main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate The US Politics discussion

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    Just ban TV altogether! :D
     
  2. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    So that's why you're called Lordban.
     
  3. AhsokaSolo

    AhsokaSolo Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 23, 2015
    GMAB. The ruling says Colorado wasn’t neutral enough in considering his claim that his religion justifies homophobic discrimination. People can try to butter that up as some inclusive, nuanced decision, but it’s not. It sets a precedent - discrimination based on religious beliefs get a certain benefit of the doubt. The bottom line is, religion should be irrelevant to the conversation. No discrimination based on sexual orientation, period. I don’t care how much your religion mandates you not sell for a gay wedding. Are you doing background checks on all customers to see if they’re going to use your cake in furtherance of some sin? No? Then stuff it. It’s hogwash.

    No, the dicta. I’m the one crediting the holding, which is where the focus should be.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  4. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    You can stop there. It is my religion as well, and no, it does not.
     
  5. AhsokaSolo

    AhsokaSolo Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 23, 2015
    Well that’s what the guy says. Don’t blame the messenger.
     
    Point Given likes this.
  6. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    They can sell the cake, donate the proceeds to some mission work their church does—problem solved, not a legal leg to stand on against it and I doubt anyone would have tried.

    And I think the nuances probably belong back in the Supreme Court thread, although I recognize why the crossover happened given the Sarah Sanders incident.
     
    Chewgumma and Vaderize03 like this.
  7. JediVision

    JediVision Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 6, 2015
    I'm curious -- what exactly do you think Kennedy was trying to convey with the sentence, "The issue awaits further elaboration from the courts"? That the issue does not await further elaboration from the courts?
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
    Darth Guy likes this.
  8. Chancellor_Ewok

    Chancellor_Ewok Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Then Republicans would have to read books.

    :p
     
  9. AhsokaSolo

    AhsokaSolo Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 23, 2015
    It’s a limited holding. That’s normal. Judges aren’t supposed to rule beyond the issue at hand. You know what indicates how he’ll rule next time? He didn’t join the concurrence you touted.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
  10. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Jedi Merkurian and Outsourced like this.
  11. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    Fair enough.

    That said, the Court's decision still does not rule one way or the other on the substance of the case - it takes great pain to rule strictly on form and within a precise context to delineate how forms were not respected. It's certainly not an inclusive decision, and I'd argue it's not a nuanced one either. That decision states, plainly, that everyone has a right to being judged in front of a neutral decisionmaker, regardless of the outcome, and voids both Colorado court decisions on the basis they overstepped this boundary. Nothing else.
     
  12. JediVision

    JediVision Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Make up your own mind before you try to change ours.
     
  13. AhsokaSolo

    AhsokaSolo Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 23, 2015
    The Supreme Court did have a holding - in favor of discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Colorado penalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the basis for the court’s decision was religious. The Supreme Court said religion >>>> rights of homosexuals to not be discriminated against. That is now American precedent set by the highest court in the land.

    I understand you’re not a lawyer. It’s okay. Holdings are both precedent and limited. That’s how the law works.

    I’m not trying to change your mind any more than you’re trying to change mine. I’m engaging in discussion.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
  14. Darth Nerdling

    Darth Nerdling Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 20, 2013
    These refusal of service cases are very different despite their outward similarities. Even the Colorado baker case is being characterized in 2 different ways.

    Some are trying portray the baker case as an issue with free expression -- i.e the baker shouldn't be forced to make customized cake with language that supports gay rights. This is not what this case is dealing with in reality. I would be much more sympathetic with it if it were. Should a baker be forced to decorate a cake for Satanists, or someone who wants to celebrate an execution, or a Trumper wanting to celebrate ICE's successes deporting illegal immigrants?

    In this case, the baker refused service before the customers even explained what type of cake they wanted. He refused to make them any type of cake for their wedding, even a generic one. This is akin to refusing to make a pizza for a gay couple at a pizza place. This situation involves no possible infringement of the owner's free speech rights. It is simply a question of whether the owner is denying service to a protected class of individuals. In other words, should sexual orientation be a protected class just as religion, race, sex, etc. are? (And of course, the answer is yes.)

    The refusal of service to Sanders is different in many respects. First, political affiliation is not considered to be a protected class. As the law stands right now, any owner can deny service to a Democrat, Republican, socialist, commie, just simply by virtue of that person's politics. I'm not sure I agree with this position, but I suppose the justification is that this refusal of service is considered political speech.

    However, Sanders wasn't denied service because of her political affiliation alone. She was denied service because she is a public official who supports a specific public policy. In this case, a much stronger claim can be made that refusing her service is political speech. Also,
    individuals are not protected classes. One can deny service to O.J. Simpson or Al Capone or a jerk that you hate. Sanders fits in this category as well.

    Ultimately, Sanders can be denied service for multiple reasons. Political affiliation is not a protected class. Sander's position as a public official strengthens any free speech claim. She is being denied service as an individual.

