Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.html

[yuna628 9,711]

An interesting way of framing this case. But it seems to me quite clear, as they used very careful language. This is somewhat of a punt, and they don't want to get into tangles of more complicated free speech and expression issues and acknowledge that in the future cases could be before them with similar circumstances but with a different handling.

 

They note a few things that narrows the basis of their decision: Gay marriage was not legal at the time in the state.

The civil rights commission hearing, which came down hard on the baker, they found did not follow fair impartiality or offered due process (due to words and actions during the hearings), but members were openly hostile. Again, perhaps if they had acting impartial, but still ruled against the baker, it may have ended up differently.

The court's job is generally to take the narrowest view possible under the constitution in order to complete the case before them. In this, and contrary to what pundits will say... they did not actually rule upon if it is legal for a baker (or anyone else) to discriminate. Only that the commission behaved in a discriminatory manner in their ruling that showed outright animus toward the defendant's religion.

They also seem to imply that they do not want this to be considered as precedent in favor of a limited interpretation on other similar cases, but that it is just related to the particular facts of this case.

 

This isn't what gay right advocates were hoping for, but neither in fact, was it quite what those who have been intentionally filing suits to test the limits of discrimination were hoping for either. Pundits will pundit, but nothing much has changed.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

An interesting way of framing this case. But it seems to me quite clear, as they used very careful language. This is somewhat of a punt, and they don't want to get into tangles of more complicated free speech and expression issues and acknowledge that in the future cases could be before them with similar circumstances but with a different handling.

 

They note a few things that narrows the basis of their decision: Gay marriage was not legal at the time in the state.

The civil rights commission hearing, which came down hard on the baker, they found did not follow fair impartiality or offered due process (due to words and actions during the hearings), but members were openly hostile. Again, perhaps if they had acting impartial, but still ruled against the baker, it may have ended up differently.

The court's job is generally to take the narrowest view possible under the constitution in order to complete the case before them. In this, and contrary to what pundits will say... they did not actually rule upon if it is legal for a baker (or anyone else) to discriminate. Only that the commission behaved in a discriminatory manner in their ruling that showed outright animus toward the defendant's religion.

They also seem to imply that they do not want this to be considered as precedent in favor of a limited interpretation on other similar cases, but that it is just related to the particular facts of this case.

 

This isn't what gay right advocates were hoping for, but neither in fact, was it quite what those who have been intentionally filing suits to test the limits of discrimination were hoping for either. Pundits will pundit, but nothing much has changed.

As I said when it was brought up in here, when the case was ongoing. I have mixed emotions and see both sides. The SCOTUS probably made the right call in a limited verdict. 

[yuna628 9,711]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

As I said when it was brought up in here, when the case was ongoing. I have mixed emotions and see both sides. The SCOTUS probably made the right call in a limited verdict. 

Agreed. If anything it takes away a lot of the silly 'speech' arguments the one side was trying to conflate in this case.  It gets back to the fundamental basis. Almost like Kennedy was saying ''look you guys I know it's hard, but you've got to listen to each other without being disparaging and rule without emotion or bias''.

[bcking 3,157]

The ruling was 7-2, so it was clear before reading any details that they weren't really taking a side on the larger issue. Most of them agreed to just stay out of that poo-storm.

Edited June 4, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It does something that I like, however... 

 

If I cut hair for a living, but don’t want to cut your hair because you drive a Ford, that should be my right.  Might seem silly to the person wanting a hair cut, but really... would you want someone cutting your hair because they were forced to after they initially refused?

 

Plenty of barbers out there who would gladly take your money for the new ‘do regardless of what you drive.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

It does something that I like, however... 

 

If I cut hair for a living, but don’t want to cut your hair because you drive a Ford, that should be my right.  Might seem silly to the person wanting a hair cut, but really... would you want someone cutting your hair because they were forced to after they initially refused?

 

Plenty of barbers out there who would gladly take your money for the new ‘do regardless of what you drive.

 

  I don't think anything in this SC decision would allow that. I mean you can refuse service to anyone, but an arbitrary reason like that still wouldn't hold up in court. Legally, you could give a discount to Chevy owners to encourage a certain clientele. 

[yuna628 9,711]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

The ruling was 7-2, so it was clear before reading any details that they weren't really taking a side on the larger issue. Most of them agreed to just stay out of that poo-storm.

