Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Dec 2017, 8:11 pm

*deleted*
Last edited by Doctor Fate on 12 Dec 2017, 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Dec 2017, 8:47 pm

Well, I was going to delete it. Not that I dont believe what I wrote but I should have more consideration for another person's deeply held beliefs.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 11 Dec 2017, 9:56 pm

freeman3 wrote:Well, I was going to delete it. Not that I dont believe what I wrote but I should have more consideration for another person's deeply held beliefs.


Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2017, 5:55 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, I was going to delete it. Not that I dont believe what I wrote but I should have more consideration for another person's deeply held beliefs.


I will if you will.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Dec 2017, 7:24 am

I deleted it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Dec 2017, 7:53 am

freeman3 wrote:I deleted it.

Done.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jun 2018, 9:29 am

The right side won. The progressive side was biased.

Huh. Who knew?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 Jun 2018, 10:24 am

7-2. More than I thought it would be. Perhaps the moderate view was found. Even Kagan and Breyer agreed with the majority.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Jun 2018, 2:34 pm

Hollow, almost meaningless win. Kennedy basically sided with the baker because he was not treated fairly before the commission, that they did not expouse proper respect for sincerely held religious beliefs. He did not reach the merits of the arguments. He did state that the Commision had ruled differently in three cases where bakers had refused to put anti-gay wedding messages on cakes. But there was no discussion about messages on the cake in this case, so they are not really comparable cases. Kennedy also mentioned that baker might have felt more justified in his actions because this was pre-Obergefell. That would seem to cast doubt on a baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake now that gay marriage is a constitutional right

The Supreme Court punted. Not even sure why they took the case. The Supreme Court is not a body that decides the merits of one case--it is supposed to make decisions that cover a significant area of law so lower courts have guidance on how to rule on all of the different fact patterns that cases present. I am guessing they thought they could do that when they took the case...but apparently they could not reach agreement on any far-reaching principles. Put it this way...if this particular baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple...it is not at all clear that the Commision could not find that he discriminated...as long as they did not use language disrespectful towards religion.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Jun 2018, 7:16 am

You speak of Kennedy siding with the Conservatives. What about Kagan and Breyer? It was 7-2, not 5-4.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Jun 2018, 8:09 am

What difference does it make if Kagan and Breyer signed on to the opinion when the case has zero impact? I mean, I think all reasonable people would agree that all people should be retreated with respect, right? Including religious ones. And that is all that opinion essentially said. The significant issue the Supreme Court was called on to decide was where they were going to line draw when a religious person says they do not want to be involved in providing a product to a gay wedding. And on that issue the Supreme Court completely punted; they provided no guidance to lower courts on that issue. None.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Jun 2018, 8:57 am

Speaking of punting... Nice avoidance!

Why is there such a need for this case to go to the Supreme Court, and for them to hear it? Obviously there is an issue here. If not, then the case would not have been taken, no?

Yes, I wish there had been more guidance, but it is more than just a nothing case.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Jun 2018, 10:36 am

I think they did not intend for their decision to be so limited. I don't think they would have taken the case if they realized this was the opinion they would come up with. I suspect they just could not agree on anything more concrete.

The opinion breaks down like this:

Kennedy, Roberts--they did not decide whether ultimately the Christian baker case should be decided differently from the three cases where bakers refused to sell cakes bearing anti-gay wedding messages. Their decision rests on the idea that the Commision's decision was infected with religious animus.
Kagan, Breyer--they think the Christian baker cass could reasonably be distinguished from the three anti-gay wedding cases and the only problem was the anti-religious sentiment expressed by the Commission
Ginsberg, Sotomeyor--Decided against Christian baker. Anti-gay wedding cases distinguishable. Not enough of a religious bias expressed by the Commission to change the result.
Gorsuch, Thomas--Religious discrimination by government shown by differential treatment of Christian Baker case and anti-gay wedding cases. Also believes Christian Baker's freedom of expression rights were violated.
Alioto: Religious discrimination shown by differential treatment of Christian baker and anti-gay wedding cake cases.

So, Gorsuch and Thomas are at the far end in support of the Christian Baker's position; Alioto is slightly less in support: Roberts and Kennedy are more in the middle; Kagan and Breyer are in the middle but substantively more against the baker; and Ginsberg and Sotomeyor are furthest against the baker's position.

And it is interesting to note Kennedy wrote the following passage:

"Petitioner concedes, moreover that if a baker refused to sell any goods or cakes for gay weddings that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case...."
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Jun 2018, 7:54 am

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

Scotusblog explaining Freeman's post in detail. I look forward to more definition of whose rights are more important in the future regarding the type of cases just ruled.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 25 Jun 2018, 10:08 am

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/supreme-court-flowers/index.html

Although it vacated the lower ruling, the USSC did not clarify the legal standards concerning this case. I would have loved to see the clarification.