The Off Topic Topic

[crazy canuck]

I take all sorts of completely disingenuous arguments very seriously at my cases at work. I know damn well that most people who pretend they are terrified of getting powerline cancer really only care about their property values. But I still go along with and accommodate their BS, because I have no basis for pointing out that their testimony is garbage. I would certainly do the same in this case.

Hey V - so how much do power lines reduce property values anyways?  I'm just curious because we have some very large ones behind out house.  Personally I don't mind 'em because it just means that nobody lives behind us (instead there's a big open field), but I know others do.

Realtors estimate something like 15% but obviously the entire concept of 'property values' is a bit dodgy anyway.

It used to be a big deal here.  But it has become a non issue in the last decade or so.  I think it is because property values have increased so much and there is so little supply to meet demand that a person would look silly trying to argue that point.

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's play this out to its logical conclusion:

A religious person would presumably object to a gay couple cohabitating. So can a real estate broker refuse to permit a house or apartment viewing?  Can a utility deny service? Can landscapers or snow ploughers refuse service, etc.

That isn't what the Court held here, but it appears from the decision there are 3 votes that would support this.  Just 2 more Trump appointees would be enough.

[The Minsky Moment]

Alfred - it's very simple.  He sells Cake A to hetero couple Smith.  Cake A is a standard 3 story cake with flowers on it - much like the ones advertised on his website.  Gay couple Smyth now wants to buy Cake A.  There is no speech issue here - it's just discrimination.

[crazy canuck]

Again not sure what your point is.  There is no question about the constitutional validity of the statute.

I think you are smart enough to understand what my point is.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  But I am genuinely curious as to what point you are trying to make.  There is no question that the statute is constitutionally valid. So why are you saying the statute cannot violate the constitution?

The baker has free speech rights. That includes the ability to voice his opinion on gay marriage. A statute says he can't deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. If he voices his opinion on the cake, even over the objection of the customers, he is arguably:

-not denying service on the basis of sexual orientation,
-exercising his first amendment rights to voice his opinion on the topic.

There are counterarguments of course. He is operating commercially. As you've brought up, he is arguably not offering the same product for gay customers, as he doesn't write bible verses on all cakes. He could voice his opinion in ways other than on the cake, though that wouldn't make his point to anyone other than the person in the store.

Ultimately, I doubt the baker is in this story except to play the culture war game. For the baker, "The government is making me serve gay people" probably lacks the outrage factor of "the government won't let me put a bible verse on my cakes."

It depends on whether he is treating these customers differently because of their sexual orientation.  That is the discrimination analysis of adverse effect.

[Grey Fox]

Someone wants to take care of my son? His Daycare is going on unlimited general strike tomorrow.

[Barrister]

Someone wants to take care of my son? His Daycare is going on unlimited general strike tomorrow.

That sucks man.

[derspiess]

I'll probably have four kids at my house tomorrow. One more probably wouldn't make much of a difference

[Grey Fox]

Someone wants to take care of my son? His Daycare is going on unlimited general strike tomorrow.

That sucks man.

Yes. Usually my dad take care of him but he's sick now & won't be able to do that.

I think I am going to bring him to work until I'm told I can work from home.

Also sucks for him, he's going to enter school this fall. This is robbing him of precious time with his caretaker lady to say good bye. He was 22 months old when he started being with her.

[alfred russel]

Alfred - it's very simple.  He sells Cake A to hetero couple Smith.  Cake A is a standard 3 story cake with flowers on it - much like the ones advertised on his website.  Gay couple Smyth now wants to buy Cake A.  There is no speech issue here - it's just discrimination.

You just said that there appears to be 3 votes on the ussc to allow the baker to refuse to sell any cake at all. It doesn't seem so simple.

[Eddie Teach]

Alfred - it's very simple.  He sells Cake A to hetero couple Smith.  Cake A is a standard 3 story cake with flowers on it - much like the ones advertised on his website.  Gay couple Smyth now wants to buy Cake A.  There is no speech issue here - it's just discrimination.

So what you're saying is that alt spelling is gay? That sounds right.   

[Malthus]

Someone wants to take care of my son? His Daycare is going on unlimited general strike tomorrow.

That indeed sucks. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Alfred - it's very simple.  He sells Cake A to hetero couple Smith.  Cake A is a standard 3 story cake with flowers on it - much like the ones advertised on his website.  Gay couple Smyth now wants to buy Cake A.  There is no speech issue here - it's just discrimination.

You just said that there appears to be 3 votes on the ussc to allow the baker to refuse to sell any cake at all. It doesn't seem so simple.

Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito.  Nuff said.

[dps]

Separately - I wonder how many of the people celebrating the outcome of this case would also give equally strong support for the rights of NFL players to express their viewpoints by kneeling during the national anthem . . .

I haven't been celebrating, but FWIW I hold that NFL players have an absolute right to kneel during the national anthem.  OTOH, I also hold that their team has a right to terminate their employment for doing so, limited by applicable labor laws and the contract between the NFLPA and the owners.

[Valmy]

The NFL is in a lose-lose situation with that one. I think they chose the option more likely to have the issue go away which is the only thing the NFL wants or cares about.

[Valmy]

I'll probably have four kids at my house tomorrow. One more probably wouldn't make much of a difference

You, sir, are an inspiration to us all...I mean presuming you and they all live.