Jump to content


Photo

SCOTUS: No, you don't HAVE to bake the cake


  • Please log in to reply
322 replies to this topic

#1 Mexas Joe

Mexas Joe

    Obama Thanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20427 posts
  • LocationIt's OK to be White

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:32 AM

A big win for supporters of the right to refuse service to anyone. 

 

Link when I get something other than the AP from Twitter. 


  • 0

#2 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 76651 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:35 AM

A big win for supporters of the right to refuse service to anyone. 

 

Eh, don't jump for joy just yet.  According to my local news station who is reporting on this right now it's a pretty narrow ruling.  The legal analyst (who I am actually listening to as we speak) just said that really the ruling was that THIS baker had the right to refuse service to THIS gay couple; it did not address the larger issue of whether professionals can "in general" refuse service in such situations...


  • 0

#3 Mexas Joe

Mexas Joe

    Obama Thanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20427 posts
  • LocationIt's OK to be White

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:35 AM

7-2 is narrow? 


  • 0

#4 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 76651 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:36 AM

7-2 is narrow? 

 

Read again what I said.  I wasn't talking about how close it was, I was talking about whether it applies broadly to the law or just to this specific case/law, and the answer is the latter.


  • 0

#5 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 59123 posts
  • LocationAntioch, IL

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:44 AM

it will still be used as precedent in other reasonably similar cases and stretched to the limits of the ruling and the opinion


  • 0

#6 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31596 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:45 AM

it will still be used as precedent in other reasonably similar cases and stretched to the limits of the ruling and the opinion

Yep.  All this "narrowly" stuff seems like spin to me.



#7 43hertz

43hertz

    Gold Star Recipient

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7942 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:46 AM

it will still be used as precedent in other reasonably similar cases and stretched to the limits of the ruling and the opinion


Yep. Tidal shift.
  • 0

#8 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 76651 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:48 AM

it will still be used as precedent in other reasonably similar cases and stretched to the limits of the ruling and the opinion

 

True but they will still have to go through the courts.  Per the local news guy today "This doesn't mean that a wedding photographer can automatically refuse to do photos for a gay wedding, and it doesn't mean that a banquet hall can automatically refuse to rent the venue for a gay wedding;  the ruling is that THIS particular baker was within his rights to refuse to bake THIS cake for THIS couple in THIS incident."

 

That's all I am saying although I'm sure momentarily someone will be along to mock me for something I didn't say... :P


Yep.  All this "narrowly" stuff seems like spin to me.

 

 Could be - though for what it's worth, the above description of the ruling came from a legal analyst who was on Fox News. :P


  • 0

#9 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31596 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:51 AM

True but they will still have to go through the courts.  Per the local news guy today "This doesn't mean that a wedding photographer can automatically refuse to do photos for a gay wedding, and it doesn't mean that a banquet hall can automatically refuse to rent the venue for a gay wedding;  the ruling is that THIS particular baker was within his rights to refuse to bake THIS cake for THIS couple in THIS incident."

....

IANAL, but I don't think that analysis is right.  I think refusing for other reasons still needs adjudication but religious exemptions will now have precedent behind them.



#10 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29576 posts
  • LocationCedar Rapids, Ia

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:51 AM

Ruining bigots via the free market is a better solution.


  • 0

#11 davelew

davelew

    Comptroller of ACMSO That Are Not Beans

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13284 posts
  • LocationReading, Massachusetts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:53 AM

I thought the ruling was that the case didn't get a fair trial at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because they were too anti-religion.  It seems like more of a "don't be a dick" ruling than one about cakes and public premises.


  • 0

#12 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31596 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:53 AM

Ruining bigots via the free market is a better solution.

Yep



#13 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 59123 posts
  • LocationAntioch, IL

Posted 04 June 2018 - 07:53 AM

Ruining bigots via the free market is a better solution.

agreed.


  • 0

#14 Sidney Porter

Sidney Porter

    Comptroller of the Banninated

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21344 posts
  • LocationColumbus OH

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:08 AM

IANAL, but I don't think that analysis is right. I think refusing for other reasons still needs adjudication but religious exemptions will now have precedent behind them.

I think the narrow might have something to do if it is a "creative" product. So you could refuse to write on the cake "george and stain sitting in a tree". But a gas station doesn't have automatic right to refuse to sell a gay person gas. I would also think buying a generic cake without specific writing might not be protected.

I would think a photographer would be protected because there is an expectation of pictures of the couple. The hall hosting the event could be protected. I would say the caterer because they need to be there. A florist maybe less, I don't think seeing flowers would be seen as an endorsement (unlike 2 men on a cake) a florist also doesn't need to be at the event
  • 0

#15 Mexas Joe

Mexas Joe

    Obama Thanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20427 posts
  • LocationIt's OK to be White

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:25 AM

Yep.  All this "narrowly" stuff seems like spin to me.

 

 

BUNkMRF.jpg


  • 0

#16 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 76651 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:28 AM

Right.  Do you not get the difference between a narrow ruling and a close one?


  • 0

#17 Mexas Joe

Mexas Joe

    Obama Thanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20427 posts
  • LocationIt's OK to be White

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:32 AM

Right.  Do you not get the difference between a narrow ruling and a close one?

 

So you wanna Errybody Gets a Trophy a 7-2 ruling? 


  • 0

#18 Vagus

Vagus

    Just had an organism

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 39243 posts
  • LocationThere

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:32 AM

Right.  Do you not get the difference between a narrow ruling and a close one?

*narrows his eyes without moving them closer together*

 

*explodes*


  • 0

#19 Murphy

Murphy

    No Life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14017 posts

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:33 AM

So you wanna Errybody Gets a Trophy a 7-2 ruling? 

 

7-2 has nothing to do with "narrow", that's in reference to it's application...you are confusing the two words


  • 0

#20 Vagus

Vagus

    Just had an organism

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 39243 posts
  • LocationThere

Posted 04 June 2018 - 08:34 AM

7-2 has nothing to do with "narrow", that's in reference to it's application...you are confusing the two words

Poorly worded at best.


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users