Author Topic: Colorado Gay Wedding Cake Case: Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Discrimination  (Read 1537 times)

Offline Mermaid

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Islam is a threat in the U.S., but it's not threatening to institute a theocracy here, as is Christianity. And the threat of theocracy is much greater than the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, I think.
ABSOLUTELY.
We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch - we are going back from whence we came.

John F. Kennedy

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I was a famous painter and a gay couple wanted me to paint a portrait of them even looking like they were in a pre/post-sexual situation, i would not be comfortable doing it and I think I should be able to say, "looks folks, I simply can't do this" and be able to do that without fear of being labeled a homophobe after years of being a supporter, but also understands that even I, as a supporter cannot do some things if I were asked. I cannot watch gay porn. I have no interest in it. And no gay friend has ever asked suggested or invited me to watch it. They respected that I "accepted and supported" their rights or fight for rights, but at the same time, am not willing to become part of the culture.

So if I am allowed to say, "look guys, no can do." Why should a person who has or at least claims to have a severe objection to gayness completely, be forced to do something he finds honestly repulsive?
It is a fine line, yes.  But I think there's a difference between a portrait and a cake, certainly.  The portrait would remain, to continue being associated with the artist.  The cake is by definition a consumable and isn't going to outlast the reception in any form beyond scraps.  So there's not a lasting item to associate with the artist.

Also, Masterpiece turned the couple down before any discussion of what was going to be on the cake.  It wasn't a matter of objecting to any imagery or text on the cake because they were turned down long before that point.  They could have wanted a plain vanilla cake with white fondant, a few abstract decorations and no text or topper and Masterpiece still wouldn't have served them.  So this case wasn't about objecting to the message they wanted, it was objecting to them for who they are.

What muddied the waters was the way the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled it, and that's really where the decision hinged.  They kind of side-stepped the question of whether Masterpiece violated the couple's civil rights and focused on that in their judgment, the Colorado CRC violated Masterpiece's.  The underlying question of Masterpiece's behavior was pretty much brushed aside.  I should have saved the link; I saw an article that said Kennedy was hoping there was a more clear-cut case in the pipeline, but I cannot find the link again.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree.  While the threat of terrorism is bloody ugly, a theocracy would change the very fabric of Western Democracy, which was one Hell of a good idea at one time.  If Christians ever do get their theocracy, they will be teaching it in public schools instead of science, and our children will be learning alternate facts.  Ignorance will become fashionable, even more than it already is.

It's not like we are sitting on our hands ignoring terrorism either.  So far, police work is being used fairly effectively to combat terrorism in the US, at least since 9-11 woke us up. And I'm not sure what more we can do.  Well there's more I suppose, but it could be pretty unthinkable.

Historically, only one theocracy in US history ... Puritan New England.  Watch out, Progressives ;-)
שלום

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is a fine line, yes.  But I think there's a difference between a portrait and a cake, certainly....
I haven't followed or studied the case, but I guessed it would NOT be cut and dried.  I didn't anticipate the technicality caused by Colorado that would change the focus of the debate, but when I hear about artistry in the debate, I do a face palm.  I wouldn't if the issue was just that any private business can turn anyone down that they want, but nooo, it's about the "sanctity of art."  Anything can be an art.  Embalming, making cigars, but come on; It's cake decorating, which is more closely related to finger painting than actual art.   In the building trades it's often joked that cake decorating is an apprenticeship for becoming a dry wall finisher.  I think I'd be less amused by the whole thing if they referred to it as a talent or skill, not that skill or art has anything to do with the legality of the dispute.  There are obviously legal issues, and like aitm, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with either outcome, but this art thing sounds like the court is using it to make up for the lack of legal precedent.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, Masterpiece turned the couple down before any discussion of what was going to be on the cake.  It wasn't a matter of objecting to any imagery or text on the cake because they were turned down long before that point.  They could have wanted a plain vanilla cake with white fondant, a few abstract decorations and no text or topper and Masterpiece still wouldn't have served them.  So this case wasn't about objecting to the message they wanted, it was objecting to them for who they are.
I suspected this, but didn't know for sure.  They make cakes.  Just make a wedding cake.  That's all.  Break up two sets of plastic bride/groom decorations that go on the top, so people can say, "Oh that must be a wedding cake, and put two grooms on the cake.  Save the two brides for a lesbian couple, and you got yourself two saleable cakes.  You can even avoid a special request to your cake parts warehouse.  Just go to a toy store and get two Marvel action figures of the appropriate gender, and people will say, "Now, that may not be art, but it's a dandy cake." 