    This is quite unlike the Colorado baker's case in which a person is simply choosing not to sell a generic product to whole group of people whom he disapproves of.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
  15. JediVision

    JediVision Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 6, 2015
  16. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    The thing is, reading this decision, it really did not. It stated, on the contrary, that it's a decision that pertains specifically to Phillips' case, specifically stating that it cannot be just used as precedent, and that any other decisions had to be made on their own merits and in their own contexts. Nor does it say anything about making a ruling regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation - on the contrary, it distances itself from making that ruling and solely makes its decision based on the right to a fair hearing.
     
  17. AhsokaSolo

    AhsokaSolo Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 23, 2015
    Look, all cases are about the specific case. All holdings focus on the facts at hand. That’s actually an America-old legal principal. Our courts are not supposed to write law, and they all engage in the fiction that they don’t and they only decide individual cases for precedent for the exact same situations. It’s not true though. Holdings are stretched and expanded and set patterns and trends for application.

    This holding literally said that Colorado couldn’t penalize the bakery for homophobic discrimination. That is the factual result in the case.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
  18. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    How the Dutch teach history:

    - Anne Frank and WWII
    - just a little prehistory
    - Occupation of the Netherlands in WWII
    - few Greeks, few Romans
    - Liberation of the Netherlands in WWII
    - little bit of middle-ages
    - The allies in WWII
    - scrap of Renaissance and Enlightenment
    - The axis powers in WWII
    - small dose of industrial revolution, leading up to!
    - WWII, mandatory exam topic for the past 70 years
     
    Sauntaero and Darth Punk like this.
  19. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Let’s throw out another example:

    If I go into a restaurant owned by a Duke fan, and I’m wearing my NCAA Championship 2017 T-shirt, that Duke fan can refuse to serve me. And I can yell on social media that these Duke fans refuse to serve UNC fans in their restaurant, but it’s not “bigotry” because UNC fans are not a protected class.

    ...as much as I thought we should be after the Texas A&M game. :_|

    And I’m going to tag @Rew and @cubman987 in this post just for fun. :p
     
    Rew and cubman987 like this.
  20. JediVision

    JediVision Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 6, 2015
    I believe the holding actually states the baker explicitly says he will sell birthday cakes and virtually any other item to gay customers. He just won't create a wedding cake because it sanctions the actual event of two same-sex people marrying. That's why even gays as a protected class wouldn't solve anything here, because presumably he wouldn't sell a gay wedding cake to a straight person buying it on behalf of a gay couple. It's the union of the gay people he is objecting to, not the gay people themselves. (Incidentally, is there existing jurisprudence about protected classes and straw purchases?)

    I hate myself for paying so much attention to these hot-button cultural cases that have very little real world relevance instead of "boring"-but-hugely-consequential-stuff like gerrymandering.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
    Darth Nerdling likes this.
  21. Darth Punk

    Darth Punk JCC Manager star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 25, 2013
    FTFY
     
    SuperWatto likes this.
  22. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    I'll leave to someone who works in law in the USA to define precisely what "invalidation" of a decision means on your end of the pond in this specific context. I'm trained in a different law system, in which invalidation of such a decision by our highest court means a retrial, deported in front of a different court of appeals.
     
  23. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    3) Fire Roseanne, the latest incarnation of "opiate for the masses", after her racist Tweet, then reboot her show without her so that the Hillary supporters on the cast and crew can get another shot at trying to win over Trump voters.
     
    Jedi Merkurian and Rylo Ken like this.
  24. AhsokaSolo

    AhsokaSolo Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 23, 2015
    I agree with you on this. I don’t really care about these bakery cases any more than I care about Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant. At worst, both can be argued to be a slippery slope, but everything is a slippery slope when taken to an extreme. Will we actually go down the slope? Maybe, maybe not.

    I don’t want restaurants to be divided along political lines, but I don’t care about what happened to Huckabee Sanders. I don’t think religion is an excuse to discriminate against gay people in the economy, but if it sticks with wedding cakes and floral arrangements (in other words, I think the “art” defense is the best there is), I don’t care.

    Cases can be overturned. Not sure what you mean by “invalidation.” I took an EU law course in law school, and I took a semester of law in South America so I’m familiar with the civil code system of Europe. Our courts are obviously more open with cases setting precedent than they are in Europe. I think you’re asking about whether the case was remanded for a new decision on a new basis? That definitely does happen, where a higher court tells a lower court to reconsider the case based on X, but that’s not what happened here. They said the state had too much animus toward religion and therefore was unfair to the perpetrator of the discrimination.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
  25. heels1785

    heels1785 Skywalker Saga + JCC Manager / Finally Won A Draft star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2003
    She'd be so much more likable if her full name was Huckabee Sanders. Call her Huck, for short. Hucky, maybe.
     
    Rylo Ken likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.