[Wutang]

(06-06-2018 02:50 AM)Suits Wrote:  

The key word here is "custom." Has the lawsuit been sent back down to the low court or is the matter considered resolved with this ruling?

The SCOTUS's decision only applies to this particular case. It does not set a precedent for future cases so other businesses with similar convictions aren't in the safe, particularly if they live in a state like say Oregon.

[Suits]

(06-06-2018 10:20 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 02:50 AM)Suits Wrote:  

The key word here is "custom." Has the lawsuit been sent back down to the low court or is the matter considered resolved with this ruling?

The SCOTUS's decision only applies to this particular case. It does not set a precedent for future cases so other businesses with similar convictions aren't in the safe, particularly if they live in a state like say Oregon.

Yes, I understand that, but that wasn't my question.

When the Supreme Court objects to the finding of a lower court based on some factor that they disapprove of, it's customary for them to send the matter back to the lower court and demand that they review the evidence and produce a new finding with considering the factor that the SCOTUS took issue with.

The SC typically doesn't decide case, so much as that it finds fault with the reason for a lower court's finding or it finds fault with a particular law and requires it to be removed from the books until it can be rewritten in keeping with the SC's decision.

The SC doesn't typically review evidence. It typically reviews the factors that contributed to a lower court's finding. It isn't out of the question for a murder conviction to be thrown out based on the SC's decision that the lower court's decision to admit a specific piece of evidence was unconstitutional, but that doesn't let the murder suspect off the hook. Typically, a new trial would simply be ordered and the offending piece of evidence not admitted the second time around (unless the prosecution decides that it simply isn't worth their time and drops the charges altogether).

So, I am asking, in this, has the matter been returned to the lower court or is it a done deal (in this particular situation).

[Suits]

(06-06-2018 08:23 AM)Roardog Wrote:  

Wasn't there a case in the US where Walmart refused to make a birthday cake for a kids birthday because his parents were white nationalists and had called him "Adolf Aryan" or something like that?
I believe that went to court and Walmart was not forced to make the cake.

How is this case any different?

The difference is that some people argue that sexual orientation is not a choice, whereas political/religious views are.

At the crux of the debate is the question as to whether the decision to pursue gayfaggot marriage is a right (just like pursuing heterosexual marriage is arguably a right) or if it is a political statement.

If the cake maker was a coffee shop owner who refused to serve a gay/black/woman a coffee on account of their orientation/race/sex, he would have a case at all, but a custom cake, on the other hand, is an artistic expression unique to the couple ordering it and also loaded with meaning.

So, it's not a question about whether a gay couple should be allowed to buy a cake that is for sale, but rather an individual should be forced to create an object of artistic expression that he does not agree with.

In the case of a Nazi cake, 99% of people would agree that no one should be forced to create a cake with advocates something of that nature.

The question I have is whether or not the faggot cake would have simple been a decorated cake or would it have had two men's names on it or two faggot grooms affixed to the top?

[Captainstabbin]

(06-05-2018 02:18 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

So if someone went into a Jewish bakery in New York and ordered this cake, the media would defend their right to do so, and force the bakery to go through with it? What hypocrites! (As usual)

The dilemma of a Jewish baker...

[Captainstabbin]

Wasn't this all a setup anyway? Didn't the fags go over 100 miles out of their way to find a Christian bakery to target?

I'm glad they finally won, but they've had to spend a fortune in legal bills while the fags are sitting back giddy with all of the trouble they caused. Did their business recover?

[Rotten]

This decision is another loss.

Only 2 Justices were willing to sign an opinion saying that an artist has a right to freedom of expression. (And a majority said that the baker was an artist). So artists who get paid in money don’t have authorship rights.

The stuff in the decision resting on Colorado law at the time is irrelevant now. It’s the court dodging the issue.

The meaning of this ruling in the real world of super liberal hack judges and Bush era cuck judges is that the homosexual lobby is still free to harass small business.

Of the 9 judges, only Thomas and Gorsuch are willing to protect the Bill of Rights.

