In Colorado, The Cake is in the Supreme Court oven

Started by Michael Slusser, December 05, 2017, 03:45:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Voelker

Quote from: James_Gale on December 06, 2017, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: David Garner on December 06, 2017, 05:10:45 PM
The most interesting thing to me, though probably not dispositive, at least if my memory that it was Justice Gorsuch raising the issue rather than Justice Kennedy, "the decider," was the claim that it was viewpoint based discrimination, since Christians had subsequently gone into gay-owned bakeries and asked for themed cakes with Scriptures on them either overtly or implicitly opposing gay marriage, and the CCRC in each of those cases refused to impose any sanctions against the gay-owned bakeries.

I can live with a rule that we all have to bake each others' cakes and I can live with a rule that we don't.  But a rule that sets same sex couples apart as some sort of hyper-protected class and ignores that religion has been a protected class for much longer in the civil rights laws and that religious liberty is enshrined in the Bill of Rights essentially means our Constitution and laws are meaningless.  Either enforce this rule or don't, but the notion that it depends on what is being said is nonsense.


My prediction is that Justice Kennedy will rule for the bakers, but may adopt a rationale that is well less than satisfying.
That sounds like a pretty safe bet. I bet he'll also include a nice coat of his sweet-mystery-of-life blather.

Mbecker

#16
Quote from: Michael Slusser on December 05, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
I'm reading it now.

Peace,
Michael

IMO, it would be better if the courts stayed out of this area altogether. If a baker refuses to make a cake for a LBGTetc. couple that requests such a cake, let the LBGTetc. couple go to a more hospitable and/or accommodating baker--or bake the cake themselves or have a sympathetic, competent individual do so. The couple should then make known far and wide that the previous baker would not serve them for whatever reason(s) he/she gave them. Call for a local boycott, as necessary. Let the local social dynamics run their course. Let the chips fall where they will. Let the change bubble up from below.

It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.

Matt Becker

John_Hannah

Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
Quote from: Michael Slusser on December 05, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
I'm reading it now.

Peace,
Michael

IMO, it would be better if the courts stayed out of this area altogether. If a baker refuses to make a cake for a LBGTetc. couple that requests such a cake, let the LBGTetc. couple go to a more hospitable and/or accommodating baker--or bake the cake themselves or have a sympathetic, competent individual do so. The couple should then make known far and wide that the previous baker would not serve them for whatever reason(s) he/she gave them. Call for a local boycott, as necessary. Let the local social dynamics run their course. Let the chips fall where they will. Let the change bubble up from below.

It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.

Matt Becker


MATT

That reminds me of David Brooks last week:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/gay-marriage-cake-case.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

Voelker

Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.
Self-ghettoization as a solution? Did you begin to consider the path such nonsense leads down? Those looking to exterminate a viewpoint surely wouldn't catch on and use manufactured interactions to further marginalize those who hold it. This suggestion is, at best, half-baked, with all the resulting physical effects of eating such product that follow.

Michael Slusser

Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
Quote from: Michael Slusser on December 05, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
I'm reading it now.

IMO, it would be better if the courts stayed out of this area altogether. If a baker refuses to make a cake for a LBGTetc. couple that requests such a cake, let the LBGTetc. couple go to a more hospitable and/or accommodating baker--or bake the cake themselves or have a sympathetic, competent individual do so. The couple should then make known far and wide that the previous baker would not serve them for whatever reason(s) he/she gave them. Call for a local boycott, as necessary. Let the local social dynamics run their course. Let the chips fall where they will. Let the change bubble up from below.

It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.

Matt Becker
The courts didn't ask to be involved. They are involved because citizens have a dispute, which they are trying to resolve by recourse to law, and the laws do not provide a clear solution. "Social dynamics" are always present as a fact, but letting people duke it out is not the best default for society.

Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

Steven Tibbetts

Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.


"...with liberty and justice for those who agree with me." 

spt+

The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

David Garner

Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on December 07, 2017, 11:30:02 AM
Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.


"...with liberty and justice for those who agree with me." 

spt+

Indeed. It may also be that people who don't want to quarter soldiers in their homes simply shouldn't own or rent homes.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

James_Gale

#22
Quote from: David Garner on December 08, 2017, 06:47:34 AM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on December 07, 2017, 11:30:02 AMbe" and "
Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.


"...with liberty and justice for those who agree with me." 

spt+

Indeed. It may also be that people who don't want to quarter soldiers in their homes simply shouldn't own or rent homes.


The anti-freedom crusade's scope shocks me (but probably shouldn't). Linda Greenhouse, long-time NYT Supreme Court correspondent, wrote in the Times that "Masterpiece Cakeshop isn't an easy case but should be" because "if someone wants to be able to pick and choose his customers, he should bake for his friends in his own kitchen and stop calling himself a business."  But anyone who follows her writing knows that her view on this is viewpoint dependent. Greenhouse is as "establishment" as it gets regarding the left's prevailing views on the Constitution. Scary.

Mbecker

Quote from: WJV on December 07, 2017, 08:35:42 AM
Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.
Self-ghettoization as a solution? Did you begin to consider the path such nonsense leads down? Those looking to exterminate a viewpoint surely wouldn't catch on and use manufactured interactions to further marginalize those who hold it. This suggestion is, at best, half-baked, with all the resulting physical effects of eating such product that follow.

Either the baker in question should do a better job of serving his customers--all of them--or face the fact that people will complain about his terrible service, as they should, and likely avoid supporting his business.

The viewpoint of the baker in this case, as I understand it, is one that should be criticized.

Matt Becker






Mbecker

Quote from: Michael Slusser on December 07, 2017, 09:20:21 AM
Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
Quote from: Michael Slusser on December 05, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
I'm reading it now.

