Gay writer makes the case for the baker in the gay-wedding culture war

[homersapien 11,357]

10 hours ago, Farmer Brown said:

Lets have a sensible discussion here, instead of you cutting and pasting from legal websites. I can do that all day long. Let me ask you a legitimate question. Would you want the crowd you are defending to mess with that beautiful child that you have graced your profile with? Do you want someone to approach him at puberty and start messing with his morals and mind? Basic anatomy defies your logic. But you are too educated to understand the difference between a rooster and a hen. LOL SMH. You folks never cease to amaze me.

Irony! 

How dare Ben quote legal precedent in the serious political forum?

Especially when Farmer Brown makes such logically compelling arguments like:

You know in your heart, that a man and woman's anatomy are different and the proper use of them produces you and me. There is no way that you will ever convince a sane man that hasn't been indoctrinated or brainwashed by college professors that it is any different. Do you think that women should play football for Auburn?  

[Strychnine 1,802]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Irony! 

How dare Ben quote legal precedent in the serious political forum?

Especially when Farmer Brown makes such logically compelling arguments like:

You know in your heart, that a man and woman's anatomy are different and the proper use of them produces you and me. There is no way that you will ever convince a sane man that hasn't been indoctrinated or brainwashed by college professors that it is any different. Do you think that women should play football for Auburn?  

 

Here I was, thinking that colleges and universities provided education.  I was wrong, they are apparently modern facets of MKUltra.

[AUDub 11,147]

31 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

Here I was, thinking that colleges and universities provided education.  I was wrong, they are apparently modern facets of MKUltra.

"Reason is the devil's greatest whore," after all. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/12/2017 at 2:16 PM, Bigbens42 said:

It's a nasty situation, because both parties have some valid reason to be upset.

I think the attorneys for the baker would be wise to argue the issue of artistic freedom under the First Amendment. Some amicus briefs have touched on that. 

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - A California judge has ruled in favor of a Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The judge denied a motion for a temporary restraining order filed on Wednesday against Cathy Miller, the owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California.

According to a press release sent by The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, the order would have compelled "Miller to create wedding cakes for LGBT persons, even though doing so would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs."

The bakery received criticism last August when Miller said she refused to serve the couple because of her beliefs.

"Here at Tastries, we love everyone. My husband and I are Christians and we know that God created everyone and he created everyone equal," Miller said in August. "It's not that we don't like people of certain groups ... there is just certain things that violate my conscience."

[AUDub 11,147]

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

SCOTUS rules in favor of baker. Not even a borderline case.

[AUDub 11,147]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

SCOTUS rules in favor of baker. Not even a borderline case.

But on a quick read, it looks like it's a mess of an opinion.

"We're not going to spell out a distinct principle, but whatever that hypothetical line might be, these facts show the Commission clearly ran afoul of it."

[homersapien 11,357]

11 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 

Fine by me. 

While both sides had a valid case, I'd just as soon these sort of people be allowed to display their bigotry in public.  Time will take care of them. 

And like others have said, it's not like the plaintiffs will go without a cake.

But anyone who sees this as a positive thing for Christianity is sorely mistaken.  Just the opposite.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

But on a quick read, it looks like it's a mess of an opinion.

"We're not going to spell out a distinct principle, but whatever that hypothetical line might be, these facts show the Commission clearly ran afoul of it."

I will need to read the entire opinion in context. 7-2 decision. No political dividing line. Any concurrences and affirmations only in-part? The vote alone signifies it didn't present a difficult case for the Justices. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But anyone who sees this as a positive thing for Christianity is sorely mistaken.  Just the opposite.

Huh? This isn't about Christianity at all..... 

In fact, Kennedy's opinion is very narrow in terms of religious liberty

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

But on a quick read, it looks like it's a mess of an opinion.

"We're not going to spell out a distinct principle, but whatever that hypothetical line might be, these facts show the Commission clearly ran afoul of it."

At quick glance, Kennedy is very narrow. This opinion does not represent a broad sweep over religious liberty or even LGBTQ rights. 

