Cypress (06-06-2018), FUCK THE POLICE (06-06-2018), ThatOwlWoman (06-06-2018)
Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Truth Detector, canceled.2021.1, canceled.2021.2 and CFM |
I agree with them.
...Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, disagreed with the seven-member majority and—in a dissent written by Ginsburg—argue that their colleagues’ reasoning falls flat.
Baker Jack Phillips had argued that cake-baking is constitutionally protected free speech and that sanctioning him for refusing to bake for a same-sex marriage violated his constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The majority did not completely agree with Phillips. It denied the free speech claim, finding that baking is not “communication.” But most of the justices did agree with the baker that his religious freedom was violated, and that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was “hostile” to his faith.
The majority opinion argues that the state commission treated Phillips differently from other bakers who refused to bake cakes that offended them. Specifically, it referred to three cases in which bakers were asked to create a bible-shaped cake that explicitly states “homosexuality is a sin.” Those bakers would not bake the cake as requested and were not sanctioned by the state Civil Rights Commission.
In her dissent, Ginsburg points out that the cases offered as evidence of discrimination aren’t actually comparable to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Philips refused to bake any cake whatsoever for any same-sex marriage rather than a particular cake with a single offensive message. Ginsburg explains:
Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display.
The distinction between a refusal based on offensive messaging and “hateful rhetoric” and one based on identity isn’t small, according to the dissenters. Charlie Craig and David Mullins simply requested a wedding cake. They did not discuss any message or distinguishing element that would have made their cake different from that of any other cake Phillips might bake for any other couple celebrating their union.
“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied,” Ginsburg writes.
Refusing to bake any same-sex wedding cakes, as Phillips did, is equivalent to having a discriminatory policy, the dissent argues. In contrast, refusing to bake a cake that offends the baker’s sensibilities based on the particular message does not indicate a blanket rejection of an entire swath of people. “There is much in the Court’s opinion with which I agree,” Ginsburg writes. “I strongly disagree, however, with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/logic...164456397.html
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
Cypress (06-06-2018), FUCK THE POLICE (06-06-2018), ThatOwlWoman (06-06-2018)
No one wants to address this?
In her dissent, Ginsburg points out that the cases offered as evidence of discrimination aren’t actually comparable to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Philips refused to bake any cake whatsoever for any same-sex marriage rather than a particular cake with a single offensive message. Ginsburg explains:
Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display.
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
ThatOwlWoman (06-06-2018)
It has no bearing or precedent.
Good luck using the dissent to win your case.
I'm sure you also agree with dissent that go against your world view....
It's not about precedent, can't you read? The three other cases are similar to the Phillips case only in the sense that a cake wasn't going to the customers.
Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display.
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
Guno צְבִי (06-05-2018)
You lost, too bad for you.
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.
I think Ginsburg misses the point. Phillips would be expected to create and include a message that would celebrate gay marriage which is against his religious views and would suggest (he believes) would express his support. It does not matter what the specific message would be.
tinfoil (06-06-2018)
i don't see any meaningful difference? explain please
Kagan says the same but dings the commission for their reasoning that the other messages were offensive.
Honestly, I think the commission made mistakes but that should not deny the due process rights of the couple. But I am unclear, does this ruling deny them anything.
[QUOTE=christiefan915;2409999]Nothing I've read about the case states that they wanted any message on the cake but if that's wrong, let me know.[/QUOTE
I don't think they requested any specific message because they left when he said he did not bake cakes for same sex marriages. However, the cake would obviously have to include words or symbols conveying a message (hearts) to celebrate their marriage; if not, they could have just bought a generic cake which he would have sold them.
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
From what I've read about this decision is the SCt found that the Colorado law itself displayed hostility towards the plaintiff's religious objections about making a cake for gay ppl. The decision did not weigh in on the discriminatory actions of the plaintiff... only on the state's law pertaining to the actions. Or something like that. I'm not a lawyer, obviously.
They will rewrite that law and shut down the next bigot.
christiefan915 (06-05-2018), Leonthecat (06-06-2018)
Bookmarks