried to exterminate gay people.

The level of hysterics the right is willing is indulge in is truly amazing.

So you think all gay people are members of the PC Gaystopo, do you? Rest assured, libertarian gays and conservative gays are not. On the other hand, there is a politically correct gaystopo, and fellow travelers, that thrive on repression of religious conscious and hateful of live and let live tolerance.

After what happened at Mozilla, Indiana, and elsewhere there is no doubt a wide swath of those with a proto-fascist mentality. The "gaystopo" is a good metaphor, alluding to a similar fanatical personae and immorally repressive mentality.

All the enemies of liberty are birds of a feather...on some level.

 

[chuckiechan]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

“I’m from the government, and I am ordering you to bake a cake!”

 

[NonoBadDog]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

What I will find interesting is what happens to all the court rulings that used the cake case as precedent if the court rules in favor of the cake shop. As far as the ruling goes I am curious about the justifications that the court uses for whatever ruling they reach. I don't really have a horse in this race.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

So you think all gay people are members of the PC Gaystopo, do you? Rest assured, libertarian gays and conservative gays are not. On the other hand, there is a politically correct gaystopo, and fellow travelers, that thrive on repression of religious conscious and hateful of live and let live tolerance.

After what happened at Mozilla, Indiana, and elsewhere there is no doubt a wide swath of those with a proto-fascist mentality. The "gaystopo" is a good metaphor, alluding to a similar fanatical personae and immorally repressive mentality.

All the enemies of liberty are birds of a feather...on some level.

Oh look, you doubled down on using an idiotic term. Clearly you can't handle the concept of equal rights for all Americans, and therefore anyone insisting on it is the equivalent of the Gestspo. I eagerly await to hear what torture dungeon the Gestapo tosses you into.

I'm sure libertarian gays and conservative gays would be very interested to hear that you think treating them like human beings is the equivalent of living in a police state.

Except your bull**** is not only not "live and let live" it is unconstitutional and directly opposes the founding principles of the United States.

Oh look, more total nonsense from you. The victim culture on the right is out of control.

Yes, you and the other enemies of "liberty" are birds of a feather. Why don't you move to Uganda, I hear you can still kill the members of the "gaystapo" with impunity there :roll:

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

“I’m from the government, and I am ordering you to bake a cake!”

"I'm from the government, and I'm ordering you to abide by the Constitution of the United States!"

Fixed that for you.

But I forgot.....conservatives don't much like the Constitution.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

"I'm from the government, and I'm ordering you to abide by the Constitution of the United States!"

Fixed that for you.

But I forgot.....conservatives don't much like the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it state that businesses MUST provide cake?

 

[holbritter]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The colorado cake arguments are, as most expected, pivoting around the uncertain vote of Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is almost always the key swing vote, and is usually unpredictable; you may get a coherent and traditional legal smackdown of the State of Colorado OR a Constitutionally dubious and semi-mystical confirmation of the states authority make all bend the knee to serve gay marriage.

While both sides heard good news from Kennedy (conveyed in questioning) there is an impression that Kennedy gave slightly more deference to court conservatives.



Photographers, bakers, and other personal service providers may yet win the right to not "bend the knee" to the PC gaystopo

I like this part

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs

I find most of the left leaning people I meet are tolerant to the extent that you agree with them.

 

[holbritter]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Oh look. Multiple Nazi references and comparing gay people to the Gestapo. Despite the fact that the Nazis tried to exterminate gay people.

The level of hysterics the right is willing is indulge in is truly amazing.

WTH? Where? I see one reference to the Holocaust, and it was made by the person from the state of Colorado Civil Rights Commission. No where did it compare gay people to the Gestapo. Talk about hysterics :roll:


Edit: Oh, another poster said gaystopo. Where is his multiple Nazi references?

 

[Moot]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.” ...

Kennedy seems to have a problem with Colorado's agencies and particularly one member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's comment about religion. He seems to think he was hostile to religion and that may have influenced his decision in this case. But at least he seems aware that a vote in favor of the baker would create chaos and upheaval....as if we don't have enough of that already.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Kennedy seems to have a problem with Colorado's agencies and particularly one member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's comment about religion. He seems to think he was hostile to religion and that may have influenced his decision in this case. But at least he seems aware that a vote in favor of the baker would create chaos and upheaval....as if we don't have enough of that already.

