How will the USSC rule on the Bakery vs the Gay wedding case? (1 Viewer)

[Redress]

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.

Every business discriminates. "No shoes, no service" is a business discriminating against those without shoes. The question is a bit more complex, and the repercussions widespread. Are public accommodation laws constitutional? What laws do the religious beliefs of the owner of a business allow them to sidestep? Will the court re-examine protected classes? Those are three off the top of my head big questions that SCOTUS will be considering. I suspect, based on some rulings from the last few years, that the decision will be as narrow as possible, so that businesses cannot discriminate against any protected class, but even that is far from a sure thing.

 

[Lursa]

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

Hmmm. I kinda disagree but i like how you explained that. I do see your point.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

These days, who knows?

If they follow established precedent, they'll find for the bakery. But will they? Anyone's guess.

The established precedent would actually be to find against the bakery.

 

[Marco Montana]

The Court is going to deal with the actual facts of the case, not the popular misunderstanding of the facts. They didn't deny service based on sexual orientarion. They do and have always served gay customers, and they would have sold them a stock or blank cake from the shelves. They declined to make a custom cake for a particular event. They also decline to make cakes for Halloween for the same reason.

Since the incident, they've stopped making any wedding cakes at all.

Popular legend says they don't serve gays, but popular legend is wrong.

AHHHH, I have not read the story this makes more sense then. So its almost like the Couple were poking to start a problem.

 

[iliveonramen]

Every business discriminates. "No shoes, no service" is a business discriminating against those without shoes. The question is a bit more complex, and the repercussions widespread. Are public accommodation laws constitutional? What laws do the religious beliefs of the owner of a business allow them to sidestep? Will the court re-examine protected classes? Those are three off the top of my head big questions that SCOTUS will be considering. I suspect, based on some rulings from the last few years, that the decision will be as narrow as possible, so that businesses cannot discriminate against any protected class, but even that is far from a sure thing.

Sure, those are the specifics but at the end of the day, removing protected classes or declaring public accommodation laws unconstitutional open the door to allowing businesses to discriminate.

I agree with you, if they decide on the side of the baker it will be a narrow ruling but it will be the first step in chipping away at the idea that businesses have a duty as a business open to the public to serve all of the public (minus those without shoes and shirts)

 

[Lursa]

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

However, altho I answered this previously, this is exactly why I believe that 95% of such claims as this bakery made (or certain venues not allowing gay weddings, etc) are BS. Because if religious people TRULY wanted to live their beliefs thru their businesses, they WOULD have been doing this...denying service...to adulterers, and fornicators (people living together), baptisms of bastards, etc etc etc. for decades. (And as I wrote earlier, esp in smaller communities bakers totally know lots of this stuff...they serve the same families for generations.)

 

[Lursa]

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.

But the legislators OF the state were the ones using religion as one of the reasons to prevent interracial marriage. Individual men (no women back then).

And individuals brought suits regarding Jim Crow laws and segregation and used religions and Bible passages to base their objections on.

 

[Lursa]

It doesn't have to be. There are other First Amendment issues, such as free expression and compelled speech.

This may indeed be relevant with the argument the baker used. As I wrote earlier, very clever, compelling.

But he didnt use a 1A reason. He specifically used religion as the reason.

It will be interesting to see if, legally, grounds can be or should be, shifted to a 1A issue.

 

[joG]

There's a lot of protected classes (minorities, the disabled, etc.). And, apparently Obama made LGBT protected through an Executive Order.

And I'm not sure making a cake will be found to be religious practice.

Refusing making it was.

 

[Lursa]

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.

I see this point but would you have agreed to this for those denying blacks service during Jim Crow and segregation? They also often used arguments based on religion and the Bible.

 

[Lursa]

anyone for any reason. good bad or no reason at all

Fair enough. You are consistent in your belief.

 

[Lursa]

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'd hate to hazard a guess on how many whites still resent and hate the fact that they must serve blacks equally, esp. in the south.

 

[MrWonka]

If they follow established precedent, they'll find for the bakery.

False. There is absolutely no precedent whatsoever for allowing discrimination against homosexuals. The law clearly states that you cannot discriminate against persons due to their sexual orientation. The only questions here is whether the Supreme Court will respect the law, and find for the couple, or try and change the law to conform to religious fundamental garbage.

 

[Lursa]

False. There is absolutely no precedent whatsoever for allowing discrimination against homosexuals. The law clearly states that you cannot discriminate against persons due to their sexual orientation. The only questions here is whether the Supreme Court will respect the law, and find for the couple, or try and change the law to conform to religious fundamental garbage.

What law? Are gays a protected class in their state?

 

[Harshaw]

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.

No, they want it not to apply where it's contrary to the First Amendment, a perfectly respectable position to take.

