Sullivan makes good points about how gay community is blowing it

[rainwood]

I know from my brother's experience (he just retired from his last job working as an attorney) that he was ready to drop out of law school after the first year. With the attitude you express above toward the law, I think you would be, too, if you ever went to law school. My impression is that in law school all that is done is splitting hairs about nonsense!

I've been a practicing lawyer for 37 years. Law school is about learning to issue spot. Being a lawyer is about finding solutions to those issues. I liked law school, but I prefer being a lawyer.

My bugaboo is people arguing about legal issues who don't know anything about the law. Everyone in society feels like they have to have an opinion, but don't give a rip if it's an informed one. Mostly I just stay out of those kinds of debates because it drives me crazy!!

 

[rainwood]

Is the service selling wedding cakes or creating wedding cakes? The baker claims he would sell the couple a cake. He refused to accept the commission to create a wedding cake. I think many would agree that an artist has the right of refusal to commissioned artwork.

Is a baker an artist? Is a wedding cake art? That's for the SC to decide, and I doubt the decision will be unanimous. The transcript of the oral arguments is quite interesting. Has anyone read any of it?

The bakery is refusing its services (making a cake) to people based on their sexual orientation when they wouldn't refuse those same services to a non same-sex couple. Selling them a different, "store bought" cake doesn't fix the discrimination. 'Separate but equal' used to be the law of the land regarding race, but was struck down decades ago because separate is not equal.

I'm off to a holiday dinner so you will all have to carry on without me. I doubt I'll persuade those of you who are okay with denying same-sex couples the same wedding services as straight couples so I'll leave you to make as many arguments to support such discrimination as you can dream up.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks for the correction on the photo, @Matata! Clearly I didn't spend much time analyzing it.

I'll say it now, I would decline to produce that cake. So I am closing down my bakery so those who'd order that cake won't have to sue me for discrimination.

 

[Maria D]

The bakery is refusing its services (making a cake) to people based on their sexual orientation when they wouldn't refuse those same services to a non same-sex couple. Selling them a different, "store bought" cake doesn't fix the discrimination. 'Separate but equal' used to be the law of the land regarding race, but was struck down decades ago because separate is not equal.

I'm off to a holiday dinner so you will all have to carry on without me. I doubt I'll persuade those of you who are okay with denying same-sex couples the same wedding services as straight couples so I'll leave you to make as many arguments to support such discrimination as you can dream up.

This guy has also refused to make lewd bachelor party cakes for heterosexuals. In his opinion (and according to the tenets of many religions), homosexuality is as sinful as, um, other kinds of sexy sin. I don't agree with his opinion. I am not just atheist but anti-religion. I'm just trying to see the baker's point of view from the point of law. I thought that's what this debate was all about. As a lawyer, you would know better than I would - but isn't the fact that this has gone all the way to the SC proof that it's not a cut and dried legal argument? Why would the court agree to hear it?

If you choose to believe that I'm making up arguments to support discrimination, go ahead, but the truth is I'm just enjoying the debate.

 

[nala]

This guy has also refused to make lewd bachelor party cakes for heterosexuals. In his opinion (and according to the tenets of many religions), homosexuality is as sinful as, um, other kinds of sexy sin. I don't agree with his opinion. I am not just atheist but anti-religion. I'm just trying to see the baker's point of view from the point of law. I thought that's what this debate was all about. As a lawyer, you would know better than I would - but isn't the fact that this has gone all the way to the SC proof that it's not a cut and dried legal argument? Why would the court agree to hear it?

If you choose to believe that I'm making up arguments to support discrimination, go ahead, but the truth is I'm just enjoying the debate.

You are enjoying the debate? Ironic. Since you were claiming earlier that you didn't see why this cake deal made it as far as the Supreme Court Bc you know, they could have gone elsewhere.

 

[Maria D]

You are enjoying the debate? Ironic. Since you were claiming earlier that you didn't see why this cake deal made it as far as the Supreme Court Bc you know, they could have gone elsewhere.

You are being quite selective in your recollection of my "earlier claim." Go back and read all of it. I didn't *just* say "they could have gone elsewhere." And nowhere did I imply that my amazement was because the gay couple was in the wrong. If I believed that, logic should tell you that I should want the case to go to the SC because a lower court had already ruled against the baker.

The Supreme Court declines to hear many (in my opinion) important cases. I'm amazed that they didn't decline this one.

Are you not enjoying the debate? (Just curious)

edited to add: Here's a case they declined to hear yesterday: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/11/supreme-court-declines-settle-gay-rights-employmen/

"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it was refusing to take up a case that could have expanded the prohibition on discrimination to include sexual orientation, declining to hear a case brought by a woman against her employer and leaving a legal jumble in place."

