SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[firstfloor]

Who are you to determine what's art? Or, as I asked before, are you just trolling?

[Cow Poke]

Trolling. Thought so.

[One Bad Pig]

While a truly great flavor might move me to tears, nobody is saying that's what artistic about wedding cakes, or haute cuisine.

[Joel]

If what goes on in the world offends you, be a monk and go live in a monastery. Otherwise, learn to love your neighbour as yourself, all of them. Give extra love to the outcasts.

This is a red herring. The question isn't whether what the baker did was morally good.

One can defend someone's right to free expression without approving of their particular expression/views. One can defend someone's right to freedom of religion while disapproving of/disbelieving their particular religion. One can defend someone's liberty/property rights while disapproving of how they use them. But it seems as if some people think that morality and legality are, or ought to be, equivalent.

[rogue06]

If what goes on in the world offends you, be a monk and go live in a monastery. Otherwise, learn to love your neighbour as yourself, all of them. Give extra love to the outcasts.

So... if someone not baking a cake for a gay wedding because of personal convictions gets your panties all bunched up, you should learn to let it go? I'm good with that.

[Joel]

While the Opinion and other concurring opinions focus on the freedom of religion question, Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion discusses the free-speech issue. Refuting 3 bad arguments:

1
2
Thomas argues that justification for the California statute must pass Strict Scrutiny. And then:

3
Thomas also goes through evidence that Phillips' cake-making is expression. E.g.:

[firstfloor]

Trolling. Thought so.

[firstfloor]

So... if someone not baking a cake for a gay wedding because of personal convictions gets your panties all bunched up, you should learn to let it go? I'm good with that.

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.

[Joel]

It's almost tradition that wedding cakes taste bad. They are made mainly to be appreciated for their beauty, emotional power, and symbolism of the new marriage and its celebration. Thomas discusses that in his concurring opinion. E.g.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-111_j4el.pdf

(The nude dancing and red flag refer to examples he discussed previously of cases where freedom of expression was recognized and upheld by the Court.)

[Cow Poke]

Issues like this are best solved with love, not litigation.

Agreed, so the gay couple should have loved the baker enough to leave him alone and go find another place to buy their cake!

[rogue06]

Agreed, so the gay couple should have loved the baker enough to leave him alone and go find another place to buy their cake!

Egg^[1]-zactly








1. Plus water, flour, milk, butter and sugar

[Terraceth]

Well, no. She would have appointed another Ginsberg as SCJ.

Unlikely, considering the Senate would still be Republican-controlled. I wouldn't be surprised if Merrick Garland just got re-nominated under those circumstances (assuming he didn't just get confirmed by the lame duck congress).

Virtually every news account uses similar "poor writing"

Well, at least some of them are fairly clear about what the word narrow entails. The CNBC report says right at the start "The vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets." The Scotusblog report also says narrow but right in the first paragraph explains what it means by that.

My guess is that some source or another used the word "narrow" and explained what it meant in the body, but a bunch of other sources, eager to get the story out as quickly as possible, just saw "narrow" and jumped on it without bothering to explain its definition.

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

[firstfloor]

Agreed, so the gay couple should have loved the baker enough to leave him alone and go find another place to buy their cake!

Quite, if otherwise they were treated respectfully when their custom was declined and if equivalent goods were 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.

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

[RumTumTugger]

how bigoted of you.

[RumTumTugger]

He was not refusing them the baked cake he was refusing them the art work he did on the cakes. His faith in God was an intergril part of his artwork he put on the cakes.