Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

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

I posted the entirety of the court's rationale - the entirety of the basis for its decision. The entirety of the majority opinion's statement of the facts, and the reasoning it gave for ruling as it did. How is that cherrypicking?

What did I leave out?

[Scot Dutchy]

Simple logic. It is shit like how American law courts operate.

[Forty Two]

Even if American law court's operate like shit, it's not cherrypicking. Right? I mean, you said I was cherrypicking. If I am cherrypicking, what did I leave out? The answer is, of course, nothing, because I was not cherrypicking.

Here, a baker refused to make a cake. The complaining parties filed a complaint with an administrative agency, which made a decision after affording notice and an opportunity to be heard. The baker appealed the administrative agency to the appeals court, and then ultimately to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court heard the matter, and based on the record reversed the original decision.

How should a non-shit court system handle this?

[laklak]

CNN is beating their breasts and rending their garments over this terrible, discriminatory, Trumpish, anti-gay decision. It's the END of LBGTQAEIOU(and sometimes Y) rights in America! Fox is gloating over this "Incredible Victory!!!!" for religious freedom, Truth, Justice, and the American Way! I haven't had the stomach to check CNBC or HuffPo, let alone the alt-right shitosphere.

They're both as full of shit as a fucking Christmas turkey, and are evidently so goddamned stupid, blinkered, and blinded by their own prejudices and agendas that they are incapable of understanding a clearly written legal opinion. Fuck all of them. This is how the world ends, not with a bang nor a whimper, but in a cesspit of false news, ill-informed opinion, and drooling, wet-brained imbecility. I say mandatory frontal lobotomies all 'round.

READ THE FUCKING OPINION.

[Forty Two]

Agreed. The news media these days just jump at the chance to score political points and make use of these events to push their ideologies. Right and Left. They just parrot talking points, and they rarely, if ever, accurately report a legal issue to the public. You are dead-on, laklak.

[laklak]

It disgusts me. I can't even watch TV news any longer, because it makes Pravda look like a bastion of responsible journalism. I watch bits and pieces of the local news out of Tampa and Sarasota, flipping back and forth whenever a national news item comes up. If it's a national story then it's slanted, full stop. Fucking propaganda. I just want to know what's happening around the area and see the fucking weather. Print and internet is no better. You have to look at 50 different sites from all political persuasions, mix it all together and attempt to distill a drop or two of truth out of it. The vast majority of the population just laps it the fuck up, because they're ignorant morons.

[Sean Hayden]

--insurance rackets--

[Scot Dutchy]

It disgusts me. I can't even watch TV news any longer, because it makes Pravda look like a bastion of responsible journalism. I watch bits and pieces of the local news out of Tampa and Sarasota, flipping back and forth whenever a national news item comes up. If it's a national story then it's slanted, full stop. Fucking propaganda. I just want to know what's happening around the area and see the fucking weather. Print and internet is no better. You have to look at 50 different sites from all political persuasions, mix it all together and attempt to distill a drop or two of truth out of it. The vast majority of the population just laps it the fuck up, because they're ignorant morons.

Entirely agree Lak. You have to read so much these days. I have to laugh on the BBC site. It has a little thing on the bottom of the page: "Why you can trust the BBC". FFS The mouthpiece of the tory party can be trusted!!!!!

Fuck me sideways gently.

[Brian Peacock]

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.

Quote tags are handy because they help us distinguish between externally authored material and the views and opinions of members.

[Brian Peacock]

It disgusts me. I can't even watch TV news any longer, because it makes Pravda look like a bastion of responsible journalism. I watch bits and pieces of the local news out of Tampa and Sarasota, flipping back and forth whenever a national news item comes up. If it's a national story then it's slanted, full stop. Fucking propaganda. I just want to know what's happening around the area and see the fucking weather. Print and internet is no better. You have to look at 50 different sites from all political persuasions, mix it all together and attempt to distill a drop or two of truth out of it. The vast majority of the population just laps it the fuck up, because they're ignorant morons.

What you need is a national public broadcaster with a statutory obligation to independent reporting, commentary and analysis.

[laklak]

What we need is a bunch of rope and a tree.

[L'Emmerdeur]

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.

I agree that it's important to read the opinion. I also think it's important to correctly state the facts. In a previous ruling in this case, we find the following:

The following facts are undisputed:

...

4. On July 19, 2012, Complainants Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in the company of Mr. Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn.

5. Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”

6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.

8. The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like.

Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, full stop. He didn't refuse to make 'a wedding cake depicting a same sex couple.' There was never any request for a particular message nor a specific design, let alone one 'depicting a same sex couple.' This is important, because the majority opinion largely rests on the assertion that Phillips was discriminated against given the comparison with another series of cases where William Jack, an anti-gay Christian, requested anti-gay messages to be depicted on cakes. See page 52 of the PDF of the ruling, in which Ginsberg gives her dissent.

In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold.

...

The Court concludes that "the Commission's consideration of Phillips' religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers'] objections." ... But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack's requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries' refusal to make Jack cakes of any kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips' refusal to serve Craig and Mullins. Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding--not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings--and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.

[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.

