No Gay Wedding Cake For You

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Sorry about the bad link. This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Privacy_(article)

To know whether the majority in Roe was right, don't you think you need to learn why the majority decided the way it did?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Exceptions to freedom of conscious should ONLY occur in relation to "persons", not "activities".

You cannot force a person to use their labor to support an "activity" (a.k.a. a Gay Wedding) that they don't believe in.

Nobody at all has denied "gays" service (save the idiot exception), if they had then the Gay couple might have had a cause under the anti-descriminatory law.
Since they and others lifestyles and beliefs WERE served cakes for years, you cannot pervert the law to satisfy your own pet peeve to punish others who don't believe as you.

But Leftists do like to pervert the law to their own ends no matter how wrong and against the law it is. Abortion, gun bans/restrictions, police checkpoints not for a specific crime, etc.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _honorentheos »

DoubtingThomas wrote:I think the Supreme Court did the right thing to legalize abortion, but Justice Byron White (appointed by John Kennedy) wrote "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes." and Justice Rehnquist wrote, "To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today"

If Justice Rehnquist is right, then it only means that our Supreme Court is just a complete mess.

Let's break down what you said above.

First, you note that your own personal independent belief is the the Supreme Court "did the right thing by legalizing abortion". Keeping in mind that while the Court's ruling had the effect of illuminating certain laws as being unconstitutional it isn't the case the court legalized abortion. It's an important distinction that makes a difference in understanding the role of the court and how its operation is essential to the function of a pluralistic society.

But again, you've set up your opinion about what is right and wrong against which you have now framed the way you choose to examine the issue.

Second, in quoting the two separate dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade, you are focusing on the question of abortion being a right guaranteed by the Constitution. This was a major consideration in the case as to what rights were being infringed by the Texas law and whose rights should be given priority. Answering that question would help reframe the way you approach the issue. It would be a good exercise to note the parties identified and their rights or claims in the case as a starting place when attempting to unpack the arguments.

Third, you make a much more problematic claim with your last sentence than you recognize. When commenting that Justice Rehnquist argues that the foundational argument of the majority manufactured a right out of the 14th amendment that wasn't there before, it implicates a more foundational argument about original intent which the courts must grapple with all the time. But by saying that the courts are a mess because of the grappling that must occur with competing rights, changing times, advancing knowledge, and the nuances of the case before the Court you're arguing against Democracy. You seem to want the kind of authoritarian strong all-wise leader who can easily cut the Gordian Knot and let the unnecessary complexity fall to the floor. Or a committee of them. I wonder how one goes about judging if such a person or committee is doing a good job? Oh, point one.

Your argument isn't with the the Supreme Court, it's with the Constitution itself.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _Res Ipsa »

ldsfaqs wrote:Exceptions to freedom of conscious should ONLY occur in relation to "persons", not "activities".

You cannot force a person to use their labor to support an "activity" (a.k.a. a Gay Wedding) that they don't believe in.

Nobody at all has denied "gays" service (save the idiot exception), if they had then the Gay couple might have had a cause under the anti-descriminatory law.
Since they and others lifestyles and beliefs WERE served cakes for years, you cannot pervert the law to satisfy your own pet peeve to punish others who don't believe as you.

But Leftists do like to pervert the law to their own ends no matter how wrong and against the law it is. Abortion, gun bans/restrictions, police checkpoints not for a specific crime, etc.


How do you know whether the law was broken if you haven’t read it?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

honorentheos wrote: it implicates a more foundational argument about original intent which the courts must grapple with all the time. But by saying that the courts are a mess because of the grappling that must occur with competing rights, changing times, advancing knowledge, and the nuances of the case before the Court you're arguing against Democracy. You seem to want the kind of authoritarian strong all-wise leader who can easily cut the Gordian Knot and let the unnecessary complexity fall to the floor. Or a committee of them. I wonder how one goes about judging if such a person or committee is doing a good job? Oh, point one.

Your argument isn't with the Supreme Court, it's with the Constitution itself.


It is not clear what Courts are suppose to do. Should Courts go by the original intent? Or should courts go by changing times and advancing knowledge?

honorentheos wrote:Second, in quoting the two separate dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade, you are focusing on the question of abortion being a right guaranteed by the Constitution. This was a major consideration in the case as to what rights were being infringed by the Texas law and whose rights should be given priority. Answering that question would help reframe the way you approach the issue. It would be a good exercise to note the parties identified and their rights or claims in the case as a starting place when attempting to unpack the arguments.


Can you explain please.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _honorentheos »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
honorentheos wrote: it implicates a more foundational argument about original intent which the courts must grapple with all the time. But by saying that the courts are a mess because of the grappling that must occur with competing rights, changing times, advancing knowledge, and the nuances of the case before the Court you're arguing against Democracy. You seem to want the kind of authoritarian strong all-wise leader who can easily cut the Gordian Knot and let the unnecessary complexity fall to the floor. Or a committee of them. I wonder how one goes about judging if such a person or committee is doing a good job? Oh, point one.

