Supreme Ct. Rules on Wedding Cake for Same Sex Marriage

[Danmark]

Today the U. S. Supreme Court finally published its decision in MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO The full text of the decision along with concurrances and dissent:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecour ... _OPINION_3

Tho' nominally the decision overturns the Colorado decision and was a finding in favor of the baker, it was a cleverly crafted 'non decision.' Justice Kennedy affirmed the Colorado law in question, a law which says a company open to the public cannot refuse to sell its products to someone because of their race, religion, marital status, or sexual orientation.
“It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.� Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a) (2017)."

However, Kennedy found fault with the Commission that applied this law to Phillips [the baker], saying that they showed hostility toward Phillips' religious beliefs by characterizing them as an excuse for unlawful discrimination:

"To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use� is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law__...."
The subject for debate is A, doe this summary of the decision fairly represent the Court's opinion, and
B, is Colorado's anti discrimination law fair to competing factions?

[Danmark]

Kennedy's concluding paragraph may be helpful:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecour ... _OPINION_3

[bluethread]

Kennedy's concluding paragraph may be helpful:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecour ... _OPINION_3

How is this helpful in any way? Is the court saying that a person can be deprived of his first amendments rights, as long as it is not done in a mean way? Does it mean the another person's sense of indignation limits the first amendment? In either of these cases, the first amendment is meaningless. It is not a right, if it can be taken away, even graciously. Also, there is no need for a right with regard to things that do not result in indignities. That is the point of the law, to resolve disputes.

[Danmark]

Kennedy's concluding paragraph may be helpful:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecour ... _OPINION_3

How is this helpful in any way? Is the court saying that a person can be deprived of his first amendments rights, as long as it is not done in a mean way? Does it mean the another person's sense of indignation limits the first amendment? In either of these cases, the first amendment is meaningless. It is not a right, if it can be taken away, even graciously. Also, there is no need for a right with regard to things that do not result in indignities. That is the point of the law, to resolve disputes.

Your response indicates you do not understand the first amendment or the pertinent case law. It also shows you did not read the case, or if you did you understand none of it. Please read the case itself. All you've done is register your own opinion which is directly in opposition to the first amendment as well as this and related cases.

If you want to contribute an argument, please quote a relevant section of the opinion and voice an opinion about that section.

[jgh7]

It's an interesting decision. The Supreme Court did a very clever job indeed of avoiding taking any real sides on the issue. They sort of used a "technicality" as a means of showing favor to Phillips. I'm left to wonder what their final decision would have been if no hostility had been shown towards Phillip's religious beliefs by the Colorado Commission.

[Danmark]

It's an interesting decision. The Supreme Court did a very clever job indeed of avoiding taking any real sides on the issue. They sort of used a "technicality" as a means of showing favor to Phillips. I'm left to wonder what their final decision would have been if no hostility had been shown towards Phillip's religious beliefs by the Colorado Commission.

I concur with your analysis. Absent the hostility of that commissioner [which was not objected to by the other commissioners], it appears the Court would have sided with the married couple and against Phillips.

BTW in the other cases cited by the court, they also sided with the bakers; however, in those cases the prospective buyers insisted the bakers write messages on the cake that were hateful and conflicted with the beliefs of the baker.

The conclusion I come to from all the cases is that you can't expect a baker who sells cakes to the public to write "I love Jesus [or Hitler]," or I hate Jesus [or Hitler], but the baker also cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake that does not carry a specific message, just because the buyer's viewpoint or what he celebrates does not agree with your own.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 6 by Danmark]

On the cake side of things, I would have to agree with you and side for the gay couple so long as it's a neutral cake with no specific message. It's similar to selling a cake to a Muslim getting a cake to celebrate some Islamic holiday. My religion doesn't agree with theirs, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to not sell them a cake with no message.


But the central idea behind this does leave me torn:
Let's say you sell American flags. And then a group of KKK customers come in wanting to buy American flags from you that they can use at their KKK rallies. I personally would not want to sell them any, but am I lawfully obliged to? In this case I disagree with the purpose of them using the flags (similar to the cakemaker selling to the gay couple).

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 6 by Danmark]

On the cake side of things, I would have to agree with you and side for the gay couple so long as it's a neutral cake with no specific message. It's similar to selling a cake to a Muslim getting a cake to celebrate some Islamic holiday. My religion doesn't agree with theirs, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to not sell them a cake with no message.


But the central idea behind this does leave me torn:
Let's say you sell American flags. And then a group of KKK customers come in wanting to buy American flags from you that they can use at their KKK rallies. I personally would not want to sell them any, but am I lawfully obliged to? In this case I disagree with the purpose of them using the flags (similar to the cakemaker selling to the gay couple).

You've raised a GREAT hypothetical. I too would not want to sell American flags [or flour or anything else] to members of the KKK or to avowed NAZI's. But the case law, including Masterpiece Cake, says I would have to. And I agree and would comply and sell those horrible people flags. However, the law also says I don't have to paint a sign or bake a cake that endorses their beliefs.

[Wootah]

This is the thin edge of the cake wedge.

Schools and many other institutions will be next.

It remains for me an open question whether a society can be so easily destroyed from within.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 9 by Wootah]

Wootah:

"It remains for me an open question whether a society can be so easily destroyed from within."

If the members of a society are cowardly, ignorant, bigoted, or subservient that is the easiest way to do it. "Homeland Security" can haul you off to Guantanamo or some other hell-hole without a writ of habeas corpus, without allowing you a lawyer, without even bringing charges. You get to the airport and you bend over and spread your cheeks so you can feel safe. And people lap it all up as if it were chocolate ice cream because they have lost their sense of smell. The dream has been corrupted by greed and cowardice.

"O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land ruled by greed and the home of the slave?"