Colorado Cake Case...

[domer76]

I think the CO statute included those provisions about artistic creations (or previous cases). In oral arguments they asked whether the chef, menu, hairdresser, florist, photographer were also artists.

As I said, a novel approach.

But I wonder if the court will consider his statement:

"Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. 'Sorry guys, I don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.'"

Not much about freedom of expression there.

[Русский агент]

I'll just leave this here.

[ThatOwlWoman]

SCOTUS may well make a narrow decision on this one, possibly based on that artistic expression scenario. In other words, the message rather than the refusal of service itself. I must say, that is a novel approach to circumvent civil rights legislation.

Really interesting. In September my brother-in-law traveled to DC to be sworn in to practice before the US SCt. I'll have to ask his opinion on this case, and how he thinks they will rule. Most of his working career was spent doing research and writing opinion things based on case law as a clerk for the Missouri Supreme Court. He also spent a few years as an administrative law judge for Missouri's Public Service Commission, chairing hearings and hearing evidence for rate increases and regulations pertaining to utility companies.

[domer76]

Really interesting. In September my brother-in-law traveled to DC to be sworn in to practice before the US SCt. I'll have to ask his opinion on this case, and how he thinks they will rule. Most of his working career was spent doing research and writing opinion things based on case law as a clerk for the Missouri Supreme Court. He also spent a few years as an administrative law judge for Missouri's Public Service Commission, chairing hearings and hearing evidence for rate increases and regulations pertaining to utility companies.

One can pretty much bet it will be 5-4

[Phantasmal]

Then they will come for the tattooed, the adulters, the divorced, those that mix fabrics, eaters of shellfish, sons of Ham. It’s going to get ugly.

[domer76]

Then they will come for the tattooed, the adulters, the divorced, those that mix fabrics, eaters of shellfish, sons of Ham. It’s going to get ugly.

You're famous!

[PraiseKek]

As I said, a novel approach.

But I wonder if the court will consider his statement:

"Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. 'Sorry guys, I don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.'"

Not much about freedom of expression there.

It's freedom of religion dipshit.

[countryboy]

You were doing fine, until you let your bigotry and hatred get the better of you. Best if you don't get CFM's stench all over you. He's been spewing that nonsense since before trump made it ok to do so

If you think I'm bigoted and hateful, then you have no idea what the words mean. So take your own bigotry and hatred and shove it so far up your ass you can taste it. See what I mean about Libs? Thanks for demonstrating the point perfectly. Textbook example

[ThatOwlWoman]

One can pretty much bet it will be 5-4

In favor of the baker's right to discriminate?

[ThatOwlWoman]

Then they will come for the tattooed, the adulters, the divorced, those that mix fabrics, eaters of shellfish, sons of Ham. It’s going to get ugly.

And we witches will already be suffered not to live. lol

[domer76]

It's freedom of religion dipshit.

You want to practice your religion in a bakery? Great. Operate it as a 501(c)(3). Then you can serve whoever the fuck you want.

Operate as a public business, you are subject to secular laws and rules, such as those of public accommodation and civil rights.

You are nothing more than another RW knee jerk cretin who has ZERO knowledge concerning these types of cases.

Dismissed, idiot.

[domer76]

In favor of the baker's right to discriminate?

Knowing this court, yes. Especially if it's decided on the freedom of expression argument rather than the religion issue. In any case, expect a narrow margin and a narrow interpretation.

[Mr.Badguy]

decent reasoning. we want open commerce - no discrimination,but we want religious sensibilities protected too

Sure, just show me where in the Bible it says not to bake a cake for a gay wedding and you're golden.

[Flash]

As I said, a novel approach.

But I wonder if the court will consider his statement:

"Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. 'Sorry guys, I don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.'"

Not much about freedom of expression there.

The freedom of expression was not his conversation with the couple, it would be the customizing of the cake for their wedding. His original conversation was very short but the next day one of the guys called Phillips for an explanation. I don't think how he conveyed the message has anything to do with his free speech/religion.

[Flash]

Sure, just show me where in the Bible it says not to bake a cake for a gay wedding and you're golden.

Our freedom of religion has nothing to do with the Bible or the doctrine of any specific religion but our own personal religious beliefs; even if we are the only person holding that belief.