[YossariansRight]

(06-06-2018 12:19 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

Wasn't this all a setup anyway? Didn't the fags go over 100 miles out of their way to find a Christian bakery to target?

I'm glad they finally won, but they've had to spend a fortune in legal bills while the fags are sitting back giddy with all of the trouble they caused. Did their business recover?

Judge shopping, bakery shopping. A tactic “they” use to get what they want. Too bad the Right doesn’t do the same thing.

“They” think (with the tacit approval of the black robed tyrants) that “they” have the right to kill your livelihood and destroy your life if you don’t agree with “them” 100%. The owners of the bakery should sue “them” for forever.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Has anyone seen how OKCupid responded to this? They "teamed" with the ACLU to create a hashtag #RightToLove and wrote up an explanation that completely mischaracterizes this whole court case.

When people use this hashtag, don't they realize that they're taking marching orders from a bunch of corporate middle management stooges? It doesn't matter what the subject is. "The corporation as church" is a dangerous road to head down.

They wrote a blog post about this (below). It's preachy, presumptuous, biased, and inaccurate. It made me so angry I shut down my account. I hope these morons end up with no users.

One of their argument points is that "90 percent of their users" support the ACLU. This is beyond moronic. If popularity makes something right, then they just gave thumbs-up to all sorts of past injustices that were popular, like segregation and slavery.

This is why it's BAD for corporations to preach morality. They don't think it through. It's not their job. Have the middle manager paper pushers work on coding instead. Idiots.

The blog post:

"OkCupid’s new ACLU #RightToLove badge helps you filter for dates looking for love — and justice

In response to the Masterpiece Supreme Court decision, we’ve teamed up with the ACLU so you can easily find people who support the non-profit

At OkCupid, we match people over what they care about. As it turns out, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is one of those things that really matters to them. Ninety percent of the OkCupid users who responded to the question “Do you support the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)?” said “yes.” That’s one of the highest agreement percentages of all of our thousands of questions.

Ninety percent of the OkCupid users who responded to the question “Do you support the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)?” said “yes.”

All OkCupid users who publicly answer “yes” to the ACLU question will receive the #RightToLove profile badge.

It’s not surprising that so many of our users support the ACLU. First, the non-profit does amazing work to protect all individuals’ civil rights — fighting for LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, and the rights of those who are incarcerated, to just name a few. In fact, the ACLU is currently tirelessly working on the Masterpiece case after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the LGBTQ rights case earlier this week. At OkCupid, we also have a long history of inclusion, being the first dating app to offer 22 gender and 12 orientation options.

Secondly, in today’s political climate, people care more about their dates sharing their political and social beliefs than ever before; our data shows that differing beliefs on both are the biggest dating deal breakers today. So to help the majority of OkCupid users who want to find a date looking for love (and justice), today we’re introducing the #RightToLove profile badge in partnership with the ACLU. With the recent Supreme Court decision on Masterpiece, and June being LGBT Pride Month, there’s no better time to celebrate, and fight for, everyone’s right to love.

All users in the U.S. who publicly answer “yes” to the ACLU question will receive the badge. Responses to our questions have always worked to inform our algorithm and connect people over what’s important to them, but the #RightToLove badge will make it even easier for daters to connect with other supporters. The badge not only highlights their support on their profiles, but it will also promote supporters to one another.

Knowing your date supports the ACLU says a lot more about them than just that.

It’s not just support for the ACLU that these badge holders will likely share. Daters who support the ACLU are four times more likely to consider themselves feminist (and are looking to date a feminist, too). They’re also twice as likely to have responded “Hell no” to our question “Trump?” and 30% more likely to believe in climate change. So filtering for one deal breaker can end up saving you some time on filtering for other deal breakers (and makers) as well.

Wouldn’t you rather date someone who wears cargo shorts (and actually puts stuff in the pockets) than someone who doesn’t support basic human rights? The #RightToLove badge won’t just make you feel better about yourself and your matches — for every OkCupid user with the badge, we’ll donate a dollar to the ACLU, up to $50,000. “At OkCupid, we’re proud to be a champion of inclusivity because we believe you should be able to love whomever you want, regardless of your gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,” says Ariel Charytan, OkCupid’s CEO. “Nothing is more attractive than people who believe in every individual’s #RightToLove who they want to love.”

