Senate The Supreme Court

You're absolutely correct off course. But I think the potential broader rule comes from the fact that this case affirmed that an entity like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has to legitimately give weight to both sides. Among the 7-2 decision, it was Kennedy himself who was the most vocal in his concern, and basically called the (Colorado Commission) the "least respectful and tolerable" of any of the parties involved in this case. That focus is quite telling, as Kennedy and Kagan, and the so called "liberal" judges who guided the majority all basically said you can't have a rights commission that doesn't protect the rights of all the people under its jurisdiction.

Based on this decision, the baker's legitimate beliefs to not make a cake would hold equal weight in relation to same sex marriage customers who want to buy a cake. Resultingly, what would a potential sanction be under a state commission? It's going to have to require some sort of means test- As an example, think in terms of how certain cultures have legal protection to use psychedelic compounds in legitimate religious rituals vs the same compounds still being illegal to a group of college students who just want to get high in their dorm over the weekend. It's not equitable, but the protection falls to the belief, not the act.

The broader impact is going to be determined by the remedy, and it will be interesting to see how the specifics play out in a follow on case.

 

Mr44 is alive! I was half-wondering if you or Kimball Kinnison would show up after finally getting an ending to the bakery case.

(Though as you and others have been saying, the issue isn't really settled yet by the courts, plus Congress could always weight-in with a new federal anti-discrimination law.)

 

This case is just about the State's obligation to maintain religious neutrality. The Commission displayed hostility towards the baker's claim of sincere religious belief and by their own conduct satisfied the SC that they were not "neutral". The real legal issues of whether the free exercise clause is subject to laws of general applicability didn't get tested because the Commissioners behaved liked ****s. However, the SC in the decision reaffirmed the principle in Employment Commissioner v Smith so basically was poised to rule against the baker and affirm that as long as the relevant anti-discrimination statute was " a neutral law of general applicability" then it did not violate his free exercise rights, but couldn't because of the conduct of the Commission. I think this case means absolutely nothing.

 

Pretty much, and it's a damn shame.

 

No, you're correct. Many, however, were hoping the court would just dismiss all "religious belief" defenses as insufficient to justify bigotry (which RBG did in her dissent). Kennedy instead with a very narrow ruling and didn't get into the merits of the religion/expression defense.

 

Well, it's not like I was following it before the decision. Cake maker, cake buyer....patty cake...It was just the most interesting topic at the top of the forum.

LOH- But you are down playing the purpose of the state commission, which is what this decision will impact. The original decision which triggered the baker to appeal to the Supreme Court was that the commission said the baker couldn't cite his religious beliefs. The state indicated that same-sex marriage was so intrinsically related to the plaintiffs’ sexual orientation that a refusal to serve them (the act) couldn't be separated from the individuals. This is true, and I think everyone agrees with this. But the baker argued back to the state that his religious beliefs were so intrinsically related to him, that they couldn't be separated from him as a cake maker. And the problem was that the state said he couldn't use that argument, only it could. (which I think was so troubling to the Justices on the Supreme Court)

If legitimate beliefs of both should be considered, then the state will have to change how it handles the remedy. Because if both sides have sincere beliefs that should be protected by the state commission, there can't be arbitrary sanctions. Compromise? What defines discrimination vs "intrinsic belief?" Will there have to be a test to weed out malice intent vs sincere belief? This was a narrow ruling, but I think long term, it means both sides will have to accept less regarding the issue.

 

The important part that people are leaving out is the freedom of expression aspect. The baker isn't arguing that his beliefs give him a free pass to not serve gar couples at all, but that making wedding cakes is a custom product that has artistic aspects and thus implicates his freedom of expression.

 

Well, the best thing to do to bigots is run them out of business through boycotts. Never go to the courts if you can help it as you run the risk of these types winning and thus making America a little worse as a result. Best to just financially ruin them in which a silent standard is built that this behavior is unacceptable.

 

Yeah, I think the long & the short of it is that the Court's ruling did not actually do what a lot of Christian groups are saying it did. Their excitement over what they perceive the ruling to have been is muddying the waters on the issue, but I get why they're excited, based on all the interest in this case over the years.

And also I think it's fair to engage with the issue on the issue of free speech. I mean, do I think making a wedding cake is an artistic expression? Not really. It's a technical skill, I reckon, but I wouldn't call it an art form.

I respect that. And I'll see you in court. ​

 

I agree with this completely.