Of course, it's not about art.  It's about public disapproval.  And that's why it ended up in court, and that might be all that is needed to win the case, without creating all the artsy fartsy legal dressing.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 12:43:18 AM by SGOS »

Online Cavebear

The bad thing about really difficult legal decisions is they are awkward.  But the really good thing about really difficult legal decisions is also that they are awkward. 

The only ones that SHOULD come before the Supreme Court are the ones that are awkward.  And even in this case, all that happened was that the Surpreme court remanded the question back to the lower court for further consideration about a particular and limited argument.

IOW, a decision has not actually been made yet.  The Supreme Court has declared that one part of the lower court judgement needs to be reconsidered.  I know that seems odd but that is often how the Supreme Court works.  Right now, they have only said that a part of the lower court's decision needs to be explored further.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bad thing about really difficult legal decisions is they are awkward.  But the really good thing about really difficult legal decisions is also that they are awkward. 

The only ones that SHOULD come before the Supreme Court are the ones that are awkward.  And even in this case, all that happened was that the Surpreme court remanded the question back to the lower court for further consideration about a particular and limited argument.

IOW, a decision has not actually been made yet.  The Supreme Court has declared that one part of the lower court judgement needs to be reconsidered.  I know that seems odd but that is often how the Supreme Court works.  Right now, they have only said that a part of the lower court's decision needs to be explored further.
Pretty much.  If there hadn't been a clear 7-2 for Kennedy's opinion, if no one could have mustered better than 5-4 (and I suspect that until they sidestepped by focusing on the Colorado CRC, they probably had three separate opinions that divided the court 4-3-2), it would probably have been DIGged—Dismissed as Improvidently Granted, an admission that the Court made a mistake in granting cert, and they're going to punt until a more clear-cut case with fewer side issues comes along.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline pr126

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bad thing about really difficult legal decisions is they are awkward.  But the really good thing about really difficult legal decisions is also that they are awkward. 

The only ones that SHOULD come before the Supreme Court are the ones that are awkward.  And even in this case, all that happened was that the Surpreme court remanded the question back to the lower court for further consideration about a particular and limited argument.

IOW, a decision has not actually been made yet.  The Supreme Court has declared that one part of the lower court judgement needs to be reconsidered.  I know that seems odd but that is often how the Supreme Court works.  Right now, they have only said that a part of the lower court's decision needs to be explored further.
Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 11:06:55 AM by pr126 »
"It doesn't matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true."

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.
The cake shop, as well as the gay couple, were probably funded by special interest groups.  I doubt a normal person could afford this kind of litigation.  In some courts and some situations, a winning lawyer may try to arrange the right to sue the loser of the case to pay for all court costs.  I've heard about this happening, but honestly, I've never heard of an actual outcome in one of these situations.  I'm not sure what it's for.  I guess just to add risk and try to get the other side to settle out of court.  But legal shit isn't my expertise.  It might be something else.

Offline Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.

It can happen.  In this case it was deliberate targeting.  Usually this is done in Washington DC against political opponents.  But you can crowd fund if you are Comey.
שלום

Online Cavebear

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.

The cake shop and the gay couple were supported by special interests.  Few individual cases reach the Supreme Court on their own costs.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk