Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple (1 Viewer)

[SLC]

I'm sorry, SLC, in my opinion, Barr is NOT a good guy. He grossly mischaracterized the finding of the Mueller report to this nation in order to present trump in an good light. He is not acting as the nation's AG, he's acting as trump's personal attorney and p/r director.

Naww we are going to have to disagree on this one. He isn't Trump's "Wingman" like Holder said he was for Obama. And he hasn't met Melanea on a tarmac as far as I know. Barr and Rod "I'll wear a wire" Rosenstein and the OLC made the decision that there was no obstruction. The Mueller report said there was no evidence of collusion by Trump. Its time to lick your wounds and to move on to 2020.

 

[SLC]

Another good one. You high?

The devil made me do it.

 

[lurchadams]

Which findings has Barr grossly mischaracterized?

Mueller complained to Barr that summary report mischaracterized his findings: report - MarketWatch

Mueller complained to Barr about Russia report memo - POLITICO

Republicans Privately Say Mueller Report Revealed 'Disappointing' Conduct, Think Barr Mischaracterized Findings

 

[lurchadams]

Naww we are going to have to disagree on this one. He isn't Trump's "Wingman" like Holder said he was for Obama. And he hasn't met Melanea on a tarmac as far as I know. Barr and Rod "I'll wear a wire" Rosenstein and the OLC made the decision that there was no obstruction. The Mueller report said there was no evidence of collusion by Trump. Its time to lick your wounds and to move on to 2020.

Agree to disagree then, my friend. Have a great day!

 

[Ikari]

More of a punt than a win. I doubt the lower courts will rule any different with a new trial.

It's hard to say how it will be ruled on. I think it's mostly a delay tactic because they just kicked it back to the lower courts and said "reconsider given these events". It will still probably make its way back to the Supreme Court eventually regardless.

 

[cabse5]

Mueller complained to Barr that summary report mischaracterized his findings: report - MarketWatch

Mueller complained to Barr about Russia report memo - POLITICO

Republicans Privately Say Mueller Report Revealed 'Disappointing' Conduct, Think Barr Mischaracterized Findings

Did Mueller find the Trump campaign guilty? Guilt before innocence is still the creed. For how much longer, I don't know.

 

[Ikari]

WTF does this thread have to do with Mueller and Barr?

Can we stick to the topic?

 

[Napoleon]

It is a rather significant difference between serving people from a store front and entering into a private contract for your labor. The Anti-discrimination law, as enforced, would force people to enter into a private contract that was against their religious beliefs, a clear violation of their first amendment rights.

The contract is made with the business not an individual. If there is an individual within that business who does not want to fulfill the contract for religious reasons then the business is obligated under public accommodation law to find an employee who will. And if the owners of a business don’t want to be held personally liable for the consequences of their business violating public accommodation law then that’s just too bad - they should have incorporated.

 

[Jay59]

Well, you've got yourself an extremely partisan and criminal Attorney general, a partisan and criminally negligent Senate and a conservative SCOTUS. You should lobby your congressman and senators to drag the hildebeast back in to court. It doesn't matter if HRC's guilty or not. The hateful GOP party would pee all over themselves to put that "evil", "mean", hillary through the ringer some more.

Why don't you do it?

Criminal is it? What I see is a non-partisan AG who does not like the way Democrats have been allowed to cheat. It matters a great deal if HRC is guilty and the DoJ/FBI helped cover it up. It matters even more if they spied on Trump. That's Watergate on a massive scale.

 

[Jay59]

WTF does this thread have to do with Mueller and Barr?

Can we stick to the topic?

The problem is that there is not much left to say. It's a first Amendment right. End of story.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well, when someone brings a suit, our courts have to consider it. And you and I agree, there are other bakeries who aren't run by bigots hiding behind their bibles.

I was going to give you a like until the last part of your post. For me, it's hard to accept these bakers are bigots in that the gay couple were regular customers of the bakery until they wanted the gay wedding cake. If they were truly bigoted, wouldn't they have found a way not to serve the couple prior to the wedding cake incidence?

For me, I don't much care what other people want or do in the personal, private lives- the personal dramas of others bore me greatly. And I'm definitely not a fan of needless confrontation, which some people actually live for. But you are absolutely right - in today's America, people believe they have the right not to be offended in any way and they're willing to needlessly tie up the courts in an attempt to prove it.

 

[PoS]

WTF does this thread have to do with Mueller and Barr?

They were the ones who ordered the cake? :2razz:

 

[cabse5]

I was going to give you a like until the last part of your post. For me, it's hard to accept these bakers are bigots in that the gay couple were regular customers of the bakery until they wanted the gay wedding cake. If they were truly bigoted, wouldn't they have found a way not to serve the couple prior to the wedding cake incidence?

For me, I don't much care what other people want or do in the personal, private lives- the personal dramas of others bore me greatly. And I'm definitely not a fan of needless confrontation, which some people actually live for. But you are absolutely right - in today's America, people believe they have the right not to be offended in any way and they're willing to needlessly tie up the courts in an attempt to prove it.

Hey if its against your religion to bake cakes for a Christian wedding I have no problem with it. I'd just find another bakery with bakers that I would prefer to have my money.

This is good.

 

[jmotivator]

The contract is made with the business not an individual. If there is an individual within that business who does not want to fulfill the contract for religious reasons then the business is obligated under public accommodation law to find an employee who will. And if the owners of a business don’t want to be held personally liable for the consequences of their business violating public accommodation law then that’s just too bad - they should have incorporated.