While I respect what the majority on the Court tried to do, there are several issues with their reasoning which are quickly going to emerge when the attempt to find a workable remedy appears in earnest:

1) The ruling is nuanced, whereas most Americans are not, especially on these types of issues.

2) The law does not exist in a vacuum. In other words, 'neutrality' is a nearly-impossible thing to conceptualize when trying to reconcile the irresistible force of religious freedom with the immovable object of sexual identify (and the expression thereof).

3) By dodging the central question, the Court has opened the floodgates for legal chaos. What do I mean? Somewhere, at some point, a business owner is going to refuse to allow a gay couple even on the premises, citing their mere existence on said property to be offensive to the owner's right to free exercise. Now, the Court made it clear that this behavior won't fly, but they didn't do it all that strongly. They discouraged this type of behavior, but didn't expressly forbid or refute it. Like insanely restrictive abortion laws, the boundaries are going to be tested, and the Court is going to have move beyond "narrow." Unless Congress chooses to pass legislation, this is all but inevitable.

And like abortion, the Court is going to have a very hard time threading the needle when it comes to balancing two inherently absolutist, diametrically-opposed viewpoints. I mean, what are they going to do? Bring back 'separate but equal'? Rule that a religious public business can only be opened next door to a secular one? It's a recipe for disaster, and ultimately, IMHO, unworkable.

Let me give you an example.

I am Jewish, and my wife Presbyterian. Organized religion is a stronger force in her life than it has been in mine, and her parents are far more conservative than mine. So when it came time to plan the wedding, getting married anywhere other than her church was pretty much out-of-the-question. So we compromised--a dual ceremony at the church with both a rabbi and her pastor. It worked out beautifully, but someone had to give ground. I made the decision to do so, because a) marrying her was more important to me than where and how the ceremony was held and b) it didn't personally compromise my religious identity to have a dual ceremony at her church.

The night before the wedding, we had the rehearsal. Afterwards, my mother asked me if perhaps they could 'cover up' the large cross on the dais for the ceremony, so as not to offend our Jewish family members and friends. I understood why she made her request, but refused to even entertain the idea. In my mind, having a rabbi was compromise enough. In her mind, the church had to become less 'Christian' for her to be comfortable. It wasn't something that I felt could be reconciled with the identity of what a Christian house of worship was supposed to be, and I knew that if I felt that way, my almost-wife would too. She withdrew the request when I asked her how she would react if someone came to our synagogue and asked for the Torah to be removed. It was a powerful statement, and brought home to both of us that in this type of situation, compromise could not, and would not, be equal. In other words, one side had to 'give up' more than the other, and I made a decision that it would be me (to be fair, like most Reform American Jews, our faith was more 'culture' than 'religion', and had been since my mother's parents passed away. So I felt it to be almost hypocritical to suddenly 'discover' being Jewish on the eve of marrying someone who wasn't).

What I'm trying to say is, the two points-of-view at issue in the baker case are fundamentally irreconcilable. The Court may think they've found a narrow remedy, but chastising the Colorado board for being more hostile to one side over the other does nothing to answer the question of "who ultimately has to give up more?" Is is the public business owners who feel that having to even be around homosexual couples is an affront to their faith, or LGBTQ Americans who will be forced to endure public snubs and discrimination in the name of 'free exercise'?

Who's 'discomfort' is more pressing, more severe, more worthy of legal protection? That is the real question before the Court, and one they chose (at least this time) not to answer. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the way forward is going to be pretty painful for a lot of people. I think @Fire_Ice_Death comes closest to how public consciousness will evolve on this issue when he states that economic boycotts of individuals and entities that engage in what is perceived as discriminatory behavior by a majority of Americans will force it to change. I don't know how long that will take, but one thing I do know is that the Court has only temporarily dodged a landmine.

And they'll be back on the battlefield before they know it.

 

I don't know how you draw those conclusions on a simple reading of Kennedy's opinion. The decision will impact the state commission only to the extent that state civil rights commissioners will need to consider how they conduct themselves in the course of the adjudication process in these type of cases involving religious belief in future This decision very much turned on the specific conduct of the civil rights commission in the case when it was heard, which resulted in the SC overturning their ruling because the commissioners did not consider the case with the requisite "religious neutrality". Examples of 'hostility' are cited in the SC decision, including comments made by one of the commissioners that amounted to describing the baker's religious position as being an example of "despicable piece of rhetoric" to justify "hurting others". Pretty stupid comments to make if you have a Constitutional obligation to maintain religious neutrality - was Richard Dawkins on the panel??