Less respectable: wanting the First Amendment to take a back seat to "equality."

That isn't an "exemption." That's just a plain old bedrock unconstitutional application of law.

Contrary to what a whole lot of people seem to want to argue, you don't give up your Constitutional rights just because you open a business.

So would you support all anti-discrimination law applying to businesses being scrapped?

No, I support the invalidation of laws, or the application thereof, where they violate the Bill of Rights.

Would you change your mind if you were in one of the groups likely to be widely discriminated against in such a scenario?

Not for a nanosecond. I believe in freedom.

 

[Harshaw]

This may indeed be relevant with the argument the baker used. As I wrote earlier, very clever, compelling.

But he didnt use a 1A reason. He specifically used religion as the reason.

It will be interesting to see if, legally, grounds can be or should be, shifted to a 1A issue.

As I noted to HonestJoe above, linking to a pleading from the bakery, the free speech issues have been a part of the case since the beginning. (And religion IS a First Amendment issue.)

 

[Harshaw]

But the legislators OF the state were the ones using religion as one of the reasons to prevent interracial marriage. Individual men (no women back then).

Yes. In that case, they were (arguably) establishing religion into law, something which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

The baker is arguing, per religion, his right to free exercise of that religion, which is protected by the First Amendment.

The issues between Loving and this case are completely opposite.

And individuals brought suits regarding Jim Crow laws and segregation and used religions and Bible passages to base their objections on.

Not exactly sure what you're referring to, but OK? I don't know how to respond if I don't know what you're getting at, exactly.

 

[Lursa]

As I noted to HonestJoe above, linking to a pleading from the bakery, the free speech issues have been a part of the case since the beginning. (And religion IS a First Amendment issue.)

Sorry, I completely spaced on the bold!

 

[Superfly]

Could a bakery discriminate against an obese person?

No - why would they? They shouldn't discriminate against anybody.

They are in business to bake cakes. Not pass moral judgement.

 

[Superfly]

So then you would find no problem with a Jewish baker being forced to bake a Nazi cake? Of a Black baker being forced to bake a cake with the word "nigger" on it?

Of course not. If you are a bakery, you bake cakes. Not pass judgement.

You bake the cake, cash the check and shut the **** up.

Or go out of business.

 

[Harshaw]

The established precedent would actually be to find against the bakery.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/557/case.html

The bedrock case finding against a state public accommodations law which requires a private actor to engage in compelled speech, on First Amendment grounds.

What precedent do you have in mind?

 

[Superfly]

What? Where in The Bible does it say that you cant have a second or third wedding?

Not wedding. I meant marriage. My bad.

 

[Superfly]

i've missed you so much. I was broken-hearted to be told you left DP because of me. We have been dear friends for so many years. This is cut-and-dried in my opinion: either you are able to discriminate because of an individuals sexual orientation, lifestyle, or religion, or you are not. To me it's a no-brainer. To our new SCOTUS, I do not know.

:kissy: :kissy: :kissy:

I've missed you, too.

The only thing that worries me about SCOTUS is that Justice Kennedy has to decide whether or not the cake is considered art, and it will fall on Kennedy's decision, because as far as I know, its 4/4 with his being the Moderate vote. If it's considered art, it's considered protected speech. If he considers it art, and it's protected, then the decision will fall on the side of the bakery. If Kennedy says that it's not art, but just a cake, then he'll fall on the side of the gay couple.

What scares me is that this will open up all businesses to be able to discriminate against gay couples.

"Naw, Billy Bob cain't change yer brakes today, y'all two gay people, cuz he figgers his brake work is a work of art. So piss off down to Jiffy Lube. Mebbe they can help you."

 

[Cephus]

Every business discriminates. "No shoes, no service" is a business discriminating against those without shoes. The question is a bit more complex, and the repercussions widespread. Are public accommodation laws constitutional? What laws do the religious beliefs of the owner of a business allow them to sidestep? Will the court re-examine protected classes? Those are three off the top of my head big questions that SCOTUS will be considering. I suspect, based on some rulings from the last few years, that the decision will be as narrow as possible, so that businesses cannot discriminate against any protected class, but even that is far from a sure thing.

It's not discriminating because you can put on shoes. You can't stop being gay. You can't stop being male or female. You can't change skin colors. When someone opens a business, they inherently agree to follow the applicable laws regarding said business. You can't arbitrarily decide your religion is against following OSHA regulations or you have a moral objection to following labor laws. That would never fly. I have no idea why anyone thinks this kind of thing does.

 

[Cephus]

As I noted to HonestJoe above, linking to a pleading from the bakery, the free speech issues have been a part of the case since the beginning. (And religion IS a First Amendment issue.)

The First Amendment only mentions CONGRESS not being able to make laws abridging free speech or religious freedom. In this case, it was a city law. No First Amendment violation at all.