Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Truth Detector, canceled.2021.1, canceled.2021.2 and CFM


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 55

Thread: The logical flaw in the SCOTUS cakeshop decision, according to 2 dissenting justices

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,533
    Thanks
    65,160
    Thanked 38,092 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default The logical flaw in the SCOTUS cakeshop decision, according to 2 dissenting justices

    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

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    Cypress (06-06-2018), FUCK THE POLICE (06-06-2018), ThatOwlWoman (06-06-2018)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,533
    Thanks
    65,160
    Thanked 38,092 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    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

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (06-06-2018)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,400
    Thanks
    1,745
    Thanked 6,394 Times in 5,099 Posts
    Groans
    1,397
    Groaned 908 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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....

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,533
    Thanks
    65,160
    Thanked 38,092 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    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

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (06-05-2018)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    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.

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,707
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    tinfoil (06-06-2018)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,533
    Thanks
    65,160
    Thanked 38,092 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    Nothing I've read about the case states that they wanted any message on the cake but if that's wrong, let me know.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    i don't see any meaningful difference? explain please

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    i don't see any meaningful difference? explain please
    They didn't want a bride n groom.
    "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.

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,707
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    [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.

  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,287
    Thanks
    145,695
    Thanked 82,517 Times in 52,735 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    I agree with them.
    Good analysis, thanks for posting it.

  17. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,533
    Thanks
    65,160
    Thanked 38,092 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    i don't see any meaningful difference? explain please
    What I see is that Phillips wouldn't make the cake for the gay couple so he was discriminating against people. The other bakers wouldn't bake the cake because of what the people wanted on it; he would still bake a cake if they changed the message on it.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  18. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,533
    Thanks
    65,160
    Thanked 38,092 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Flash;2410012]
    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    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.
    I'm going to look for the case and read it.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,287
    Thanks
    145,695
    Thanked 82,517 Times in 52,735 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    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.
    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.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    christiefan915 (06-05-2018), Leonthecat (06-06-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Constitution Check: Do SCOTUS Justices have a right to comment on politics?
    By christiefan915 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-13-2016, 06:07 PM
  2. Fox news flat out fucking lying about a scotus decision
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-17-2012, 12:40 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-07-2012, 08:01 PM
  4. two different opinions by scotus justices
    By Schadenfreude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 08:38 AM
  5. Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 03:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •