SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Teallaura]

Great, thanks. This is just as I thought, the bakers in those other cases were being asked to engage in hate speech and the Justices used that, unjustifiably in my opinion, as evidence of bias on the part of the Colorado Civil Rights Commision against the christian baker. In the end, the decision in the Christian bakers case had nothing to do with those other cases. The SC decision simply overturned the case due to the Colorado Civil Rights Commisions not adhering to the religious neutrality required of by the Constitution when hearing the case. They apparently said some bad stuff. In other words there was no real decision concerning the specifics of the case itself. They kicked the can down the road.

You thought completely wrong - that is NOT what the Court found - heck, that's not even argued in the dissents that I saw. Even the liberal side of the Court isn't arguing that nonsense - they recognized the inherent inequity of what Colorado DID.





Sorry,

but you read what case? Congress passed the CRA in 1964, and there have been many challenges to it since then. Did you read one case in which the SC ruled it to be Unconstitutional? Because I can't find it anywhere.

In which case was that Tea?

Translation: you can't argue the point so you wanna shift to 'prove it'. I'd have been far more inclined to comply had you asked for the case four or five pages back when I first mentioned it.

I'll hunt it down when I feel like it. You can use google as well as I can if you are actually interested - which I completely doubt.

Well, the basis of your argument is that the SC ruled that the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional and I've yet to see where you are getting that from.

Argh - I DID NOT SAY THAT. The Court made an exception to allow an otherwise unconstitutional violation. Yeah, I think if that portion falls the whole thing will - but that wasn't what the Court actually said that I recall - a case can be overturned without overturning an entire act (I just doubt that would happen here).

Again, in what case did the SC make this assertion and justification?

As I recall, it was the original decision - look it up.

[Teallaura]

I think the two relevant ones are Heart of Atlanta and McClung, both in '64.

A quick look does suggest that ISC is the deciding factor in Atlanta - but as I said, the FoA issue was addressed, even if it wasn't decisive.

You can hunt down the actual links yourself.

[Joel]

Sorry, the sound of disgust in my voice didn't come through in the text. My point was that the reasoning is absurd. JimL's reasoning failed my Jus Primae Noctis test: An argument is unsound if it would justify Jus Primae Noctis. I'm surprised by how often I run across people using arguments that fail that test.

But this is not a valid comparison, if anything it works against your argument. No one gets special rights is the argument...not even lords of the manor. This is an argument about non-discrimination in Public Accommodations as per the Civil Rights Act. The right of Christians to practice their religion does not give them privileges to discriminate against the civil rights of other citizens. All are equal under the law, no citizen is more equal than other citizens...not even Evangelicals, despite their demand for special treatment.

It's not clear what your objection is. But I think you are not understanding me.

If you are complaining that Jus Primae Noctis is not a valid comparison because it grants special privileges (to the noblemen), no problem: you can easily replace the "noblemen" with any group, including "everyone". E.g., suppose a law that says every bride must submit to sex with anyone who asks. There you go, everyone is equal under the law. But it's at least as bad if not worse.

If you were thinking the businessmen were the noblemen in my comparison, then no, I placed the businessmen as the brides (the ones choosing to do something: start a business or get married).

If you think I'm advocating special legal treatment for Christians, then you are mistaken. I wasn't even talking about religion or freedom of religion. I said that human intercourse requires consent of both parties, just as much for commercial as for sexual. And I apply that equally to everyone of all races, genders, creeds, classes, etc. No special treatment for Christians. Everyone equally has the right to withhold consent for any reason or no reason. And everyone equally must refrain from intercourse with someone who withholds consent.

[Tassman]

That is bull Tass, there is no Constitutional right to my labor or service, there is a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Just because you reference the unconstitutional Civil Rights Act that does not even include homosexual orientation does not change a thing.

You are not being denied the free exercise of religion. But, as with all freedoms, it comes with constrains. You are still free to preach whatever you think your religion teaches, e.g. anti gay marriage, killing witches, anti mixed marriages...whatever, in appropriate venues. But these venues do not include the workplace.

[Tassman]

Sorry, the sound of disgust in my voice didn't come through in the text. My point was that the reasoning is absurd. JimL's reasoning failed my Jus Primae Noctis test: An argument is unsound if it would justify Jus Primae Noctis. I'm surprised by how often I run across people using arguments that fail that test.

Again your example works against you. The nobleman is demanding special privileges over and above those of the populace...just as the Evangelicals are.

It's not clear what your objection is. But I think you are not understanding me.

If you are complaining that Jus Primae Noctis is not a valid comparison because it grants special privileges (to the noblemen), no problem: you can easily replace the "noblemen" with any group, including "everyone". E.g., suppose a law that says every bride must submit to sex with anyone who asks. There you go, everyone is equal under the law. But it's at least as bad if not worse.

If you were thinking the businessmen were the noblemen in my comparison, then no, I placed the businessmen as the brides (the ones choosing to do something: start a business or get married).

If you think I'm advocating special legal treatment for Christians, then you are mistaken. I wasn't even talking about religion or freedom of religion. I said that human intercourse requires consent of both parties, just as much for commercial as for sexual. And I apply that equally to everyone of all races, genders, creeds, classes, etc. No special treatment for Christians. Everyone equally has the right to withhold consent for any reason or no reason. And everyone equally must refrain from intercourse with someone who withholds consent.

We are not talking about the rules of social intercourse. We are talking about business practices under the law. They are different.

[seer]

You are not being denied the free exercise of religion. But, as with all freedoms, it comes with constrains. You are still free to preach whatever you think your religion teaches, e.g. anti gay marriage, killing witches, anti mixed marriages...whatever, in appropriate venues. But these venues do not include the workplace.

That is nonsense Tass, you do not get to decide how or where I exercise my faith. And again no man has a Constitutional right to my labor or service. For 200 years of our history this was not the case.

[JimL]

You thought completely wrong - that is NOT what the Court found - heck, that's not even argued in the dissents that I saw. Even the liberal side of the Court isn't arguing that nonsense - they recognized the inherent inequity of what Colorado DID.

The above doesn't refute what I said. Of course both sides of the argument agree that what the Colorado Civil rights Board did with it's disparaging comments concerning the baker was wrong, that's why they overturned the case, they didn't overturn it on the merits of the case itself. It's called kicking the can down the road. In that way Justice Kennedy can retire without having to deal with it.

Translation: you can't argue the point so you wanna shift to 'prove it'. I'd have been far more inclined to comply had you asked for the case four or five pages back when I first mentioned it.

I'll hunt it down when I feel like it. You can use google as well as I can if you are actually interested - which I completely doubt.

Translation: you never read such a case and can't argue the point!

Argh - I DID NOT SAY THAT. The Court made an exception to allow an otherwise unconstitutional violation.

What! You didn't say that? You just confirmed that that is exactly what you said. I'll bet that's how the court defended their decision as well: (We find our ruling to be unconstitutional but because we are Kings, we're going to rule that way anyway.)

Yeah, I think if that portion falls the whole thing will - but that wasn't what the Court actually said that I recall - a case can be overturned without overturning an entire act (I just doubt that would happen here).

Which portion are you refering to that is unconstitutional and which portion is constitutional?

As I recall, it was the original decision - look it up.

In other words you are making it up Tea. There is no way that the SC is going to rule that they are breaking with the Constitution for practical reasons.

[JimL]

That is nonsense Tass, you do not get to decide how or where I exercise my faith.

Right, but Congress does have the right to regulate your public enterprize.

And again no man has a Constitutional right to my labor or service. For 200 years of our history this was not the case.

Right, no man does have the right to your labor or service, but under the Constitution, the Congress does have the power, and therefore the right, to regulate your labor and service.