Your argument isn't with the Supreme Court, it's with the Constitution itself.


It is not clear what Courts are suppose to do. Should Courts go by the original intent? Or should courts go by changing times and advancing knowledge?

True.

honorentheos wrote:Second, in quoting the two separate dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade, you are focusing on the question of abortion being a right guaranteed by the Constitution. This was a major consideration in the case as to what rights were being infringed by the Texas law and whose rights should be given priority. Answering that question would help reframe the way you approach the issue. It would be a good exercise to note the parties identified and their rights or claims in the case as a starting place when attempting to unpack the arguments.


Can you explain please.

I guess. This is just one suggested way, but feel free to do what works best for you.

I'd start by opening a new Google Doc, Word Document, Excel file, or just grabbing a pad of paper and a pen. Whatever you prefer when organizing thoughts.

Start going through the Roe v. Wade decision.

Start a column where you identify a party described as having some interest in the case. Next to that in a second column note what that interest is. Make a third column and note where the interest is seated such as a specific amendment to the Constitution, precedent being cited in the case, or whathaveyou.

Note afterward how the court decided to deal with these various interests, whose interests were given priority of the other, and why.

Do the same going back through the concurring opinions, noting what they add or where they differ.

Do the same with the dissents.

It wouldn't hurt to perform the same exercise reading the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case after Roe v. Wade.

So, hopefully you find that explanation helpful. :wink:
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _Xenophon »

"Colorado Baker Sues State Again, After Refusing To Make Cake For Transgender Woman"

Rather than make a new thread on this I thought I would include it with our original discussion because I think several posts (particularly early ones from Honor and RI) provide a lot of relevant context to the topic. Given how very narrow the previous ruling from the Supreme Court was it was really only a matter of time before this popped up again and who better to do it than the baker from the original case.
from the article wrote:The Colorado baker who won a Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is suing state officials, alleging religious discrimination over his refusal to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Attorneys for Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., said Wednesday that the state is "continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs."

The case involves an incident from June 2017, when lawyer Autumn Scardina said she asked for a cake with a pink interior and blue exterior to celebrate the anniversary of transitioning from male to female. "The woman on the phone told me they do not make cakes celebrating gender changes," Scardina wrote in a complaint to Colorado's Division of Civil Rights.
I'm curious what everyone's thoughts here are. Obviously it is early days and there is a long road to a ruling here but that doesn't have to stop us from being wildly speculative :wink: . Some questions that I think are going to perhaps lead to a different result in this ruling:
  • Does the 2017 vs 2012 time frame have an impact?
  • Can the CCRC demonstrate they gave adequate accommodation to free speech here vs the previous case?
  • Does the kind of discrimination (gender vs sexual orientation) change how this case is viewed?
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _honorentheos »

Given this case will almost certainly make it to the US Supreme Court and find a solid conservative majority, it's difficult to say how it will play out there.

It's interesting that the Colorado Division of Civil Rights quoted from the Masterpiece Cake ruling when ordering the two parties to mandatory mediation. That quote being, "It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions are offered to other members of the public."

Earlier it describes attorney's protected status as being their sex and gender identity.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/Masterpie ... nation.pdf

So it does seem the time frame could have consequences in both directions, in terms of the court's opinion as well as the establishment of laws and precedents. I have only skimmed through the CCRC's determination but not reviewed any other documents so I have no idea regarding the second question. The Obama admin explicitly added gender identity to the protected classes under Equal Employment but I'm not sure about challenges to that status and would want to look into that as well.

This has the look of a central case for so-called religious freedom which is the core ideology Trump is using to rebuild the the Supreme Court so...
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _Xenophon »

Good thoughts, Honor, and I think we are mostly on the same page. It is obviously still early days so more will come to light I'm sure.

I thought about touching on the makeup of the court but I'm not sure it will be significantly different than it was in the previous Masterpiece ruling. It is possible that only Kennedy will be changed and I haven't seen much to suggest Kavanaugh will veer that far. Baring the passing of Ginsburg under Trump (even then we might see a fight) I suspect ideologically it won't be much different.

If anyone had any belief that previous ruling wasn't narrow in scope, the fact that this is again in the news and expected to make it to the Supreme Court should set you right.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: No Gay Wedding Cake For You

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

honorentheos wrote:
Meanwhile in reality, the nine people currently serving as Justices on the Supreme Court represent decades of experience in the legal field which they have risen to the top of through intense competition and scrutiny.


Today I saw no evidence of intense scrutiny. What the hell is the point of that circus hearing anyway?
Moving to Canada is tempting because our leaders are idiots.
Post Reply