Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v CCCR

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Dec 4, 2017.

  1. yaxomoxay, Dec 4, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017

    yaxomoxay macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #1
    Tomorrow (12/5/17) the Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments for Materpiece Cakeshop LLC v Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
    I opened this post as a place to share and discuss whatever will be said and decided by the SCOTUS, and to have it as a single repository instead of having several threads pop up at each step of the case. It is no secret that this will be a landmark 1A decision.

    Here a few links of interest:

    Case Docket (16-111) at Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-111.html

    SCOTUSBlog document repository (petitions, briefs, etc): http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

    SCOTUSBlog Symposium (articles and opinions): http://www.scotusblog.com/category/...eshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commission/

    I strongly suggest to anyone interested to read the briefs of petitioners, and the briefs of the respondents before commenting on the merits of this very complex case. I also suggest to read the various briefs amici of which many are in support of the petitioners, many are in support of the respondents, and some are neutral. You can find all the documentation in the second link.

    I will update the links with the TRANSCRIPT and the AUDIO of the Oral Arguments as soon as I see them available.

    Hopefully we can keep this civil.
    Best Regards,
    Yaxo

    UPDATE (12/5): Transcripts of the oral argument now available: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

    UPDATE (12/8): Audio of the oral argument now available:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2017/16-111
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    What's there to talk about?

    Now that SCOTUS is hearing the case, just let them decide and move on from there.
     
  3. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    I don’t think there is anything to talk about, everyone’s mind is made up as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Now we get to sit back and see what the Supreme Court says.
     
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    I can live with whatever they decide.
     
  5. Populism Suspended

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #5
    I'll be interested in which judge's ask what questions. Should be an interesting argument and opinion.
     
  6. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
  7. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #7
    A couple of other fun quotes from Leviticus (sure to be Trump favorites as well):

    God Shuns Those With Disabilities (Lev. 21:16-23). This one should also be really, really, irking. God explicitly tells Moses that pretty much anyone with a disability is a second-class citizen and isn’t worthy enough to “come near to offer the food of his God.”

    Women Are Worth Less (Lev. 27:1-4). This is one of those passages that really, really should make believers—especially women—question just how much of the Old Testament we can take seriously. According to Leviticus, a man’s worth—in “dedicating a person to the LORD”—is 50 shekels. A woman, however, is only worth 30.

    So... no more cakes for women or the handicapped, because God.
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Given there was no message on the cake it should be completely clear cut.
     
  9. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut, USA
    #9
    Just like in Obergefell, this will come down to Kennedy, IMHO. In the arguments today, he was concerned that a baker could put up a sign saying he would not make cakes for gay couples, and that would be an affront to the gay community. However, he also expressed a real concern that Colorado had not been sufficiently tolerant of the baker's religious views, and reiterated that tolerance of different points of view and practices are essential in a free society.

    Interesting tidbit is that the new US Solicitor, Noel Francisco, was arguing on behalf of the United States in favor of the baker.
     
  10. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #11
    It's no different than civil rights, only it's now under the guise of "religious freedom". The right to discriminate, whether against a minority for the color of their skin or a gay couple for their sexual orientation, puts us on a slippery slope and IMO would set us back as a country.
     
  11. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    Well, there was no cake at all :)
    --- Post Merged, Dec 5, 2017 ---
    No. The baker did not refuse general services. He actually told them about other products that he would sell them. He refused to use his creativity (=expression) for an event he does not want to be part of.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 5, 2017 ---
    Updated original post with link to transcripts of argument.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Source.
     
  13. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    Virtually all the briefs to the Supreme Court (about 100), and the petitions. It’s an undisputed fact on which both parts agree.
    Check the documents I linked in my post.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    This isn’t true.

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/12/you-don-t-say
     
  15. RootBeerMan, Dec 5, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017

    RootBeerMan macrumors 6502a

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #16
    While I believe that anyone should be free to refuse service to anyone else for whatever stupid reason they cite, (and then be put out of business by boycotts and loss of business), this is a case where the defendant broke the law of the state in which he resides. That's the core of the case. If he doesn't like the law in his state he can work to change it, (while abiding by it) or move. Or at least that's what conservatives like to say when they bring up the so-called states rights issues. Regardless, I will be interested to see how this turns out and if the SCOTUS overturns the state law.
     
  16. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #17
    Now, does this religious liberty apply to Muslims who don’t want to bake cakes for Christian couples, or people who want to wear their religious garb in schools and such? One thing I’ve noticed about religious freedom and rights is it tends to favor one religion....
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    I think if it’s just a cake they should certainly have to, whether they should have to bake “Jesus is the son of god” is a little less clear to me.
     
  18. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #19
    The interesting questions raised by some justices is where does the religious exemption stop? Can a deli counter making a sandwich refuse service to a gay couple only because they are gay? Can a private school refuse to admit children of gay couples on the basis of having gay parents? Can a mechanic refuse to do an oil change? Also, how do you define "artistic expression"? While most of us may not consider making a cheeseburger to be artistic expression, surely there is a chef out there that does. Does that give all burger restaurants the right to deny service to anyone their religion disapproves of? What if a religion disapproves of black people? Or women? How do you test whether something is a bonafide religious belief?
     
  19. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    Excuse me? Calling me a liar ?


    Read the briefs, not the economist. It’s a very complex case indeed. Court already ruled that there is no need to write anything to form an expression.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 5, 2017 ---
    At the Time the State was breaking its own law then as not only gay marriage was not allowed, but it didn’t even recognize that of other states (obviously).
    At any rate, the core of the issue is not state law. It's compelled speech, and no state can compel anyone to express anything.
     
  20. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502a

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #21
    No, they really weren't breaking their own law as sexual orientation was covered by the law. As for the core of the issue, it depends on which direction you are coming at it from.
     
  21. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    From the only one: The question presented to the Court.
     
  22. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #23
    Exactly. I think it is a very slippery slope and I don't know how you narrow the laws in such a way that people don't discriminate against others based on a broad "artistic" definition.

    Not an easy issue either way. I don't want to discriminate against people's religious beliefs, but as a gay man I also don't want to be discriminated against either.
     
  23. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    I agree that it’s a very difficult issue, and - even if I probably disagree on what should be the outcome (see you when we become Justices!) - I do recognize that it’s a slippery slope either way.
     
  24. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #25
    I don't think saying a service provider cannot deny service based solely on the basis of a customer's sexual orientation is discrimination against the service provider.

    But for me, the main factor is religion. To really respect religion and religious beliefs, and to prevent the government from injecting itself into private religious life by dictating who or what is legitimate, we cannot test religiousness in courts. There should be no test for whether someone is a bonafide believer or not, and for that reason we should have as few laws based on someone's religious beliefs as possible - or better yet none at all. It sounds backwards, but to preserve religious independence, the court must rule against the baker's religious belief argument.

    Unfortunately for the baker and other service providers, that also means their right to project their religious beliefs on others ends at the doors of their homes and places of warship. If super conservative orthodox jews can figure out how to run an online consumer electronics company (B&H Photo) while still observing the strictest of shabbat rules, I'm sure even the most conservative christians can figure something out for themselves too. If they can't, they shouldn't be a public-facing service provider.
     

Share This Page