Senate The Supreme Court

No, they also have to enforce it equally against those who discriminate against Christians.

The disparate treatment between the ruling to punish Masterpiece Cakeshop for on the one hand, and the ruling exonerating Acuzar bakery on the other hand, also killed Colorado's case. That state's application of the law was nowhere near being generally applicable or neutral.

If they had punished both bakeries, they might have had a chance - despite the statements of the commission. But instead, they tried to play favorites, with one set of rules for the favored group, and a different set of rules for a disfavored group.

 

But "enforce" what? What are you talking about? We are talking about a civil rights commission. You end up there when somebody accuses you of violating civil rights, such as violating anti-discrimination laws. The issue here is that certain people may defend their discriminatory conduct on religious grounds. The Commission therefore has to decide the issue. The principle at play is that the Commission, when deciding on the case at hand, has an obligation to maintain "neutrality" towards religion, particularly when religion is invoked as the principal 'defence'. The Commission shouldn't therefore show hostility towards religious beliefs because then they aren't displaying neutrality, they are displaying bias. That is the only reason why the baker was successful, because in this particular case, the silly Commissioners went on a bit of a rampage against the baker and rubbished his religious beliefs and basically called him a deplorable person for invoking religion in the first place. I suggest the outcome would have been completely different if they had not done that and just applied the law without the religious vitriol.

 

But the bias doesn't just show up in vitriol. It can also show up in disparate enforcement.

You can't say to a group you don't like (the Religious Right) that declining to express a view on same-sex marriage that they find abhorrent still constitutes discrimination, but then apply a different standard to the LGBT community. Colorado did just that.

If you want to use force Jack Phillips to create and design a cake for the same-sex wedding of Charlie Craig and David Mullins under penalties of fines, re-education, and quarterly progress reports, then you must also force the gay baker to write Leviticus 18:22 on a bible-shaped cake for William Jack under penalties of fines, re-education, and quarterly progress reports. The only other alternative is to allow both to decline to create and design cakes views they find abhorrent and tell both complainants to take a hike.

Colorado set one standard for Jack Phillips to live by, and another for the gay bakers. Its application of the law was neither neutral nor generally applicable.

Or do you support religious discrimination targeting the Religious Right?

 

Most wedding cakes have no message on them. At all.

Someone writing a philosophical dissertation on top of a piece of dessert is not an equivalent situation.

 

No, I'm afraid you've got it very wrong. The two situations you are comparing as examples of 'disparate' application are not the same thing at all. These cases involve discrimination. Discrimination in this context is refusal to provide services to certain customers because the customers fall into different categories, based upon a certain trait, such as gender, race or sexual orientation. Discrimination is differential treatment based upon those traits.

The religious Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to the gay couple simply because they were gay. He would have baked a cake for a non-gay couple. That is discrimination. The other example is different because the secular baker was being asked to bake a cake with particular wording on it. Let's say the wording was "homophobic". The secular baker did not refuse to bake the cake because of the customer's religious beliefs or because the customer was religious or a christian or a jew. He refused because the wording was not something he would provide to anybody. Therefore the customer was not being denied service because of the customer's religion, the customer was not being treated differently, therefore the customer was not being discriminated against. Two different scenarios entirely.

 

YOU got it wrong. Jack Phillips would sell them any pre-made cake. He'd do a birthday cake. He wouldn't do a cake for a same-sex wedding, no matter who asked for it. Nor would he do a cake celebrating Halloween or for divorce. He objected to the message the cake Mullins and Craig asked for represented, just as he'd object to the message a divorce cake would represent or a cake for a Halloween party. It wouldn't matter who was asking for a cake celebrating any of that. It was the same rationale as that provided by the proprietor of Acuzar bakery, who happened to be a member of the LGBT community, with regards to a cake with Leviticus 18:22 on it: "I do not wish to use my creative talents to express your message."

Same reason for declining to make the cake. Only there was different treatment based on who asked for the cake. LGBT baker got a pass. Religious Right baker didn't.

That is disparate treatment. That is a double standard. Saying otherwise only makes you look disingenuous or like you are trying to gaslight everyone here.

 

OK have a nice day.

 

There was a message on the wedding cake? There are messages on wedding cakes?

 

Did... did JediSmuggler just accuse you, LOH, who speaks the view most JC'ers would agree with, of gaslighting people?

Oh what a hearty belly laugh did this produce.

Maybe where he's from, the fortune cookie is considered an acceptable wedding cake. ​

 

Boom!

 

The guy's personal bigotry is not a 'sincerely held religious belief'. In fact, the bible says nothing about homosexuality.

 

Erm. The Bible discusses same sex attraction.

 

Does it? Leviticus? That text is followed so much by Christians.

 

Romans.

And it is.

 

Not surprised by the decision, but I am surprised at the breakdown.

9-0? Really? Wow.

 

I saw one that said "Congratulations Amy and Brian" at my sister's wedding, I swear it.

 

From your article:

While the ruling will let the maps be used, the justices dodged the question of whether they are legal.​

 

Yes. My point is: I'm surprised that all nine signed onto that obvious punt, even though Justice Kagan wrote an opinion critical of it. 5-4 I would understand, but a unanimous ruling?

Go figure that one out.

 

I guess its their version of keeping their powder dry before the real fight breaks out.

 

They've done it often before, like punting gay marriage cases until they were ready.

Besides, a Justice can change their mind about a ruling all the way until the end. It might have initially been something like 5-4, and then the 4 in the minority agreed to sign on if it just avoided the main question. Or maybe they wanted to hear the arguments, but didn't want to make a decision until right before the 2020 redistricting, so it's not mass chaos right before the midterms. The deliberations of the court between the case hearing and the publication of their ruling are very private.

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-online-taxes-20180621-story.html

Internet retailers must now collect state tax.

Oddly: "Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch formed the majority." (with Kennedy who wrote the opinion)

EDIT: A longer write-up: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-sales-taxes-internet-merchants.html

Ruling here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

 

Any idea(aside from Grouch who is relatively new) how often that group has formed a majority opinion?

 

I have no idea, but I'd wager as a 4-person bloc -- very low. As a 7-9 person bloc, probably pretty high?

I'd bet that Thomas and Alito are probably the largest 1- or 2-person minority opinion on one side and Ginsburg and Sotomayor on the other.

 

Yeah I meant just those 5 on 5-4 decisions. That is an odd grouping.