[AUDub 11,147]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I will need to read the entire opinion in context. 7-2 decision. No political dividing line. Any concurrences and affirmations only in-part? The vote alone signifies it didn't present a difficult case for the Justices. 

 

I think Kagan and Breyer probably joined to keep it narrow, and as a side effect the ruling is almost incomprehensibly fact-bound. As a whole, it seems very unhelpful, virtually guaranteeing that the courts will argue about it in the future until SCOTUS is forced to weigh in on the issue again in the future.

Gut instinct is that the SCOTUS wanted no part of this and looked for any way they could find to address it on technical grounds. 

[AUDub 11,147]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

At quick glance, Kennedy is very narrow. This opinion does not represent a broad sweep over religious liberty or even LGBTQ rights. 

They punted. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

 

I think Kagan and Breyer probably joined to keep it narrow, and as a side effect the ruling is almost incomprehensibly fact-bound. As a whole, it seems very unhelpful, virtually guaranteeing that the courts will argue about it in the future until SCOTUS is forced to weigh in on the issue again in the future.

Gut instinct is that the SCOTUS wanted no part of this and looked for any way they could find to address it on technical grounds. 

Side note, I think it's important to remember the respective provinces of the Court and the Legislature, because each are not the same. Rights evolve and societal values change. One province is proper to pursue such "innovations" while the other is not. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

They punted. 

For those anticipating a broad constitutional sweep, yes. The media really hyped up this case if i recall. And I don't just mean one side of the media. 

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

For those anticipating a broad constitutional sweep, yes. The media really hyped up this case if i recall. And I don't just mean one side of the media. 

Correct. Most everybody did, on both sides. 

[AUDub 11,147]

A thread

 

[homersapien 11,357]

50 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Huh? This isn't about Christianity at all..... 

In fact, Kennedy's opinion is very narrow in terms of religious liberty

Uh, the bakers position was that making the cake infringed on his religious liberty.

The baker was a Christian. 

It is not unreasonable to assume some Christians will profess a "victory" over this ruling, regardless of the legal details. 

They will be wrong.

The perspective I am taking can be likened to a hypothetical ruling that mandates the teaching of creationism. 

 

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, homersapien said:

Uh, the bakers position was that making the cake infringed on his religious liberty.

The baker was a Christian. 

It is not unreasonable to assume some Christians will profess a victory over this ruling. 

They will be wrong.

 

They will. Colorado screwed up on due process grounds. They tainted the case. Without that taint, a ruling against the baker is not out of the question. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Uh, the bakers position was that making the cake infringed on his religious liberty.

The baker was a Christian. 

It is not unreasonable to assume some Christians will profess a victory over this ruling, regardless of the legal details. 

They will be wrong.

 

read the opinion

[homersapien 11,357]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

read the opinion

Read my post.  I am not discussing the opinion. 

I am referring to how the outcome will be perceived by some.

Sooner or later I'll be able to quote examples to illustrate my point.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

They will. Colorado screwed up on due process grounds. They tainted the case. Without that taint, a ruling against the baker is not out of the question. 

While the feasibility of whether or not another outcome was possible is questionable/in the air, your post reminded me of something I learned during my 1L year:

In Criminal Law, there's a saying regarding "fruit of a poisonous tree." If the tree is poisoned, all fruit that hangs from its branches is tainted. I believe the topic was "unreasonable searches and seizures." Thanks Dub! And War Eagle, big win last night against NC State

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Read my post.  I am not discussing the opinion. 

I am referring to how the outcome will be perceived by some.

Sooner or later I'll be able to quote examples to illustrate my point.

Ok. All love brother Homer. Be sweet to me. 

[AUDub 11,147]

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

While the feasibility of whether or not another outcome was possible is questionable/in the air, your post reminded me of something I learned during my 1L year: 

In Criminal Law, there's a saying regarding "fruit of a poisonous tree." If the tree is poisoned, all fruit that hangs from its branches is tainted. I believe the topic was "unreasonable searches and seizures." Thanks Dub! And War Eagle, big win last night against NC State

I know the concept. I had a conniption when the Utah v. Strieff ruling dropped two years ago.

EDIT: In fact,