If you’d like to connect with someone who supports the ACLU, answer the question publicly here. The badge will be available through the summer so you can find great dates, no matter what you’re looking for."

https://theblog.okcupid.com/okcupids-new...460e91b2fb

[Cr33pin]

[rpg]

Okcupid sucks so bad it is craigslist personals tier level of crap. If they want to keep wrecking their business more power to them.

[frozen-ace]

I noticed there was a lot of emphasis placed in the fact that gay marriage was NOT legal in Colorado at that time. It was reasonable that he could feel this way given that gay marriage was illegal under state law. If there were the exact same facts and circumstances, but gay marriage was legal, I wonder if the conclusion would have been different.

Page 2 has some good info. The Supreme Court also found that while the Colorado Civil Rights division was pursuing Phillips for not making the cake, they ruled in favor of bakers on three separate occasions who refused to make cakes with anti-gay messages. In Phillips case the Civil Rights Commission said the cake message is attributed to the customer, not the baker (meaning you can’t object to it). However, in the cases of anti- gay cakes, the civil rights commission applied the exact opposite logic vs what they applied with Philip’s case and determined it was ok for a baker to refuse.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...1_j4el.pdf

The comments from the commissioner in public session disparaged his faith as despicable and equating religious held beliefs to defending slavery or the Holocaust really destroyed any chance of Colorado coming out on top in this thing. I’m surprised the name / background info of the commissioner who said this on public record and pretty much lost the case in the eyes of the Supreme Court hasn’t been revealed. It is probably out there somewhere. SJW gets protected. If it was the other way around his / her face and name would be all over the media and any future career would be doomed.

[PapayaTapper]

(06-14-2018 09:53 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

Surprisingly after first few moronic bimbettes who were just regurgitating the approved outrage, there were a few reasonable answers towards the end of the video. I'm actually pleasantly surprised.

[Cr33pin]

(06-14-2018 11:07 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Surprisingly after first few moronic bimbettes who were just regurgitating the approved outrage, there were a few reasonable answers towards the end of the video. I'm actually pleasantly surprised.

#MeToo

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Cross-posted from the Donald Trump thread:

[url=https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1010536237457924096][/url]

[Montrose]

Similar case ruled by UK Supreme Court today, in favour of bakery.

LGBT totalitarianism defeated again! They will not pass!

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/...03761.html

Quote:

Supreme Court rules unanimously in favour of Ashers bakery in 'gay cake' case
The Christian owners of a Belfast bakery have won an appeal at the UK's highest court over a finding that they discriminated against a customer by refusing to make a cake decorated with the words "Support Gay Marriage".

Five Supreme Court justices allowed a challenge by the McArthur family in a unanimous ruling in London on Wednesday in what has become widely known as the "gay cake case".

Their ruling follows the latest round of a legal action brought against family-run Ashers bakery in Belfast by gay rights activist Gareth Lee, who won his case initially in the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.
The bakery went on to fight the finding of discrimination at a Supreme Court hearing in Belfast in May.
Announcing the court's decision, its president, Lady Hale, said: "This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination."
It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case. Lady Hale
She went on: "As to Mr Lee's claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation."
The court also said Mr Lee had no claim against Ashers on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
Lady Hale added: "The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed."
Daniel and Amy McArthur, who have said the law risked "extinguishing" their consciences, were in court for the ruling. Mr Lee was also present.
The Rainbow Project, Northern Ireland's largest support organisation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, expressed its disappointment at the Supreme Court ruling.
Director John O'Doherty said: "Ashers agreed to make the cake. They entered into a contractual agreement to make this cake and then changed their mind.
"While sympathetic as some may be to the position in which the company finds itself, this does not change the facts of the case.
"We believe this is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification. We will however take time to study this judgment by the Supreme Court to understand fully its implications for the rights of LGBT people to access goods, facilities and services without discrimination.
"We do not believe that this matter should have been brought to court. We believe that Ashers bakery should have accepted the Equality Commission's invitation to engage in mediation, where a remedy could have been found without the expense and division surrounding this court case.
"However, most damaging of all has been the attempt by politicians to use this case to justify amending the law to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people with the so-called 'conscience clause.'"