[seer]

Right, but Congress does have the right to regulate your public enterprize.

But a private business is not public. That is what the left did, they magically turned a private business into a public accommodation. Which was never the case in the history of his country.

Right, no man does have the right to your labor or service, but under the Constitution, the Congress does have the power, and therefore the right, to regulate your labor and service.

Really? Which article is that - can you point me to it?

[Joel]

We are not talking about the rules of social intercourse. We are talking about business practices under the law. They are different.

Trade is a fundamental category of social intercourse. Human intercourse requires consent. Sex without consent is rape. Doing other stuff to someone's body without their consent is battery or worse. Doing stuff to someone's property without their consent is theft, vandalism, etc. You do not have a right to any such intercourse with someone without their consent. You do not have a right to trade with someone without their consent, nor do you have a right to someone's labor without their consent. All these issues of consent in all these forms of human intercourse fall under the scope of Justice.

[JimL]

Trade is a fundamental category of social intercourse. Human intercourse requires consent. Sex without consent is rape. Doing other stuff to someone's body without their consent is battery or worse. Doing stuff to someone's property without their consent is theft, vandalism, etc. You do not have a right to any such intercourse with someone without their consent. You do not have a right to trade with someone without their consent, nor do you have a right to someone's labor without their consent. All these issues of consent in all these forms of human intercourse fall under the scope of Justice.

It's not about consent, according to the laws of the land the businessman has already given consent not to discriminate. It's about breaking that agreement.

[Teallaura]

The above doesn't refute what I said. Of course both sides of the argument agree that what the Colorado Civil rights Board did with it's disparaging comments concerning the baker was wrong, that's why they overturned the case, they didn't overturn it on the merits of the case itself. It's called kicking the can down the road. In that way Justice Kennedy can retire without having to deal with it.

Kennedy stated that the cases were similar enough that finding differently in this case constituted a unequal and unfair handling of the case - then he went on to scold them for their very obvious bias.

Translation: you never read such a case and can't argue the point!

I already argued the point multiple times - the reality is it pissed me off that you were calling me a liar - still does.

What! You didn't say that? You just confirmed that that is exactly what you said. I'll bet that's how the court defended their decision as well: (We find our ruling to be unconstitutional but because we are Kings, we're going to rule that way anyway.)

MAKING an EXCEPTION is not 'ruling something constitutional that is unconstitutional' as you argued. English didn't used to be this hard for you.

Which portion are you refering to that is unconstitutional and which portion is constitutional?

If the FoA falls, I suspect it will take the entire ruling with it - even though that wasn't the grounds for the decision (in Atlanta, the court addressed the Fed power issue). Do try to keep up - I'm not inclined to babysit you when you start calling me a liar without provocation.

In other words you are making it up Tea. There is no way that the SC is going to rule that they are breaking with the Constitution for practical reasons.

You are completely clueless and therefore grasping at straws. I gave you the cases - go prove me wrong if you can. I think Atlanta is the right one - but I dang sure remember the freaking essay I had to do on this in Constitutional Law 202.

But don't bother me about it - I didn't deserve to be treated like that - I didn't do anything to you.

[Teallaura]

It's not about consent, according to the laws of the land the businessman has already given consent not to discriminate. It's about breaking that agreement.

Horse hockey - there's NOTHING like that in law. Pull the case if you can back this up.

[Teallaura]

Right, but Congress does have the right to regulate your public enterprize.

Learn to spell - this is wrong, FYI.

Right, no man does have the right to your labor or service, but under the Constitution, the Congress does have the power, and therefore the right, to regulate your labor and service.

Total nonsense - ISC doesn't grant any such rights or power. It's only in matters that relate to ISC that Congress has any regulatory power here at all - that's in the constitution itself.

[Joel]

It's not about consent, according to the laws of the land the businessman has already given consent not to discriminate. It's about breaking that agreement.

I already pointed out how that reasoning fails my Jus Primae Noctis test.