You know what might go unnoticed though? They are basically making clear that a government cannot discriminate based on someone's religion, but that had the commission not shown bias in the matter, they may have been able to still restrict him in some way. It's all in the intent here it seems. And that might be a signal for another case they'll be ruling on

 

Secondly, they basically trashed the religious lawyer's arguments about speech and expression by ignoring them completely. It could be saying ''stop trying to make that silly argument''... which is what a whole host of religious organization's were trying to jump on, on purpose.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I don't think anything in this SC decision would allow that. I mean you can refuse service to anyone, but an arbitrary reason like that still wouldn't hold up in court. Legally, you could give a discount to Chevy owners to encourage a certain clientele. 

Hold up in court?  Sure it would.  “No shirt, no shoes, no service” has held up for years.  I can refuse you service because I don’t like the way you talk to me.  As long as I am willing to deal with the potential loss of customer(s), I should have that right.  Just as I had the right to start my own business.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Hold up in court?  Sure it would.  “No shirt, no shoes, no service” has held up for years.  I can refuse you service because I don’t like the way you talk to me.  As long as I am willing to deal with the potential loss of customer(s), I should have that right.  Just as I had the right to start my own business.

 

   In the first example, it hold's up in court because it doesn't discriminate against any particular individual or group. In the second, you can refuse service to people who are disruptive or cause safety concerns or other issues for your staff or customers. You can also refuse service to someone who doesn't meet something like a dress code as long as they have the opportunity to comply.

 

   You can't refuse service for anything that violates certain legal codes, such as issues covered by the civil rights acts. Courts also generally rule against businesses that refuse service for arbitrary reasons (such as the type of truck you drive when going for a haircut). Extended consumer protection laws even address this in many states, but obviously not all states. That doesn't mean you couldn't win a case and it presumes someone would sue you over that issue. Just that you are not likely to win.

 

  Anyway,  my main point is your assertion that this supreme court ruling allows you to refuse service for arbitrary reasons was incorrect. You could still get sued for what you suggested and statistically you would lose based on the reasoning you gave. This was not an issue the supreme court addressed in the above ruling.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Unless your state says you can't, you can definitely refuse to serve people if they drive Fords, although I think that is wrong-headed as a driver of a Michigan-made Focus (I buy American whenever I can). Ford drivers aren't a protected class. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that an attorney will take that Ford driver's case and say refusal of service was on some other basis which IS protected. And as long as that filing isn't frivolous, it can cause a lot of headaches, even if you prevail, in terms of loss of business/goodwill, attorneys' fees, etc.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Unless your state says you can't, you can definitely refuse to serve people if they drive Fords, although I think that is wrong-headed as a driver of a Michigan-made Focus (I buy American whenever I can). Ford drivers aren't a protected class. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that an attorney will take that Ford driver's case and say refusal of service was on some other basis which IS protected. And as long as that filing isn't frivolous, it can cause a lot of headaches, even if you prevail, in terms of loss of business/goodwill, attorneys' fees, etc.

i have ejected a customer from the business before. Long story 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

15 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

i have ejected a customer from the business before. Long story 

I've had to do it too, not fun. :-/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

25 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Unless your state says you can't, you can definitely refuse to serve people if they drive Fords, although I think that is wrong-headed as a driver of a Michigan-made Focus (I buy American whenever I can). Ford drivers aren't a protected class. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that an attorney will take that Ford driver's case and say refusal of service was on some other basis which IS protected. And as long as that filing isn't frivolous, it can cause a lot of headaches, even if you prevail, in terms of loss of business/goodwill, attorneys' fees, etc.

 

   I guess it really depends a lot on the state then. In Colorado, it's actually illegal to have a sign that states or implies that you can "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

[Neonred 3,636]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

It does something that I like, however... 

 

If I cut hair for a living, but don’t want to cut your hair because you drive a Ford, that should be my right.  Might seem silly to the person wanting a hair cut, but really... would you want someone cutting your hair because they were forced to after they initially refused?

 

Plenty of barbers out there who would gladly take your money for the new ‘do regardless of what you drive.

I always thought the baker missed an opportunity.  I understand he had strong personal beliefs, but he should have offered to make that cake and quoted a price two or three times his usual charge.  If they are willing to pay, he does well.  If not, then there is no issue.

 

Maybe this just reflects on my lack of morals.