Problematic Stuff

[rainbow]

Sean's a poet, and he don't know it!

A true Vogon, verily
Our Sean is and speaketh merrily.
Forsooth a sage,
For truth a sausage.

Hail our bard,
as smooth as lard
...and so delicious
like potroast and kisses.

[Seabass]

Perhaps we should deal with climate change, but only after we've solved the SJW problem, since SJWs are clearly a much bigger threat to the continued existence of life on earth than global warming.

[Scot Dutchy]

Just make the whole place flat. It is much easier. We have flooding in our hillier bits.

[Seabass]

Hooray!
A rare victory for white, heterosexual, Christian men against those awful, dastardly gays and their identity politics! Why won't those horrible gays just stop with the identity politicking and let those poor, innocent, loving Christians have their "religious freedom"?

[Sean Hayden]

Well, that's my mind blown.

[laklak]

Very narrow ruling, not applicable to any other cases. They specifically didn't address the issue of his refusing service, only that the Colorado Human Rights Commission exhibited religiously motivated animus against the baker. Basically, you can't say someone's religion is despicable if you're a government official. The commission fucked up and SCOTUS slapped them down.

[Sean Hayden]

The way I see it they're full of shit. There is an obvious pro religion bias at work. In my opinion the feds clearly endorse religion, and neutrality isn't achieved by coming down on hostility towards religion while weaseling out of dealing with clear endorsements of it like the 'in god we trust' bullshit.

The fuckin sheriffs around here have started putting those bumper stickers all over their cars btw --pisses me off man .

[laklak]

I agree, religion gets a lot of breaks on both a Federal and local level in most places. But at least this ruling is narrow, and doesn't codify religious discrimination in law. I almost wish it did, if only because I want to see some dude open a shop that refused to serve Christians or or Muslims.

Sorry, ALL our sandwiches come with bacon. No substitutions.

[Forty Two]

I think it's important to read the opinion, rather than rely on CNN's consistently inaccurate reporting. Journalists routinely get legal matters wrong, just as they do scientific matters.

Ok, so, the case is that a gay couple came into the bakery and wanted a cake of a specific kind - a wedding cake depicting a same sex couple. Same sex marriage was not yet recognized in Colorado at the time. The baker said he had a religious objection to making a same sex marriage cake, but he would sell them cakes in general. He did not refuse service. He refused to make a particular kind of cake.

The line the SCOTUS is walking here is an important one, and one that folks on the left should think carefully about, because if this baker is not allowed to reject a certain kind of cake based on his own religious beliefs, then other kinds of people will not be able to reject other kinds of cakes based on their religious beliefs. So, one might envision a birthday party cake where a Christian wants a depiction of Porky Pig, and a Muslim baker objects to being forced to depict a pig. Or, perhaps a Jewish baker is being asked to make a cake that depicts something antisemitic, or a swastika or something.

The following is cut from the court's summary - link provided below.

The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public.” Under CADA’s administrative review system, the Colorado Civil Rights Division first found probable cause for a violation and referred the case to the Commission. The Commission then referred the case for a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ruled in the couple’s
favor. In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.

Holding - The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. (a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.
See Obergefell v. Hodges, While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is
neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court ofAppeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.

(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case\ violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.” Id., at 540. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.

Reversed.

To make Dutchy happy, I put this in quotes - even though it's not technically an "exact" quote, since I pulled out some citation numbers and page numbers to make it more readable. The content is accurate, and it's nearly an exact quote. I left nothing out of substance from the summary. But, Dutchy started grousing about it not being my words (which I had clearly delineated with the line "the following is cut from the court's summary....", but which he, as usual, didn't bother to read).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_j4el.pdf

This was a 7 judges concurring in the result (6 joined in the majority opinion), with only 2 of the more "liberal" judges (Ginsburg and Sotomayor) dissenting. Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court with Roberts, and Alito, Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch, joined. Kagan filed a concurring opinion (joined by Breyer). Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion (joined by Alito), Thomas filed a concurring in part opinion and concurring in the judgment (Gorsuch joined).

So, there was thoughtful attention paid to this case. It's not some ridiculous thing. It's not hateful. It's not about keeping gay people down or anything like that.

[Scot Dutchy]

Stop cutting and pasting. Those are not your words. It is a quote and a bloody useless one at that.

[Forty Two]

The way I see it they're full of shit. There is an obvious pro religion bias at work. In my opinion the feds clearly endorse religion, and neutrality isn't achieved by coming down on hostility towards religion while weaseling out of dealing with clear endorsements of it like the 'in god we trust' bullshit.

The fuckin sheriffs around here have started putting those bumper stickers all over their cars btw --pisses me off man .

The Seventh Circuit just upheld the In God We Trust motto last Thursday -- https://herald-review.com/news/state-an ... 7ba81.html - the SCOTUS and controlling precedent are that it's not religious, and it's not prominently displayed so it's not requiring people to send a message, etc. I haven't read the opinion on it, yet. But, I disagree with the precedent, and I think the motto is a violation of the First Amendment as an endorsement of religion or religious belief in general. I think the SCOTUS and other federal courts try to suggest that mere reference to "God" as in a general reference to a deity or higher power is not "religious." I don't think they'd allow going further than that, as in a reference to Jesus, Allah, or Yahweh, or terms that are more religion specific. I think they want to hold that non-religious people can still believe in a god, so that much is o.k.

I disagree with their attempt, but it would probably take a brave judge/justice indeed to erase that from the money. That's a third rail of politics.

[Forty Two]

Stop cutting and pasting. Those are not your words. It is a quote and a bloody useless one at that.

As I noted - "The following is cut from the court's summary - link provided below." I made some edits to it here and there, removing page citations and such to make it more readable, I thought, but I clearly indicated I was taking cutting it from the court's summary.

It's not "bloody useless." It's the specific decision of the court. It's what the court said and ruled, and it explains exactly why it ruled as it it did. It is far more useful than a pundit on CNN. How can you seriously argue that an accurate recitation of the issue, facts, analysis and ruling of the court is "bloody useless?" Explain that.

[Scot Dutchy]

Still quotes and a waste of space as always.

[Forty Two]

Still quotes and a waste of space as always.

It's only a waste of space to someone who wants to discuss the issue without actually understanding the case. If you aren't going to read the full text of the opinion (which is lengthy), at least read the summary, which I posted and highlighted with bolding and underlining, to make it easier to quickly read and understand the features of the case which made 7 justices rule as they did.

Had I not stayed true to the exact rationale and text of the case, I'm sure you or someone else would have criticized me for leaving something out, not providing full context, or dishonestly reporting the decision. At least now, I can't be accused of that, since my post is dead-on accurate, and shows that the outrage brigade doesn't understand the ruling, and you too - but, you don't want to understand, do you? You just want to bash the US, again.

[Scot Dutchy]

It is only your cherry picked version that nobody is interested in.