Wed October 04, 2017 6:42 pm
Green Habit wrote:Only Kennedy knows for sure. I wouldn't mind Trump launching a few angry tweets in his direction if he votes in favor of a result Trump doesn't like. The travel ban case would have been perfect but it sounds like they're going to moot that one.4/5 wrote:Speaking of Kennedy, would he really let this buffoon nominate his replacement?Green Habit wrote:Looks like there's some hope that Kennedy could step in on gerrymandering:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argum ... ting-case/I really dislike that line of thought that Roberts used. The entire job of the courts is to address litigation.4/5 wrote:I think Roberts is right that it could open up a floodgate of litigation, but if you believe that gerrymandering is a plague on our democracy that might be a tolerable consequence.
Thu October 05, 2017 12:47 am
In fairness to him, this is the same for every justice, and I largely don't have a problem with it.4/5 wrote:It seems like Roberts likes to play the stature of the court/court is a referee cards whenever he he's okay with the status quo, because he certainly hasn't been afraid to make policy and set fire to precedent when it suits him
Thu October 05, 2017 10:47 am
Green Habit wrote:In fairness to him, this is the same for every justice, and I largely don't have a problem with it.4/5 wrote:It seems like Roberts likes to play the stature of the court/court is a referee cards whenever he he's okay with the status quo, because he certainly hasn't been afraid to make policy and set fire to precedent when it suits him
Tue December 05, 2017 4:41 pm
Tue December 05, 2017 4:43 pm
Tue December 05, 2017 4:53 pm
I need to wait for a full article but it sounds like Kennedy was more pissed off about religious liberty than free speech. And that would piss me off, because while I think this is a close case for the latter, I also think it's not a close case for the former.E.H. Ruddock wrote:Yeah I've been very curious as to how this would go.
Tue December 05, 2017 4:58 pm
Tue December 05, 2017 5:06 pm
Yep, that's the one. In this specific case, I would narrowly rule against the cakemaker because he refused to sell even a generic cake, and leave the larger constitutional questions for another day. But where I think it gets problematic is if the First Amendment doesn't protect from being compelled to add decorations to a generic product that could more accurately be described as art. If that was the law, all it takes is for some anti-SSM assholes to compel a business to design a product that caters to their beliefs to confound things.Bi_3 wrote:Is this teh gay marriage wedding cake one? I can't call a recent where I have been more conflicted. Commerce should not be compelled, but simultaneously a public business cannot discriminate.
Tue December 05, 2017 5:32 pm
Green Habit wrote:Yep, that's the one. In this specific case, I would narrowly rule against the cakemaker because he refused to sell even a generic cake, and leave the larger constitutional questions for another day. But where I think it gets problematic is if the First Amendment doesn't protect from being compelled to add decorations to a generic product that could more accurately be described as art. If that was the law, all it takes is for some anti-SSM assholes to compel a business to design a product that caters to their beliefs to confound things.Bi_3 wrote:Is this teh gay marriage wedding cake one? I can't call a recent where I have been more conflicted. Commerce should not be compelled, but simultaneously a public business cannot discriminate.
Dale Carpenter and Eugene Volokh, as they usually do with issues like this, really helped clear things up in my mind.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... y_fund.pdf
Tue December 05, 2017 7:03 pm
Tue December 05, 2017 8:05 pm
4/5 wrote:I had a dream that the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the gerrymandering case. It was 5-4 with a narrow ruling against the state, but it chose not to adopt the suggested test to determine if a state is gerrymandered, so they didn't set a new precedent limiting partisan gerrymandering. Kennedy wrote the Opinion of the Court.
Tue December 05, 2017 11:23 pm
4/5 wrote:I had a dream that the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the gerrymandering case. It was 5-4 with a narrow ruling against the state, but it chose not to adopt the suggested test to determine if a state is gerrymandered, so they didn't set a new precedent limiting partisan gerrymandering. Kennedy wrote the Opinion of the Court.
Tue December 05, 2017 11:36 pm
Bi_3 wrote:I don't have the time to read all that... but is the act of this transaction still not sort of forcing a de facto endorsement of SSM just like a custom cake? So a coffee shop could say "i support criminal justice reform, so no cops allowed". Cops are engaging in legal activities, like SSM is legal (as it should be), but the business can choose to not serve them right? Honestly asking...
Wed December 06, 2017 3:02 am
Wed December 06, 2017 3:04 am
meatwad wrote:I have an interesting take on this now that I'm a business owner yet still a bleeding heart liberal.
I feel like a business should reserve the right to refuse products and services to whoever they want. However, I don't think it's a wise business decision to throw yourself in the middle of such a controversy. There are a million ways to say no to someone...if you have personal beliefs about something and don't want to engage in business that involves it, it seems smarter to just say "I'm too busy to accommodate your cake right now" or something else. Why put your business and livelihood at risk just to make your personal beliefs public?
I see plenty of Trump bumper stickers at my shop, and while on a personal level I despise Trump and what he stands for, I'm not going to die on that hill and start refusing service to people because of it. Business is business, and I have far too much at stake to inject my personal shit into it.
Wed December 06, 2017 3:34 am
Strat wrote:meatwad wrote:I have an interesting take on this now that I'm a business owner yet still a bleeding heart liberal.
I feel like a business should reserve the right to refuse products and services to whoever they want. However, I don't think it's a wise business decision to throw yourself in the middle of such a controversy. There are a million ways to say no to someone...if you have personal beliefs about something and don't want to engage in business that involves it, it seems smarter to just say "I'm too busy to accommodate your cake right now" or something else. Why put your business and livelihood at risk just to make your personal beliefs public?
I see plenty of Trump bumper stickers at my shop, and while on a personal level I despise Trump and what he stands for, I'm not going to die on that hill and start refusing service to people because of it. Business is business, and I have far too much at stake to inject my personal shit into it.
Is there a limit for you? Is there a point where you would perhaps deny service to someone?
Wed December 06, 2017 3:42 am
Wed December 06, 2017 3:42 am
96583UP wrote:what if he puts poop in the cake tho
Wed December 06, 2017 11:27 am
Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote:Bi_3 wrote:I don't have the time to read all that... but is the act of this transaction still not sort of forcing a de facto endorsement of SSM just like a custom cake? So a coffee shop could say "i support criminal justice reform, so no cops allowed". Cops are engaging in legal activities, like SSM is legal (as it should be), but the business can choose to not serve them right? Honestly asking...
The best explanation I've heard is something like: if the cake was picked out of a catalog or a menu of cakes then its discrimation to refuse to sell. If they asked for some custom design that the baker wouldn't sell to anyone under any circumstances then it's ok to refuse. Like it wouldn't be religious discrimination if they refused to sell a cake shaped like a cross so long as they don't sell them to anyone. So if the cops in your example were orderIng from the menu at the coffee shop it would be illegal to refuse them service.
Thu December 07, 2017 1:24 pm