"Chaos and upheaval"....Could you explain please?

 

[blarg]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The colorado cake arguments are, as most expected, pivoting around the uncertain vote of Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is almost always the key swing vote, and is usually unpredictable; you may get a coherent and traditional legal smackdown of the State of Colorado OR a Constitutionally dubious and semi-mystical confirmation of the states authority make all bend the knee to serve gay marriage.

While both sides heard good news from Kennedy (conveyed in questioning) there is an impression that Kennedy gave slightly more deference to court conservatives.



Photographers, bakers, and other personal service providers may yet win the right to not "bend the knee" to the PC gaystopo

dont think you should be able to deny people service because they are Jewish

 

[americanwoman]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Hopefully the SCOTUS proves America to be a truly free country where businesses can refuse to serve if they want to (they will suffer public backlash if the public deems the decision to be unecessary or stupid). The government shouldn't get involved in stuff like this. The gay couple should just go to a different baker where the cake can be baked without violating anyone's religion.

Wow. I wonder if you'd feel much different if you were in a minority group the majority wanted to refuse service to.

Imagine your children coming home upset because they couldn't get in a movie because the owner didn't like their type. So they tried to go roller skating. Couldn't get in there either. Finally gave up and went to get something to eat but again was refused service. The other people in the town don't really care because they agree that type of person is bad and so do the majority of people in other towns so it's not like they can move. I really don't understand someone who could support that.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The colorado cake arguments are, as most expected, pivoting around the uncertain vote of Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy is almost always the key swing vote, and is usually unpredictable; you may get a coherent and traditional legal smackdown of the State of Colorado OR a Constitutionally dubious and semi-mystical confirmation of the states authority make all bend the knee to serve gay marriage.

While both sides heard good news from Kennedy (conveyed in questioning) there is an impression that Kennedy gave slightly more deference to court conservatives.



Photographers, bakers, and other personal service providers may yet win the right to not "bend the knee" to the PC gaystopo

Can you please define "gaystopo"?

 

[americanwoman]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I like this part

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs

I find most of the left leaning people I meet are tolerant to the extent that you agree with them.

How can you be tolerant of someone that wants to literally deny medical service to children?

Okay but you might say let's make an exception so that certain professions must serve everyone or don't be so dramatic and use an extreme example. Then at that point you agree in some capacity it's wrong to deny service just because someone is "X" and shows you don't really think to yourself how little steps could lead to extreme examples.

 

[holbritter]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

How can you be tolerant of someone that wants to literally deny medical service to children?

Okay but you might say let's make an exception so that certain professions must serve everyone or don't be so dramatic and use an extreme example. Then at that point you agree in some capacity it's wrong to deny service just because someone is "X" and shows you don't really think to yourself how little steps could lead to extreme examples.

I must have missed something? When did this become about medical treatment for children?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement. Nothing more. Truth be told, I side with the baker in this instance. If a decision is made that the couple feels hurts them, then they should have just gone elsewhere to have their cake done. The baker wasn't refusing service, they offered other choices and serve gay people all the time.

Why can't the baker respect their choice to get married?
Why can't the couple respect his choice not to do something against his religious belief?

Being tolerant and accepting also means you accept that people are not the same as you and to force them to do something they are strongly against is wrong, IMO.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

How can you be tolerant of someone that wants to literally deny medical service to children?

Okay but you might say let's make an exception so that certain professions must serve everyone or don't be so dramatic and use an extreme example. Then at that point you agree in some capacity it's wrong to deny service just because someone is "X" and shows you don't really think to yourself how little steps could lead to extreme examples.

I can't speak for holbritter, I'm not him. But I will speak for myself.

Yes. It is wrong to deny someone service for things which they cannot help. Ex: Skin color. Doesn't matter the reason, the business, the religion, or anything else under the sun. It is wrong. Period.

But it is also wrong to deny peoples Rights. Not just the Rights held by an atheist, gender, skin color etc etc. But EVERYONE's Rights. And not just some Rights...but ALL Rights. This includes the Right to freely associate with whoever you want to..or not. The ONLY time that Rights should be infringed upon is in rare circumstances. A persons life is threatened because some doctor hates that persons skin color? Yeah, an exception can be made here. A place that sells food that people need to survive? Again, with in the realm of infringement. A bakery which sells cakes? No one needs a cake to survive and as such their Rights to freely associate with who they want to or don't want to should be fully respected.