[bojangles]

The problem with this case was the original female judge (surprise surprise) could not distinguish between the gay guy and the message he wanted. Somehow his message was the same as him which of course is patently bollocks. Imagine the outrage if the gay had requested that the cake said "Kill all Jews" or "Nazis rule".

[Macumazahn]

(10-10-2018 05:36 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

Similar case ruled by UK Supreme Court today, in favour of bakery.

LGBT totalitarianism defeated again! They will not pass!

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/...03761.html

Quote:

Supreme Court rules unanimously in favour of Ashers bakery in 'gay cake' case

The Rainbow Project, Northern Ireland's largest support organisation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, expressed its disappointment at the Supreme Court ruling.
............"We do not believe that this matter should have been brought to court."........

(Now that we've lost.)

[66Scorpio]

There seems to be a string of these cases and a business owner's discretion to refuse service has been getting narrower. In Canada back in 2005 the Knights of Columbus got sued after renting a hall (owned by the Catholic Archdiosise) and the backing out when the found out it was for a lesbiam wedding.The Knights ended up paying about $450 for out of pocket expenses related to reprinting invitations and mailing the out again (which they offered to do a soon a the discovered the mistake) but then another $2000 for hurt feelings. The actual cost of rentiing the hall was $150. However, this wasn't a targetted hit. The lesbians apparently didn't know that KoC is a Catholic fraternal organization weren't trying to force the to stick to the contract and hold the event.

An older couple who ran a BnB out of their home refused service to a gay couple and were forced to shut down their business rather that comply with the order against the after the for sued.

A few years back a lesbian walks in to a muslim barbershop seeking a short, masculine haircut(this sounds like the beginning of a joke), The guy refuses service in religious grounds that he is not allowed to touch a woman who is not a family member. Sje sues him but the come to and undisclosed mediated agreement (probably meaning that he for railroaded by the human rights commission)'

Now there is the Masterpiece come wjich went 7-2,.....only two judges found he had a free speech right to refuse service for a custom, creative/artistic product. A mushy majority of 5 basically said Colorado discriminated against him in the way his come was handled. And still 2 - Ginsberg and Sotomayer still thought the gays shouldn't lose.

It was a nartow, case specific decision that really didn:to decide anything. Apparently there are more cases like it winding their way through court. With Kennedy gone and Kavanagh in there might be enough temerity among the to other conservatives to address the issue head in a 5-4 decision to protect free speech rights.

That is still a wire-thin protection that only applies to custom created products with some sort of content message. All sorts of arguments could be fought over who can raise this defence from caterers to florists to photographers, custom jewelers etc.

[spokepoker]

(10-11-2018 04:42 PM)66Scorpio Wrote:  

With Kennedy gone and Kavanagh in there might be enough temerity among the to other conservatives to address the issue head in a 5-4 decision to protect free speech rights.

Wouldn't these all be freedom of religion?

[66Scorpio]

Certainly first amendment issues but I think it was framed as freedom of speech in that you can't be forced to express ideas that you disagree with.

As far as I know freedom of religion has been a losing argument to deny service to someone (gay) because serving a customer in a commercial setting generally doesn't affect one's free exercise of religion.

The only exceptions I have seen are gay weddings and peesonal care where you have to touch to other person. Clergy aren't forced to marry a gay couple, The Knights of Columbus almost escaped for they had a clearer vetting procedure that included walking on egg shells, and now creative product and service providers. Other service providers might have an out if they are expected to attend a gay wedding, but I haven't seen it come up. We don't know exactly what happened to the muslim barber that was sued by the lesbian wanting a haircut. However, a number of cases have popped up where trannies want a massage or Brazilian wax and the person doesn't want to give it to them. I can't remember the outcomes of those.