Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v CCCR

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

  1. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #201
    Well, it’s not that he had the intent of breaking the law. There was a lawsuit and he lost, as it happens and now he has to abide to Colorado’s law (and soon to the SCOTUS decision) whatever it says.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    What do you mean? I want to be sure I understand your question before answering.
     
  2. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #202
    1. How can that be proved that he was discriminating against the person and not the event?

    Wouldn't 1 be the only thing that matters here? If it's deemed to discriminate against the person and not event, then none of the other arguments matter right? Flip the coin, and again nothing else matters.
     
  3. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #203
    In the extreme case, if he said : “I don’t serve gays”. Or if he said “I don’t do stuff for you”. It could’ve been possible to do that also if he refused service altogether although I bet it would’ve been a bit harder to prove in court.
     
  4. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #204
    Could you tell me what law he broke in Colorado? This should be cut and dry if he broke the law, and would not be going this far.
     
  5. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #205
    Well that would be a topic for another PRSI religious show down. :eek::D I will say the ultimate irony of the war on Christmas is that it fails to mention that the particular timing was meant to co-opt/adapt other pagan holidays around that time. Including some traditions like the "Christmas tree".
     
  6. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #206
    Make sense. Thanks!
     
  7. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #207
    Yes. According to Colorado’s supreme court, it was CADA (Colorado Anti Discrimination Act). The basis of the reasoning is that there was no 1A protection that was applicable (it’s obviously more complex).
     
  8. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #208
    Yes that is ironic, but you failed to answer my questions from before.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 7, 2017 ---
    But that is up for debate whether he broke the law or not. That's the reason we are here right now. @MadeTheSwitch is saying he clearing broke the law.
     
  9. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #209
    Ok, there is one thing to understand here. This case is not about the baker or the gay couple per se. The SCOTUS is not deciding if the baker is right or wrong. The SCOTUS has to decide if the application Colorado’s law (a State law) is infringing the Baker’s 1A rights.
    The baker infringed Colorado’s law. Colorado decides if the baker has broken the law or not, and Colorado decided that yes, he did infringe the law. The Supreme Court will have to decide if Colorado’s decision is based on a faulty application of the 1A of the US Constitution.
     
  10. bmac4, Dec 7, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017

    bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #210
    Ok got it. So as of now the baker did break the law, but now the Supreme Court has to decided if the Colorado courts ruling was unconstitutional based on 1A?
     
  11. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #211
    Precisely.

    The question as its written at the Supreme Court is:
    “Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.”
     
  12. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #212
    So in the end, he may not have broken a law depending on the ruling. Well he would have broken a faulty law.
     
  13. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #213
    Virtually all the decisions by the SCOTUS are like that if the States are involved.
     
  14. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #214
    When one violates the speed limit law, they don't often have intent to do so. But they get pulled over and perhaps get a ticket for violating it nonetheless. Same with forgetting to fasten their seatbelt.

    That's like saying it is up for debate if you really violated a speed limit or not and thus need a court case to prove it. Doesn't mean you didn't actually speed and didn't actually violate the laws on the books.
     
  15. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #215
    Yeah, My argument to @MadeTheSwitch is that he did not break the law because it was faulty. At least in my opinion, although to his credit at this point he did.
     
  16. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #216
    Absolutely.
     
  17. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #217
    No, this case is completely different then that. A speed limit can't be argued to be unconstitutional, but this law could be. You can argue whether you were speeding or not, but that does not change the fact that the speed limit is the law.
     
  18. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #218
    Question for everyone:

    Would you accept a compromise where the baker could in fact refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples, but had to post a sign in the window and in all ads stating that, so gay couples would not have to go through the humiliation of being turned away in person?

    I'm not sure it sets a good tone and echos the discriminatory past, but I don't think gay couples should have to go through that. I don't think that's right.
     
  19. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #219
    I am pretty sure that would be incredibly unconstitutional :)

    Well, weddings are not a constitutional right and both sexual orientation and religion are protected classes. Now, again... if he refused to provide service to gays in general, I would’ve asked to file his case under hate crime immediately.
     
  20. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #220
    I am going to agree with yaxomoxay on this.
     
  21. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #221
    How so?

    But people do have the right to be treated equally under the constitution. In this situation the gay couple would be subject to a level of humiliation that the heterosexual couple who walks through their door is not. How is that okay?
     
  22. bmac4 macrumors 68040

    bmac4

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta Ga
    #222
    If you look at some older post, there is a list of things this baker will not make his goods for. Are those people also being humiliated?
     
  23. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #223
    maybe not "unconstitutional" but flat out illegal under laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation
     
  24. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #224
    You would be forcing a private entity to say something about its expressive ideas.

    That applies to the government, not to private entities.

    Who said that the heterosexual couple would not? A gay bar might open and do the same thing to heterosexuals. From a legal point of view there is no difference.
    But don’t forget: this is not about the people, it’s about the weddings. For the law there is absolutely no difference between Halloween or a wedding.
     
  25. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #225
    You, and perhaps others need to understand the difference. Gay people have been persecuted for centuries. The discrimination against us is long standing and deep. Being turned away and rejected is something we have had a lifetime to endure. It is humiliating to us in a way that perhaps isn't to others and perhaps that no heterosexual person can fully understand, particularly one on the side of the baker. It's a very sensitive issue, particularly when you are talking about a wedding which goes to the heart of our relationships.

    For the same reason that an interracial couple would find being turned away over their relationship humiliating, so would the gay couple.
     

Share This Page