The Off Topic Topic

[derspiess]

http://news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
by Reuters
Monday, 4 June 2018 15:33 GMT

* Court says state panel violated baker's religious rights

* Ruling was 7-2, with 2 liberals joining 5 conservatives (Adds details on 2012 incident that triggered the case, Kennedy quote)

WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.

[crazy canuck]

The ruling creates a lot of uncertainty around when it is or is not permissible to discriminate.

[derspiess]

The ruling creates a lot of uncertainty around when it is or is not permissible to discriminate.

ACLU gal seems fairly satisfied:

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Louise Melling, who represents Mullins and Craig, said the high court made it clear that businesses open to the public must serve everyone.

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," Melling added.

[crazy canuck]

And yet the Court ruled that it was ok not to serve this gay couple.  Something lost in translation I suspect.

[Barrister]

And yet the Court ruled that it was ok not to serve this gay couple.  Something lost in translation I suspect.

I haven't read the decision, only media summaries (I know, dangerous to do so), but it sounds like they never ruled on that question - they just ruled that, procedurally, the lower courts hadn't shown any consideration of the baker's religious beliefs.

[crazy canuck]

And yet the Court ruled that it was ok not to serve this gay couple.  Something lost in translation I suspect.

I haven't read the decision, only media summaries (I know, dangerous to do so), but it sounds like they never ruled on that question - they just ruled that, procedurally, the lower courts hadn't shown any consideration of the baker's religious beliefs.

Its an odd decision, and I will defer to JR or the other US lawyers, but the Court starts from the uncontentious position that the human rights legislation is constitutional (ie does not infringe the freedom of expression which was asserted by the Baker in this case) but then ends up deciding that the administrative decision maker showed animus toward the Baker's religious beliefs and therefore their decision should be set aside.  It is difficult to discern from the Court any principled analysis regarding how an administrative decision maker ought to properly weigh or determine a sincerely held religious belief against a discriminatory act.  I am not sure why one would.  But the USSC has left that door open.

[ulmont]

Its an odd decision, and I will defer to JR or the other US lawyers, but the Court starts from the uncontentious position that the human rights legislation is constitutional (ie does not infringe the freedom of expression which was asserted by the Baker in this case) but then ends up deciding that the administrative decision maker showed animus toward the Baker's religious beliefs and therefore their decision should be set aside.  It is difficult to discern from the Court any principled analysis regarding how an administrative decision maker ought to properly weigh or determine a sincerely held religious belief against a discriminatory act.  I am not sure why one would.  But the USSC has left that door open.

The SCOTUS punted, leaving it open as to what exactly Kennedy (currently the decisionmaker in all contentious SCOTUS cases) would prefer in the next case.  The case rules only that the baker was denied the Free Exercise of religion by the fact that the main administrative layer (note: only 1 of 3 different bodies which opined on this matter before it got to the SCOTUS:  Colorado Administrative Law Judge, Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Colorado Court of Appeals) said mean things about religion being discriminatory on the record.

Both the conservative justices and some of the liberal justices seem to have signed on to this opinion only in the hope of influencing the next case.

Thomas pretty much gives it away in his concurrence:  the logical consequence of declaring same sex marriage legal is that you should be able to ban discrimination against same sex weddings.

[derspiess]

Well Languish sure ain't happy with the ruling

[Barrister]

I don't think anyone was ecstatic about it - it was a judicial bunt, nothing more.

[derspiess]

I don't think anyone was ecstatic about it - it was a judicial bunt, nothing more.

I guess they bunted the Colorado cake guy home

[crazy canuck]

Thomas pretty much gives it away in his concurrence:  the logical consequence of declaring same sex marriage legal is that you should be able to ban discrimination against same sex weddings.

What a mess.  I think the US is in for some nasty turbulent times.

[derspiess]

Yep, the tyranny where you can't force a guy to bake a gay wedding cake.  Teh horror.

[Jacob]

Yep, the tyranny where you can't force a guy to bake a gay wedding cake.  Teh horror.

What are you talking about?

[crazy canuck]

Yep, the tyranny where you can't force a guy to bake a gay wedding cake.  Teh horror.

What are you talking about?

Gay couple orders a wedding cake.  Baker of wedding cakes denies them service.  Gay couple successful in straight forward discrimination claim.  Their home state prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  Baker guy appeals all the way to the USSC claiming his expressive rights were being interfered with (cake decoration is an artistic endeavor don't you know).

USSC makes a muddle of it, allowing the appeal but on a basis that is hard to decipher other than, in these circumstances they just thought it was the right thing to do.  Problem is it leaves the door wide open to others to discriminate if they honestly believe that is the right thing to do.

Yep, the tyranny where you can't force a guy to bake a gay wedding cake.  Teh horror.

I take it you are not a supporter of legislation which prohibits discrimination.

[dps]

Thomas pretty much gives it away in his concurrence:  the logical consequence of declaring same sex marriage legal is that you should be able to ban discrimination against same sex weddings.

What a mess.  I think the US is in for some nasty turbulent times.

You act like this is the first time the SCOTUS has decided an issue on narrow procedural grounds and not addressed the substantive issue at all.