This passage from the Kennedy opinion pretty much sums it up:

“Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.”

 

Well, and also you absolutely would be forbidden from marrying in the synagogue because of the state of modern US Jewry, so there's that too...

 

Yes. My so-called “liberal” reform rabbi wouldn’t touch us with a ten-foot pole. Haven’t been back to my synagogue since (except once for a funeral).

 

Jumping off topic a bit here, but I had a similar situation when I got married to my wife. We are both Christian, but she's Roman Catholic and I'm United Methodist. I also have a father who is a UMC pastor. Even though I had that connection with my father, and I also practiced my faith much more than my wife (at least from the aspect of attending services), we still decided to get married in her church because of the whole excommunicating issues and what not. Luckily her priest was about to retire and was very accommodating to us. He not only allowed my father to participate in the ceremony, but also allowed open communion which is very rare. If he hadn't it would have been a huge issue with us as the vast majority of my guests, and a decent chunk of my wife's as well, weren't catholic. My wife was insistent on having communion so not sure who would have won if he hadn't allowed it to be open.

The funny thing is my wife became a United Methodist years later with me and we had our son baptized in the UMC as well even though she had signed papers during our marriage counseling saying she'd never do either of those things.​

 

Wait, what?

 

As a militant atheist I was married before the Great Horned Satan himself where I drank the blood of virgins from a cup carved from the skulls of puppies.

 

Same fam.

 

Prof Lawrence Tribe highly recommends this analysis of the decision and so do I
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...despair-masterpiece-cakeshop-ruling-misplaced

 

I doubt it. Mostly because the people touting this as a 'win' are immune to facts and as the Trumpenfuhrer has established: facts do not matter, only perception, in the US. Is Trump a billionaire? It's likely that he isn't, but he can convince people of it. Collusion with Russians? Nope. Conflicts of interests? Pah! Just good business sense that just so happened to work out when threatening China with tariffs. So yes, while the opinion is nuanced, the fallout won't be and I can guarantee you that others will push things as far as they can go to see how much society will tolerate it.

I hate to use the gaming industry as an example of anything, but their practice is pushing things as far as they go. Then when confronted on it they'll revert to the earlier, crappier system which will be hailed as a good thing with praise for coming to their senses and being the good guy. This is how religious fanatics work as well: push things to an intolerable level, then revert to crappier, but slightly 'better' attitudes to get people to tolerate their ****. Yeah, they're allowed to discriminate for deeply held beliefs, but at least they're letting them live in their community.

It's disgusting and while I agree that the comments probably meant he wouldn't get a fair shake, does this really deserve a fair hearing? If you run a business that serves the public then you probably shouldn't discriminate no matter how 'deeply held' your 'religious' belief is. This is why I'm very much in favor of financially ruining these people as opposed to letting them possibly win court cases.

 

Link

Hah! I was right. Can we just admit the experiment was a failure now? The fact that our country is so mentally unsound is proof of that alone. We've let our education system slip until the point that nobody believes anything anymore. But hey, at least we have a strong military that'll protect the idiots.

 

Apparently, you're wrong -- as the AZ Appeals Court explicitly used Masterpiece Cakeshop to uphold anti-discrimination laws against LGBTQ patrons...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...sterpiece-cakeshop.html?via=homepage_taps_top

 

The bizarre thing about FIDO's article is the guy's reasoning. He says that though it's a victory for Christianity "the dark days will come." He articulates definite certainty that the US Justice System will turn to persecuting Christians, and this is only a small blip that deviates from the larger pattern. Which. . .fine. That actually folds pretty easily into millenarian beliefs.

But what I don't understand is. . .why is it therefore important to get conservative justices? If this is literally fated to happen, and there's no other option, why are you fighting it? What's the point? Shouldn't you focus your vote on things that are maybe unrelated, so at least society will be decent in other ways? Can someone help me out here?

 

And it begins

Wonder how long until the "No Muslims/Jews/Blacks/Asians/Hispanics" allowed signs go up.

#MAGA

 

The Court has upheld Ohio's law purging voter rolls for those who a) fail to vote in six sequential elections and b) fail to return a mail-in form confirming their address.

Hurts the poor, minorities, and even military service members who might not get the form in time to return it. The decision was 5-4, which Justice Alito writing that it "follows the federal Voting Rights Act to the letter." Hmm.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/supreme-court-ohio-voter-purge

 

Oops, it’s two sequential elections, not six. My bad .