- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Says You Don't Have To Bake That Gay Cake
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:12 am to crazycubes
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:12 am to crazycubes
waiting for my breaking news alert on my iphone........
0
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:14 am to ShortyRob
I already said before in a previous post I didn't mean to respond to you previously, was just talking overall, not addressing you specifically. Scroll back.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:16 am to slackster
quote:
makes it sound like it was a 5-4 decision.
I understand it wasn't a landmark decision and the circumstances under which it decided are pretty specific, but the word choice in that byline/headline is poor IMO.
ETA - Calling it a "limited ruling" seems much more appropriate, but the wording isn't the end of the world.
I can tell you, as an attorney, that someone telling me that SCOTUS issued a "narrow" ruling means nothing to me other than that it was tailored very specifically to a difficult to replicate set of facts. While laymen might treat these opinions as election-esque political theater, the reality is that a 5-4 opinion is no less binding precedent than a 9-0 opinion, so it's not something practitioners generally care about outside of base curiosity.
And if someone told me that SCOTUS had issued a "limited" ruling, I would have no fricking idea what they were talking about. Limited by what? It's the fricking Supreme Court of the United States
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:20 am to crazycubes
It’s funny it happened in pride lol
Honestly I truly think there shouldn’t be any protected classes and anyone should be able to deny doing things for anyone
There is someone out there that will do it for you no matter what it is
Honestly I truly think there shouldn’t be any protected classes and anyone should be able to deny doing things for anyone
There is someone out there that will do it for you no matter what it is
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:24 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
leaves open the possibility for a different result under different facts.
Then explain Kennedy's comment about the door sign?
quote:
If you prevail, Kennedy asked the Trump administration lawyer siding with Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, could the baker put a sign in his window, We do not bake cakes for gay weddings?
He explicitly points out that this ruling leaves that as a legitimate outcome.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:26 am to League Champs
I wouldn’t hold any question asked during oral argument as a sign of how a judge really thinks about a case. Additionally the decision is based on the opinion of 7 judges, not Kennedy alone. What compromises were made to get that vote together, we won’t know.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:30 am to League Champs
quote:
He explicitly points out that this ruling leaves that as a legitimate outcome.
Except it's not.
Ruling that you can say "no" to making an explicitly gay supporting product or being part of an explicitly gay event.....be it cake, art, photos, music etc is NOT the same as ruling you can just say "no" to anyone of that persuasion.
And, I'm totally good with that.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:31 am to crazycubes
The Supreme Court is right in this case, and wrong on the principle.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:33 am to FT
They pretty specifically did not take a clear position on the principle.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:35 am to FT
quote:So you think people should be forced to do these things?
The Supreme Court is right in this case, and wrong on the principle.
Somehow, I suspect that you don't really believe that princple. You just believe it for THIS narrow slice.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:
So you think people should be forced to do these things?
Somehow, I suspect that you don't really believe that princple. You just believe it for THIS narrow slice.
Correct
Let's say I'm some black dude that has a custom t-shirt making business. Grand wizard walks in and asks me to print him some shirts with racial rhetoric on it.
Who in their right mind would think that I should be forced to make that product?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:39 am to FT
quote:what principle? no one is saying that the cake owner has the right to refuse service to gay people, period. they are just saying that he has a protected religious belief to refuse service for a gay themed cake going to a gay wedding
nd wrong on the principle.
they are right on both counts
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:39 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I can tell you, as an attorney, that someone telling me that SCOTUS issued a "narrow" ruling means nothing to me other than that it was tailored very specifically to a difficult to replicate set of facts. While laymen might treat these opinions as election-esque political theater, the reality is that a 5-4 opinion is no less binding precedent than a 9-0 opinion, so it's not something practitioners generally care about outside of base curiosity.
And if someone told me that SCOTUS had issued a "limited" ruling, I would have no fricking idea what they were talking about. Limited by what? It's the fricking Supreme Court of the United States
, that's fair. I'm obviously coming from a laymen position. Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:42 am to Powerman
quote:You don't even have to go that far.
Let's say I'm some black dude that has a custom t-shirt making business. Grand wizard walks in and asks me to print him some shirts with racial rhetoric on it.
You could list thousands of things they're totally good with people saying "no" to that would involve nothing more than a generic product.
IE, let's say that Wizard wants to buy a bunch of Crosses from you? Or, Tiki torches?
Let's say you're a Muslim being asked to photograph a bar mitzvah celebration?
Or, a Jew being asked to photograph an event held by Goldnugget?
Or, maybe you're a small musical group being asked to simply play at the gay wedding thus making you a participant?
It goes on and on.
These people that support such force are totalitarian scum.......not getting around it.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:42 am to Powerman
quote:
Let's say I'm some black dude that has a custom t-shirt making business. Grand wizard walks in and asks me to print him some shirts with racial rhetoric on it.
Who in their right mind would think that I should be forced to make that product?
To be fair, I don't know of any law that would require you to make those shirts. You can deny business for all kinds of reasons as long as it is applied uniformly. Protected classes are the few (only?) reasons you cannot deny service.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:42 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I can tell you, as an attorney, that someone telling me that SCOTUS issued a "narrow" ruling means nothing to me other than that it was tailored very specifically to a difficult to replicate set of facts. While laymen might treat these opinions as election-esque political theater, the reality is that a 5-4 opinion is no less binding precedent than a 9-0 opinion, so it's not something practitioners generally care about outside of base curiosity.
And if someone told me that SCOTUS had issued a "limited" ruling, I would have no fricking idea what they were talking about. Limited by what? It's the fricking Supreme Court of the United States
the media is talking mostly to the lay-person who doesn't understand legal jargon
their headline simply fails at subscribing to the KISS method... it makes things more confusing at the start
ETA: obviously the KISS method is "Keep It Simple Stupid"
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 11:43 am
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:42 am to ShortyRob
I do, provided the message is not provoking violence. If the shirts said “Kill [Insert Person Here]”, a business should and must provide the service.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:42 am to WestCoastAg
And the CCRC went out of the way to shite on his religious beliefs in making their opinion..... obviously a bad decision at the end of the day.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:44 am to FT
quote:
, a business should and must provide the service.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:44 am to FT
quote:oh jesus
a business should and must provide the service.
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News