No one NEEDS a cake to survive. No one NEEDS to go roller skating at the local skaters park. No one NEEDS to go watch a movie at the theater.

People NEED food to survive. People NEED medical attention. People NEED a place to live/stay safe from the elements.

Public accommodation laws should only apply to things that are NEEDED. Not things that are WANTED. That protects people enough to guarantee livable circumstances and protects peoples Rights.

The only other exception I would make is for companies that sell stocks on the stock market due to the fact that it is done in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to know who buys what shares. As such they are truly what could be considered public companies because literally anyone and everyone in the public can own a part of the stock. Which means owning a part of the company. They have literally opened themselves up, voluntarily, to be considered as having given up their Right to free association. A mom and pop store on the other hand, while open to the public, is still considered as a privately owned business. As such they have not given up their Right to free association.

 

[americanwoman]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I must have missed something? When did this become about medical treatment for children?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement. Nothing more. Truth be told, I side with the baker in this instance. If a decision is made that the couple feels hurts them, then they should have just gone elsewhere to have their cake done. The baker wasn't refusing service, they offered other choices and serve gay people all the time.

Why can't the baker respect their choice to get married?
Why can't the couple respect his choice not to do something against his religious belief?

Being tolerant and accepting also means you accept that people are not the same as you and to force them to do something they are strongly against is wrong, IMO.

Please, they are so strongly against gay marriage as being wrong but I bet anything they turn a blind eye to divorced couples and serve them just fine. I accept people not the same as me which is why I don't think anyone should be denied service.

This became about medical service for children because if you think people should not be forced to serve someone because it's something they are strongly against, it could lead there.

 

[americanwoman]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I can't speak for holbritter, I'm not him. But I will speak for myself.

Yes. It is wrong to deny someone service for things which they cannot help. Ex: Skin color. Doesn't matter the reason, the business, the religion, or anything else under the sun. It is wrong. Period.

But it is also wrong to deny peoples Rights. Not just the Rights held by an atheist, gender, skin color etc etc. But EVERYONE's Rights. And not just some Rights...but ALL Rights. This includes the Right to freely associate with whoever you want to..or not. The ONLY time that Rights should be infringed upon is in rare circumstances. A persons life is threatened because some doctor hates that persons skin color? Yeah, an exception can be made here. A place that sells food that people need to survive? Again, with in the realm of infringement. A bakery which sells cakes? No one needs a cake to survive and as such their Rights to freely associate with who they want to or don't want to should be fully respected.

No one NEEDS a cake to survive. No one NEEDS to go roller skating at the local skaters park. No one NEEDS to go watch a movie at the theater.

People NEED food to survive. People NEED medical attention. People NEED a place to live/stay safe from the elements.

Public accommodation laws should only apply to things that are NEEDED. Not things that are WANTED. That protects people enough to guarantee livable circumstances and protects peoples Rights.

The only other exception I would make is for companies that sell stocks on the stock market due to the fact that it is done in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to know who buys what shares. As such they are truly what could be considered public companies because literally anyone and everyone in the public can own a part of the stock. Which means owning a part of the company. They have literally opened themselves up, voluntarily, to be considered as having given up their Right to free association. A mom and pop store on the other hand, while open to the public, is still considered as a privately owned business. As such they have not given up their Right to free association.

I disagree. I don't think needs and wants should be separated. I believe we should all have the same rights of service at a public business and every service that is offer to Kal'Stang should be offered to americanwoman and vice versa.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

“I’m from the government, and I am ordering you to bake a cake!”

"I am from the government, and I am ordering you to allow black families to eat in your restaurant." How is that any different?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I disagree. I don't think needs and wants should be separated. I believe we should all have the same rights of service at a public business and every service that is offer to Kal'Stang should be offered to americanwoman and vice versa.

Why? Why should my services, which you do not need, be mandated by you?

Through out my life I've been told "no" many times. Why should I have to say "yes" to you? And I'm sure that you've been told "no" also many times through out your life. Why should you have to say "yes" to me?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

"I am from the government, and I am ordering you to allow black families to eat in your restaurant." How is that any different?

Are cakes needed to survive? Could a restaurant have food that people need to survive?