 

[Dancing Fire]

I don't understand the big fuss.... if the baker refused to bake me a cake b/c my skin is yellow then I'll just take my business to another bakery. No big deal to me.

 

[AprilBaby]

DF, why do people consider Asians yellow? I never understood that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

DF, why do people consider Asians yellow? I never understood that.

Why are you consider white?
btw; IDK the answer to your Q.

 

[AGBF]

I've been a practicing lawyer for 37 years.

I've been glued to the television watching Doug Jones beat Roy Moore, so I missed checking on Pricescope. However, as I was typing this challenge to you I has an eerie feeling that you might be an attorney. It was probably buried deep in my subconscious. I'm an idiot.

Deb

 

[AprilBaby]

Why are you consider white?
btw; IDK the answer to your Q.

I guess I consider asian and Hispanic to be white too. White as opposed to Caucasian.
No one is truly white, yellow, red or black anyways.

 

[House Cat]

Can't we just wash out our eyes and sacrifice some olives by drowning them in a sacred crystal cocktail glass filled with vodka, vermouth, & bitters?

You have convinced me with your sacred crystal and your vodka! I have a confession to make...I grew gourds last spring. We are going to need a whole helluva lot of olives.

 

[telephone89]

The bakery is refusing its services (making a cake) to people based on their sexual orientation when they wouldn't refuse those same services to a non same-sex couple. Selling them a different, "store bought" cake doesn't fix the discrimination. 'Separate but equal' used to be the law of the land regarding race, but was struck down decades ago because separate is not equal.

I'm off to a holiday dinner so you will all have to carry on without me. I doubt I'll persuade those of you who are okay with denying same-sex couples the same wedding services as straight couples so I'll leave you to make as many arguments to support such discrimination as you can dream up.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

The SC took this case for some reason other than the obvious --can't discriminate against gays due to religious objections. If I may bring up the Hobby Lobby case where they did allow the company to deny birth control to their employees for religious beliefs.(just an aside)

Maria D has been posting here for a long time. I have never thought of her as anything but an open thinking liberal. I agree with her that for once we had a nice conversation going for this topic. You can see when the tone becomes harsh how the topic loses something. Nala, respect other opinions. Make some decent arguments about the topic and let that speak for you.

Hot Pozzam??- I really liked your post.

Happy Hanakah to those who celebrate it.

Annette

 

[Matata]

You have convinced me with your sacred crystal and your vodka! I have a confession to make...I grew gourds last spring. We are going to need a whole helluva lot of olives.

As many olives as it takes sweet HC. They are a much better alternative to goats and sacrificial lambs, less mess and shorter clean-up time, and we still get the benefit of atonement and absolution.

 

[AGBF]

A cake may be art or speech if it's something you make to express your own views. The baker would be free to make a cake that expresses a love of Jesus, a love of pandas, a hatred toward gays, a desire to be on 'The Voice,' whatever. That's what art and free speech are about (assuming the message doesn't fall into one of the exceptions to free speech).

Selling wedding cakes to the public is a SERVICE and you're not allowed to discriminate in providing a service to anyone who is in a protected class of people. So the 'art' and speech arguments are legal nonsense. Or at least they should be.

For the record, I agree and always have agreed with this point of view. The baker is not "the speaker". All I had meant to point out is that the law exists to twist anything it can. And that law school teaches all the ways to use laws. The arguments about free speech and art came from the lawyers arguing the case, not from me!

Here is an excerpt from "The Washington Post".

"On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case brought by Phillips that will determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech with which he fundamentally disagrees and that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. The outcome is not assured. But Phillips and the cause of religious freedom have an exponentially better chance of winning with Gorsuch on the bench than with the liberal majority that Hillary Clinton would have installed.

In 2012, Phillips was asked by a gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, to design a custom cake for a same-sex marriage. Phillips politely declined. In so doing he was exercising his constitutional right not to use his chosen form of artistic expression — cakemaking — to advance beliefs with which he disagreed. He says he also declines to make cakes for Halloween, adult-themed parties or to celebrate divorce; cakes with vulgar or anti-American messages; and cakes that 'disparage' the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. He uses his art to glorify Christ, and a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, he believes, would have done the opposite."

AGBF

 

[Maria D]

The SC ruled today....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

 

[AGBF]

Thanks, MariaD.

As the decision was explained by attorneys on MSNBC, the issue of who created the cake did not become the focus of the decision and the case being decided for the baker in this instance will not allow other vendors to discriminate at will against homosexuals claiming "faith". Supposedly the state did not take the baker's claims about faith seriously. (Of course two wonderful female justices dissented from from the majority opinion.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...es-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html

Deb

 

[Maria D]

It was a "narrow decision" which I guess means it was written to apply to this case only and not in a manner that would set precedent.

