SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[firstfloor]

how bigoted of you.

I suspect that you missed the point.

I should not be granted privileges simply by expressing a belief that is government approved.

[rogue06]

I suspect that you missed the point.

Or you missed hers -- namely those who constantly demand tolerance and acceptance really ought to exhibit those traits at least every once in awhile.

[firstfloor]

Or you missed hers -- namely those who constantly demand tolerance and acceptance really ought to exhibit those traits at least every once in awhile.

The outcast has to fight for his share of justice.

[Cow Poke]

Quite,

You said you were ignoring me!

if otherwise they were treated respectfully when their custom was declined

I don't think it's disputed that they were treated respectfully.

and if equivalent goods were available nearby,

No. It is not the baker's responsibility to assure that there are equivalent goods available nearby.

I think they are not justified in upsetting the baker to compensate for their own distress on the principle that two wrongs do not make a right. It is different if the baker is unnecessarily aggressive.

Which, by all accounts, he was not.

But, there may also be a problem supposing that this baker was especially renowned, even the best baker there was, and the gay couple wanted the most perfect cake for their celebration.

Yeah, life is tough.

And the respose is, no, such perfect cakes are reserved for normal couples.

That wasn't what the SCOTUS case was about.

That would seem to be less just. It is rather like you black folks have to sit at the back of the bus. The whites have a monopoly on the front seats and the best cakes. That sort of monopoly must be attacked.

Wow. Always the race card.

[KingsGambit]

Hey, at least it's not another 5-4 decision decided by Anthony Kennedy's Magic 8-Ball.

I'm sure I will steal this phrase at some point.

[Cow Poke]

I keep thinking this is the Boy Scouts thread, and Gay Wedding cakes is added to it. Like ---- SCOUTS & gay wedding cakes

[KingsGambit]

I keep thinking this is the Boy Scouts thread, and Gay Wedding cakes is added to it. Like ---- SCOUTS & gay wedding cakes

You're probably two years ahead

[One Bad Pig]

Issues like this are best solved with love, not litigation. But for love to succeed, both parties have to be involved and each must make an effort to understand the other.

Have you considered taking your own advice?

[RumTumTugger]

Or you missed hers -- namely those who constantly demand tolerance and acceptance really ought to exhibit those traits at least every once in awhile.

exactly.

[Starlight]

I haven't read the opinions themselves, but I've read some summaries, and the main takeaways seem to be:

1. The different Justices are all over the place on this case. They issued 5 different opinions between them.
2. The decision was more akin to tossing out the case on a technicality (that the prosecution had been unduly nasty toward the defendant) than a general ruling on the merits.
3. Insofar as it ruled on the merits, the Justices agreed that anti-discrimination laws are fine.

So a win for the specific conservative defendant, but in terms of the wider 'culture wars' either irrelevant or a win for liberals.

[Mountain Man]

It would be oh so easy for a cake maker to "accidentally" add too much vanilla and make the cake nearly inedible. "Oops, my bad. Don't worry about having to pay me."

Although ironically, I think a Christian baker would be the least likely to sabotage someone's wedding cake out of spite.

[Teallaura]

OK, this is weird. CNN says it was a "narrow ruling", and "6 - 2". Even that can't be called a "narrow ruling".

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objections.
The ruling was 6-2.

Since the article says it's subject to change, I'll add a screenshot.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28094[/ATTACH]

Narrowly?

[KingsGambit]

The scope of the decision was certainly narrow.

[Teallaura]

I've never understood "narrow ruling" to mean that, but maybe I'm just clueless on its past usage?

Does anyone know of any past cases that have used "narrow ruling" to mean that?

Nope - that's not a narrow ruling. It might be a limited ruling - so specific to the case as to not have any real precedence but a 7-2 decision is not narrow by any means. 7-2 means that more than 3/4 of the Justices ruled with the majority.

[Teallaura]

The scope of the decision was certainly narrow.

That's a limited scope, however, not a narrow ruling. A 7-2 ruling means the Court thinks someone really mucked up.