Your argument is self defeating. While you argue that the contract is with the business, not the individual, your final comment is that to be protected from such lawsuits owners should incorporate differently... but, since you agree that a sole proprietorship has no such legal delineation between business and person, your first statement is invalid.

 

[Napoleon]

Your argument is self defeating. While you argue that the contract is with the business, not the individual, your final comment is that to be protected from such lawsuits owners should incorporate differently... but, since you agree that a sole proprietorship has no such legal delineation between business and person, your first statement is invalid.

The business is a separate legal entity whether it is incorporated or not. What incorporating the business does is move liability for what the business does or what happens at the business from the owner(s) to the business itself. So if religious buffoons want to exercise those beliefs through their business then they can incorporate and in so doing are not personally liable for the legal penalties. They are personally accountable for what the business does or what happens at the business if they don’t do that.

 

[jmotivator]

The business is a separate legal entity whether it is incorporated or not. What incorporating the business does is move liability for what the business does or what happens at the business from the owner(s) to the business itself.

No, it isn't. The individual is liable in a sole proprietorship, there is no separate business, legally speaking. Saying that the "business" enters into the contract is useless in a sole proprietorship since the business and the individual are the same entity.

 

[ataraxia]

You misunderstand the difference between a Religion and a denomination. Also try going to a Muslim site for their views on homosexuality.

I see. So if you agree with someone, it' a religion. If you disagree, they are a denomination.

Oh but wait, you disagree with Muslims. And they are a... wait, I am getting so confused now. Please clarify the difference between religion and denomination.

 

[rwee2000]

To me if you are going to serve the general public, you have to serve the general public.

OK say you're a sign painter, you paint signs you have general signs for sale, like no parking. You will paint custom sign, a person come up and say I want a custom sign painted of the Star of David, sure you say no problem you don't stock them have never stock them and this is the first time anyone has asked for one, the next guy wants a custom sign painted with a swastika on it, and you say NOPE. Should you be forced to paint a swastika? Remember this is a custom sign, it not one you have in stock nor one you have ever painted before.

Should you be forced to paint it because you serve the public, or should you be able to say no to custom work?

Same with cake, if the wedding cake was already baked and on sale to the public (ie it wasn't a special order and already sold) then no question it should be sold as it wasn't a custom cake. They could just order a tiered cake at Walmart, and put a wedding topper on it. But they wanted a custom cake to their specs. So, the baker could turn it down for any or no reason.

 

[Napoleon]

No, it isn't. The individual is liable in a sole proprietorship, there is no separate business, legally speaking. Saying that the "business" enters into the contract is useless in a sole proprietorship since the business and the individual are the same entity.

That is true in terms of liability but even a sole proprietorship is a separate legal entity in other ways. For example, I believe an owner can make campaign donations through a sole proprietorship without impacting their individual limit. Furthermore, a business whether sole proprietorship or not is registered under a different legal name. So when customers enter into the contract - they are entering into a contract with registered entity Crazy Charlie’s Bakery not with Joe Nobody even though said Nobody is legally accountable for violations of the contract.

 

[jmotivator]

That is true in terms of liability but even a sole proprietorship is a separate legal entity in other ways. For example, I believe an owner can make campaign donations through a sole proprietorship without impacting their individual limit. Furthermore, a business whether sole proprietorship or not is registered under a different legal name. So when customers enter into the contract - they are entering into a contract with registered entity Crazy Charlie’s Bakery not with Joe Nobody even though said Nobody is legally accountable for violations of the contract.

Regarding donations, I think you are probably wrong because the owner of a sole proprietorship that does business with the federal government is prohibited from contributing themselves since the restriction on business contributions is assumed by the sole proprietor.

A sole proprietorship does not create a separate business entity and there is no separation of liability between the business and the owner. The name is nothing but a pseudonym for a person, and all restrictions incurred under either name apply to the same individual.

 

[iguanaman]

A punt??? A precedent.

The only precedent is that the SC does not want to get involved. They will not rule on the issue.

 

[Carjosse]

Then why only prohibit discrimination against a protected class?

Because that is where it conflicts with people's rights.

 

[Carjosse]

Does that mean the Red Sox can play all their home games at Yankee Stadium? I hear Yankee Stadium is kinda nicer than Fenway...If the Red Sox wanna play at the Bronx....Carjosse says the Red Sox can play at the Bronx...

Does Yankee Stadium allow the general public to rent out the field for baseball? Doubt it. How about a more realistic example, a wedding venue. You cannot only host Christian weddings.

 

[Carjosse]

Examples? I can think of several where bad science was explicitly used to justify anti-miscegenation laws... but I'm coming up blank on religion.

Which religion is against blacks?

See post #18.

A little teaser:

In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other. In the 1960s, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

 

[akyron]

From Think Progress:


Also from Americans United:

Georgia Gov. Allen Candler

Leon M. Bazile

Theodore G. Bilbo

Thank you for compiling this list of racist democrats and what they did. More people should be aware of history.

The Racist History of the Democratic Party

" Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.

History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.

History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.

Some called it the Civil War, others called it the War Between the States, but to the African Americans at that time, it was the War Between the Democrats and the Republicans over slavery. The Democrats gave their lives to expand it, Republican gave their lives to ban it.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities. Senate debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

After the Civil War, Democrats murdered several hundred black elected officials (in the South) to regain control of the southern government. All of the elected officials up to 1935 were Republicans. As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.

History reveals that it was Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Today many white Democrats are opposed to paying African Americans trillions of dollars in Reparation Pay, money that should be paid by the Democratic Party."