Interesting how when litigated, the whole thing seemed to hinge on whether or not a baker is an artist exercising free speech - but in the end the SCJ's concern was more about how the baker was treated by the state. I did not glean this from the transcripts.

 

[Arkteia]

Here is my feeling.

It is not about gays. It is about religion. Our mainstream, the old, the same...

But...we have many religions in this country. Not all of them behave equally boldly. I know Mormons don't drink coffee, but did any Mormon I know, ever, say a word to me about my ever-present coffee mug? Did any Mormon kid working at Macdonald's in the summer refuse to sell coke to my son? Any Mormon waiter refuse to pour a glass of wine?
No, no and no.

We have Muslims here. And we have teenage girls dressed boldly, the way teenagers do. I know that in Muslim culture, this is unheard of, but did a single Muslim woman at the cashier's counter refuse to serve these girls? (And I can imagine the media's yell if she did!).

Truth is, we have very strict priorities about religion here. Today, it is conservative, Episcopalian, rule, and only because of this and some passage in the Bible, unproven and maybe wrongly translated, that two men in love are refused a wedding cake.

But our religious landscape is changing. 40% of 18-20 year olds do not associate with any religion. In the meantime, immigrants come with own faiths. So if you don't other religious rules to take place in your kids' schools, you do the same you advise to other religious minorities: you practice your beliefs at home or church/temple/mosque. Not on the street, of work, or national TV, or any public place. Religion - faith - is between you and your God. If public laws in our multi-ethnic countries were religion-based, we would not be able to function in the 21st century.

 

[Arkteia]

Are you referring to this cake? It's not anti-Jewish. It's satanic -- pentagram on top, upside down crosses, black icing. I would hazard a guess from the two coffins on top that it's a wedding cake for a couple who are members of a satanic group/church or because of the gourds in the background -- a Halloween cake.

Satanic church, in my opinion, does not worship satan. It is simply "épater les bourgeois"

 

[Arkteia]

Is the service selling wedding cakes or creating wedding cakes? The baker claims he would sell the couple a cake. He refused to accept the commission to create a wedding cake. I think many would agree that an artist has the right of refusal to commissioned artwork.

Is a baker an artist? Is a wedding cake art? That's for the SC to decide, and I doubt the decision will be unanimous. The transcript of the oral arguments is quite interesting. Has anyone read any of it?

But what if he painted portraits (art), and as a painter, he refused to paint a black couple? Or an interracial couple? Wouldn't it be discrimination? So how are gays different?

 

[Matata]

...you do the same you advise to other religious minorities: you practice your beliefs at home or church/temple/mosque. Not on the street, of work, or national TV, or any public place. Religion - faith - is between you and your God. If public laws in our multi-ethnic countries were religion-based, we would not be able to function in the 21st century.

 

[Maria D]

But what if he painted portraits (art), and as a painter, he refused to paint a black couple? Or an interracial couple? Wouldn't it be discrimination? So how are gays different?

Did you follow the case?

I think you can figure out the SC's views on your questions by reading both the Oral arguments and the Decision.

 

[AGBF]

Interesting how when litigated, the whole thing seemed to hinge on whether or not a baker is an artist exercising free speech - but in the end the SCJ's concern was more about how the baker was treated by the state. I did not glean this from the transcripts.

I appreciate your having included the transcripts of the arguments and the decisions, MariaD. I had not read them before. I really like the dissenting opinion written by RBG and Sonia Sotomayor. I thought that their point was well-made. I am sure that, depending on what angle from which one hit this case, a good argument could be made for any outcome. (And I, of course, would have preferred to see the gay couple win.) However, given what we have endured with a president like Trump, it is good to see that one of our branches of government is still functioning and that the members of The Supreme Court are not all brain dead as are the president and the members of Congress.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Arkteia]

Did you follow the case?

I think you can figure out the SC's views on your questions by reading both the Oral arguments and the Decision.

Thank you very much. I read the Oral arguments. Must say - I am in awe of the Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Not only about the votes - all the questions they asked, their humor, but mostly, their general concern about discrimination. Great women, great judges!

 

[Arkteia]

Discrimination is discrimination, it is concerning because it paves the way to other discriminatory behaviors.
The Superior Court' decision has just opened the way for other religious groups to practice their religious beliefs at workplaces. What a can of worms it is going to open one day...

 

[Arkteia]

Now it is complicated, but the whole exchange about disabilities deeply saddened me because there was one religion/philosophy that did exactly this. Nazi Germany. In the 30es, the Nazis killed their mentally ill, patients in asylums, and children with mental retardation. By starvation. In this light, Justice Sotomayor raises a very valid point.