Posted on 12/06/2017 8:43:11 AM PST by pgkdan
Accidentally use salt instead of sugar.
And the “gay” world will raise a stink for a whole week then forget it.
Or put Bitrex into the decorations
Oral arguments are just a public spectacle. The real arguments are made in the written legal briefs. That’s why Clarence Thomas never asks any questions. He has said these oral arguments are a waste of a judge’s time.
wedding cake no, but what about a cake celebrating busting an 8 year old boy because some Iman said it was okay...?
And the purpose of oral arguments is to nail down any holes or ambiguities left open by the briefs.
a Master-piece of shite!
This will lose 5-4 as Roberts who committed an easily researched and established FELONY by adopting his children from the Irish Free State which REQUIRES Irish Free State Citizenship of those trying to adopt an Irish Free State born child. Roberts “adoptions” happened in an undisclosed “South American country” The Democrats have black mailed Roberts on gay “marriage” before in the Texas case AND the Obamacare case. In the Obamacare case a flabbergasted Scalia said “Forty five minutes ago he told me he was voting the other way.” The Democrats blackmailed him then and they will do it again.
[[I think the free speech issues are very legitimate and they buttress the even more powerful]]
I did say the other issues ‘have nothing to do with the case’, and that was a mistake on my part- poor statement on my part- I should have been more careful in my ‘argument’- Perhaps the free speech is more powerful- I’m no lawyer- but I can see the counter argument to the ‘free expression’ or ‘artistic expression’ Being hate speech which ‘violates rights’- and think that the other side might have more leverage if that line is solely taken
[[Please note, if the baker loses then the free exercise clause of the US constitution has been eliminated.]]
Exactly- I’m not suggesting that these other issue not be brought up, but I think, as a lay person, that the free excersize issue is vitally important to the case- the other issues have the counter arguments of ‘hate speech’ as you mentioned- I think the case might hinge on how far into religion government can intrude- for instance, it’s against the law to murder people, or rape people but if a religion rose up that required it’s members to murder and/or rape people, then obviously that religion would be violating the law that applies to everyone-
I read Amy Howe’s article on oral argument at SCOTUSblog. Normally she does a very good job of neutral unbiased coverage of SCOTUS proceedings, but I do have a bone to pick with her on this one...and will get to that later.
The crux of her article and my review of oral argument seem to confirm what I have expected the ruling in this case to be. It will be a 5-4 opinion in favor of the baker, handed down by the Court at the very end of the term as the custodial staff is emptying the wastebaskets and turning out the lights. As much as this will be a victory for Masterpiece Cake Shop, it will not be a broad victory in favor of opponents to the concept of same sex marriage. This case looks like it will be a very narrow ruling confined more or less to its facts. It will not contain language broad enough to allow Christians to generally opt out of participation in same sex weddings. The Court will not want to disturb its rationale for public accommodations civil rights enforcement laws. Masterpiece Cake Shop wins because it’s a two-fer argument; religious belief coupled with forced expression. You have to have both to win. Most cases only have the belief without the public endorsement/compelled expression aspect. And the conservatives on the Court don’t want to permit compelled expression.
This is why the Court has not taken up cases involving Christian photographers and florists. They don’t have the expression element to the same extent as the cakeshop (although a good friend of mine makes a compelling argument that the photographer has a better case than the baker).
The tug of war between public accomodation laws and expression is why the Court didn’t want to take this case; it passed something like 10 or 13 conferences before the Court granted certiorari. It does not like to have to rule between competing fundamental rights. But that’s the result of creating those rights through substantive due process. Sooner or later in that labyrinth of rights, they will come into direct conflict, and someone’s rights become licenses. They are granted, and revoked, by the state with less due process than a fishing license.
Now on to my bone to pick with Amy Howe. In her article she talked about the justices who sided with the gay couple. I’ve spoken to several people about this case, and they usually talk about whether the Court will uphold the rights of the gay couple. This premise is simply WRONG. The gay couple are NOT parties in this lawsuit. It is between the State of Colorado and an individual baker. It is an exercise of the power of the state to enforce a law against a private citizen. The gay couple are not parties, don’t have standing, and don’t stand to gain or lose from this suit. They already got their free cake. That is a fundamental issue people need to understand.
And that is perhaps ultimately the reason the baker should win. It’s not gay couple vs baker, it’s the State vs. the baker. It his his fundamental rights that are at issue, not the rights of the gay couple.
You don’t have to be gay to go to a muslim bakery and order a homosexual wedding cake so they can refuse
It was the ceremony celebration the baker objected to, not the sex preference of his customers
Seems like a good scam for some folks to end up rich
or dead
Missing something....maybe corn sprinkles?
Remember “your black Muslim bakery” in Oakland?
MY BAD, in the video not 13, you can see 3....
One factor in Kennedy's thinking might be what happens after the court shifts, with either him or Ginsberg being replaced by a Trump conservative. If the decision is too raw, it might get reversed if a new case is brought before the new Justices. Stare Decis be damned.
I got through reading half of it.It does give you a feel for what direction the Judge might be heading.Some of the arguments were lame.
[[religious belief coupled with forced expression.]]
That goes along with what circlecity was saying- and put that way I can see that yep- free speech/expression is important to the case- ‘forced expression’
[[Christian photographers and florists. They don’t have the expression element]]
I would disagree with that- famous photographers are known for their artistic expression, and their fame and fortune is reliant on their unique artistic expression- It can also be argued that florists build their reputations on the ability to create a unique artistic expression in the floral arrangements (Granted- most photographers and florists are very creative, but they still develop their own unique ‘style’ that becomes their expression)
[[It will be a 5-4 opinion in favor of the baker,... The tug of war between public accomodation laws and expression is why the Court didn’t want to take this case]]
I hope you’re right- you make a strong case for it (because of the twofer) but with roberts on the panel- it’s a real crap shoot
No, I agree that the free exercise argument is the most on point but I believe the free speech is also relevant and strengthens the free exercise argument. It shows that in many instances, as here, free speech and freedom to exercise one's religion are very intertwined. Perhaps that's why they are in the same amendment.
[[free speech and freedom to exercise one’s religion are very intertwined.]]
Yup- i see that now that henkster put it the way he did “Forced expression’- he makes a good case for it being a ‘twofer’ and hard for the courts to rule in gay couple’s favor-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.