News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

The Off Topic Topic

Started by Korea, March 10, 2009, 06:24:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jacob

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
I take it you are not a supporter of legislation which prohibits discrimination.

Yeah, I'm (vaguely) aware of the case. I just didn't see how Spicy's comment about "tyranny" related to anything anyone had said previously.

derspiess

Okay, if the word "tyranny" is problematic to you, replace it with "nasty and turbulent times" in my post.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

derspiess

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
I take it you are not a supporter of legislation which prohibits discrimination.

I take it you are not a supporter of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

crazy canuck

Quote from: dps on June 04, 2018, 04:57:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 04:11:30 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 04, 2018, 02:44:07 PM
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.

You are correct.  I should not be, but I continue to be surprised each time your Supremes make such a hash of the law.

crazy canuck

Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2018, 05:51:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
I take it you are not a supporter of legislation which prohibits discrimination.

I take it you are not a supporter of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

That is a really good example of the problem this case creates.  It was not a freedom of religion case.  The statute, which is lawful, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  It should have not matter one bit how genuinely the Baker believed on religious grounds that he could not serve a same sex couple or how much he thought it interfered with his artistic expression.  He baked wedding cakes and offered them to the public.  He denied service on the basis of sexual orientation.  How your court got that wrong is something to behold.


crazy canuck

Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2018, 05:49:04 PM
Okay, if the word "tyranny" is problematic to you, replace it with "nasty and turbulent times" in my post.

Easy to say for someone who will likely not be the victim of discrimination.

garbon

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2018, 05:51:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
I take it you are not a supporter of legislation which prohibits discrimination.

I take it you are not a supporter of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

That is a really good example of the problem this case creates.  It was not a freedom of religion case.  The statute, which is lawful, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  It should have not matter one bit how genuinely the Baker believed on religious grounds that he could not serve a same sex couple or how much he thought it interfered with his artistic expression.  He baked wedding cakes and offered them to the public.  He denied service on the basis of sexual orientation.  How your court got that wrong is something to behold.



What I don't get with the freedom of religion = freedom to discriminate is how is that a legitimately held religious belief? I haven't been to church in a year now, but I don't recall ever hearing about how baking a cake for a gay couple was counter to Christian doctrines.

That said, I don't really care about this cake. I guess I do kind of like bigoted people being openly bigoted so I know whose services to avoid using.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

crazy canuck

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2018, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2018, 05:51:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
I take it you are not a supporter of legislation which prohibits discrimination.

I take it you are not a supporter of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

That is a really good example of the problem this case creates.  It was not a freedom of religion case.  The statute, which is lawful, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  It should have not matter one bit how genuinely the Baker believed on religious grounds that he could not serve a same sex couple or how much he thought it interfered with his artistic expression.  He baked wedding cakes and offered them to the public.  He denied service on the basis of sexual orientation.  How your court got that wrong is something to behold.



What I don't get with the freedom of religion = freedom to discriminate is how is that a legitimately held religious belief? I haven't been to church in a year now, but I don't recall ever hearing about how baking a cake for a gay couple was counter to Christian doctrines.

That said, I don't really care about this cake. I guess I do kind of like bigoted people being openly bigoted so I know whose services to avoid using.

Yeah, that is one of the problems with the decision.  It is not clear how future cases might be analyzed because the Court gives no guidance how a legitimately held religious belief can in any way be relevant to the discrimination analysis.

grumbler

The court ruled against the process used by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  It didn't rule on discrimination or cakes or any of that.  Had the CCRC done their job properly and reached the same judgement, Mr. Masterpiece wouldn't have won the case.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Josquius

The supreme Court is on a roll. Recently read about a backwards abortion decision too
██████
██████
██████

Eddie Teach

Should the government really be telling people what they have to doodle on a cake?
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

garbon

Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 05, 2018, 02:26:42 AM
Should the government really be telling people what they have to doodle on a cake?

Was the issue for the baker what he had to put in the cake or that it was for a gay couple? I honestly have no idea.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Josquius

It seems my dad has become a hipster. With his apprentice he has rented a workshop in the trendy artsy part of Newcastle where he's making furniture out of crappy bits of wood :lol:
██████
██████
██████

celedhring

The ECJ has ruled that non-EU citizens married to same-gender EU citizens retain their freedom of movement rights even in countries where gay marriage is not recognized. Good news, and it opens the door to other EU-level rights being awarded to gay couples regardless of national law.

Valmy

#66914
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2018, 04:19:51 PM
Yep, the tyranny where you can't force a guy to bake a gay wedding cake.  Teh horror.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 05, 2018, 02:26:42 AM
Should the government really be telling people what they have to doodle on a cake?

Wait so what was this case about? People being compelled to write stuff on their products or people being able to deny service to people based on their sexual orientation? Because those are extremely different situations. Or I guess some procedural thing in the Colorado Courts that has nothing to do with either thing?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."