I agree that it's important to read the opinion. I also think it's important to correctly state the facts. In a previous ruling in this case, we find the following:

The following facts are undisputed:

...

4. On July 19, 2012, Complainants Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in the company of Mr. Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn.

5. Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”

6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.

8. The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like.

Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, full stop. He didn't refuse to make 'a wedding cake depicting a same sex couple.' There was never any request for a particular message nor a specific design, let alone one 'depicting a same sex couple.'

Fair point. My assumption was that "wedding cake for a same sex couple" would bear some indication that the sexes of the groom and groom were the same, because wedding cakes generally have some indication that a bride and groom are involved. If it was just two guys buying a wedding cake for an opposite sex wedding, then the paragraph about making other kinds of cakes would seem to apply, and he would sell it to them. It's the making of the cake specifically for the same sex wedding that's the problem.

So, it seemed to me to make sense only if the cake that's being made somehow indicates that it's same-sex. If was just a generic cake without any indication of what it's for, then I couldn't see how it would be objectionable to make it, given that he'll make any kind of cake for them, just not those that are same sex.

But, that's just an explanation for my error. You are right - he did not say anything about limiting his refusal to a depiction of same sex, and from the facts, it appears that he would not make any cake if it was "for same sex weddings..." (even if it did not indicate that Adam and Steve were getting married).

This is important, because the majority opinion largely rests on the assertion that Phillips was discriminated against given the comparison with another series of cases where William Jack, an anti-gay Christian, requested anti-gay messages to be depicted on cakes. See page 52 of the PDF of the ruling, in which Ginsberg gives her dissent.

Yes, that was part of the reason the majority reached. And, that's why I thought the issue was the "message" sent - by creating the same sex wedding cake, the baker is being asked to create a message. In the other cases of anti-gay messages, the Colorado civil rights board suggested that the message could be attributed to the baker. But, in the case of the baker in the current case, the Colorado civil rights board said the opposite, that the message would not be the baker's message. So, there was that inconsistency, as stated in the majority opinion.

In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold.

...

The Court concludes that "the Commission's consideration of Phillips' religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers'] objections." ... But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack's requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries' refusal to make Jack cakes of any kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips' refusal to serve Craig and Mullins. Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding--not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings--and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.

Understood, and you are correctly quoting the dissenting opinion. I was presenting the summary of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, with whom 5 other justices joined, and one other justice wrote a separate opinion.

I'll point out, too, that the majority opinion appears to rest a lot on the anti-religious animus of the Colorado civil rights board. When I read the majority opinion, I get the sense that they were looking at this as the State having lost its neutrality in addressing the issue, and that if they had maintained that neutrality, the result would have been different.

Your post illustrates the importance of carefully reviewing these cases, and avoiding knee-jerk reactions. Usually, in SCOTUS opinions, majority and dissenting opinions are good, and it's generally not the case that the dissent is just off the rails and writing ridiculous stuff. Ginsberg and Sotomayor are experienced and knowledgeable jurists,and their dissent makes a good deal of sense, although I have not had the time to parse it out. When I posted my summary, I limited it to Kennedy's opinion. Note, I did not cite to, quote from or reference the dissent or either of the concurring opinions.

Nice job.

[Forty Two]

It disgusts me. I can't even watch TV news any longer, because it makes Pravda look like a bastion of responsible journalism. I watch bits and pieces of the local news out of Tampa and Sarasota, flipping back and forth whenever a national news item comes up. If it's a national story then it's slanted, full stop. Fucking propaganda. I just want to know what's happening around the area and see the fucking weather. Print and internet is no better. You have to look at 50 different sites from all political persuasions, mix it all together and attempt to distill a drop or two of truth out of it. The vast majority of the population just laps it the fuck up, because they're ignorant morons.

What you need is a national public broadcaster with a statutory obligation to independent reporting, commentary and analysis.

If such a thing were possible, it would be great. However, if you have a State run operation, it's not independent of the State, and if you have independent private entities with such statutory obligations, then you have a State oversight body making sure they adhere to that obligation (meaning the State can determine what's printed or broadcasted).

A fundamental assumption is that there is some body or bureau capable of deterimining accurate reporting, comment and analysis. Every side of the political compass winds up with a different view of the same events and happenings. That's why you have some people who think MSNBC is fair and balanced and FoxNews is fake news, and yet you have some people who believe the exact opposite.

In the end, when it comes to ideas, and opinions, anarchy is the best available way, as there isn't anyone that really can be trusted to be fair, balanced, and accurate in their reporting, commentary and analysis.

[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.

Quote tags are handy because they help us distinguish between externally authored material and the views and opinions of members.

Jesus, this is like being asked if I got the memo about the TPS reports....

I put the quote tags in. Originally, I thought it was obvious that I was putting in the material from the summary, since I wrote exactly that, with a little ":" at the end there. I didn't want to use the quote tags, originally, because I had made edits throughout (not to substance, just various citations and numbers and things), so I didn't want anybody accusing me of calling something a quote which wasn't an exact quote.

The bottom line is - I set out the entire summary of the majority opinion -- nearly word for word - without leaving anything out. Yet STILL I'm being accused (not by you) of "cherrypicking" LOL.