IMO, it would be better if the courts stayed out of this area altogether. If a baker refuses to make a cake for a LBGTetc. couple that requests such a cake, let the LBGTetc. couple go to a more hospitable and/or accommodating baker--or bake the cake themselves or have a sympathetic, competent individual do so. The couple should then make known far and wide that the previous baker would not serve them for whatever reason(s) he/she gave them. Call for a local boycott, as necessary. Let the local social dynamics run their course. Let the chips fall where they will. Let the change bubble up from below.

It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.

Matt Becker
The courts didn't ask to be involved. They are involved because citizens have a dispute, which they are trying to resolve by recourse to law, and the laws do not provide a clear solution. "Social dynamics" are always present as a fact, but letting people duke it out is not the best default for society.

Peace,
Michael

Not every dispute needs to go to court to be resolved, especially when the laws do not provide a clear solution. Appellate courts could have passed on this particular case, especially given the state of Colorado law at the time with respect to gay marriage. Publicizing the behavior of the baker in question and calling for a peaceful boycott of his business are paths that could have been taken short of litigation. These are paths that have led to fruitful results in the past.

In any case, having learned a little more about this specific case, I side with the couple and their lawsuit against the baker. The latter seems to have acted against Colorado civil law when he refused to sell the couple a wedding cake of any kind (nota bene: no wording was proposed for the cake in the initial attempt at a transaction).

Matt Becker

Robert Johnson

Quote from: Mbecker on December 11, 2017, 12:58:31 AM
Either the baker in question should do a better job of serving his customers--all of them--or face the fact that people will complain about his terrible service, as they should, and likely avoid supporting his business.

The market would take care of that. If more people hate the baker than like the baker, the baker would probably go out of business.

Would you support forcing the baker to include an array of penises or a little tableau of anal sex in the cake decoration?  (People do make cakes like that, you know.  Yes, it's an edge case, but that's kind of the whole point here.)

Steven Tibbetts

Quote from: Mbecker on December 11, 2017, 12:58:31 AM

The viewpoint of the baker in this case, as I understand it, is one that should be criticized.


Same-sex sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to biblical teaching and natural law. It carries the grave danger of unrepentant sin. Therefore my neighbor and community are best served by calling those in same-sex sexual relationships to repentance for that behavior and to a chaste lifestyle.

Pax et bonum,
Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Mbecker

Quote from: John_Hannah on December 07, 2017, 05:59:52 AM
Quote from: Mbecker on December 07, 2017, 01:47:44 AM
Quote from: Michael Slusser on December 05, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
I'm reading it now.

Peace,
Michael

IMO, it would be better if the courts stayed out of this area altogether. If a baker refuses to make a cake for a LBGTetc. couple that requests such a cake, let the LBGTetc. couple go to a more hospitable and/or accommodating baker--or bake the cake themselves or have a sympathetic, competent individual do so. The couple should then make known far and wide that the previous baker would not serve them for whatever reason(s) he/she gave them. Call for a local boycott, as necessary. Let the local social dynamics run their course. Let the chips fall where they will. Let the change bubble up from below.

It may be that anti-LBGTetc. Christians, Muslims, Jews and others should get out of the wedding cake/bakery business altogether, as should other such businesses that regularly cater to LBGTetc. individuals and couples who might raise a very public complaint if improperly served.

Matt Becker


MATT

That reminds me of David Brooks last week:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/gay-marriage-cake-case.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Peace, JOHN

JOHN:

I did read that editorial last week--as well as the letters to the editor in today's edition--all critical of Brooks (with whom I generally agree 80% of the time--and not merely because he and I share the same alma mater).

In light of the many good points raised in these letters, I see more clearly the deficiencies in Brooks' argument.

While I think that other fruitful actions could have been taken by the couple in question, short of litigation, I do favor their side in this case.

Matt Becker

Mbecker

Quote from: Robert Johnson on December 11, 2017, 01:10:11 AM
Quote from: Mbecker on December 11, 2017, 12:58:31 AM
Either the baker in question should do a better job of serving his customers--all of them--or face the fact that people will complain about his terrible service, as they should, and likely avoid supporting his business.

The market would take care of that. If more people hate the baker than like the baker, the baker would probably go out of business.

Would you support forcing the baker to include an array of penises or a little tableau of anal sex in the cake decoration?  (People do make cakes like that, you know.  Yes, it's an edge case, but that's kind of the whole point here.)

As I understand the facts in this case, the couple did not ask him to do anything special with the cake. No wording or images were discussed. The baker simply refused to sell the couple any kind of wedding cake.

If said couple had asked the baker to bake a cake like you describe, he could have said, "Making such a cake would involve me in the creation of what I consider to be pornographic images. I'm happy to sell you a cake, but you will need to find someone else to decorate it."

Selling a cake is one thing; decorating it is quite another. The couple never got around to discussing the decoration in this case, since the baker refused outright to sell them a cake of any kind. At least this is what the lawyer for the couple has alleged in the lawsuit.

Matt Becker

Charles Austin

At some Dairy Queen franchises, you can buy an ice cream cake and have words put on it. I don't see anything wrong with a franchise owner saying "we do not ask our staff to write certain words." But to say one can't buy the cake if you are going to use it at a same sex wedding is discrimination.
Iowa-born. Long-time in NY/New Jersey, former LWF staff in Geneva.
ELCA PASTOR, ordained 1967. Former journalist. Retired in Minneapolis. Often critical of the ELCA, but more often a defender of its mission. Ignoring the not-so-subtle rude insults which often appear here.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk