Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 15540
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by coopasonic » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:24 am

My father-in-law is one of the 32%. He has a gay step-daughter (my wife's sister) that is engaged. They haven't set a date yet, but this is going to be interesting. He skipped his gay nephew's wedding. Can he skip his step-daughter's? I think he is hoping Texas or the Feds will put a stop to it before he has to make that call.
-Coop

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 31902
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:32 am

coopasonic wrote:My father-in-law is one of the 32%. He has a gay step-daughter (my wife's sister) that is engaged. They haven't set a date yet, but this is going to be interesting. He skipped his gay nephew's wedding. Can he skip his step-daughter's? I think he is hoping Texas or the Feds will put a stop to it before he has to make that call.
He's probably out of luck. Yesterday came and went without Kennedy announcing a retirement, and current indications are (thankfully) that he probably won't announce his retirement anytime soon. Since Gorsuch has replaced anti-gay marriage Scalia, Gorsuch's views on the issue won't change the balance on the court (even if he would vote to overturn the gay marriage decision).

So unless his step-daughter has a super long engagement, there's no plausible prospect of him getting bailed out of the consequences of his bigotry.

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 15540
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by coopasonic » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:35 am

Thanks, that's one vector of hope.
-Coop

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17656
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:27 am



User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 15540
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by coopasonic » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:46 pm

-Coop

malchior
Posts: 8442
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by malchior » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:03 pm

Sounds like a 14th amendment issue but who knows anymore. Better get that going before Kennedy drops because I'm reasonably sure he wouldn't let that stand.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 58951
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:53 pm

Kentucky
A federal judge ruled Monday that Kentucky taxpayers are still on the hook for attorney fees for the couples who sued Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.

In July, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Kentucky to pay $222,695 to the attorneys of April Miller and others, after they won a favorable judgment against Davis. Bunning also awarded an additional $2,008 in other costs.

Gov. Matt Bevin and Terry Manuel, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for the Libraries and Archives, appealed the ruling, claiming the fees should be assessed against Davis and the Rowan County Clerk’s Office.

The governor and commissioner, who were third-party defendants in the case, argued that Davis did not represent Kentucky when she acted against the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges because her behavior was not directed or approved by any state official.

Bunning once again found the argument unpersuasive, and rejected the appeal on Monday.

“The Commonwealth of Kentucky is liable for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs because defendant Kim Davis acted on behalf of the Commonwealth when she refused to issue marriage licenses,” the judge wrote in his 14-page decision.

He continued, “At most, third-party defendants have simply—and improperly—re-argued matters that have previously been decided. That third-party defendants wish to avoid liability for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs hardly renders the circumstances extraordinary.”
...
In September, Bunning ruled that two lawsuits from same-sex couples seeking damages could proceed against the clerk, but only in her individual capacity.

Despite these legal setbacks, Davis has continued her crusade against gay rights and recently visited Romania, where she advocated against gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is currently not legal in Romania, but some conservative politicians there want to specifically ban it via a constitutional amendment.

Her trip to Romania was sponsored by the Liberty Counsel, a conservative American legal group, who has also provided legal counsel for Davis in the past.
Silver - 2k

Autobots and Starfleet officers — we fight together!

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 58951
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:24 pm

Re-election campaign
The Kentucky county clerk jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples will run for re-election in 2018, facing voters for the first time since her protest against gay marriage in rural Appalachia provoked a national uproar.

Kim Davis could face a familiar foe: A gay man to whom she refused to issue a marriage license said he's seriously considering running against her.

"I think I could win," said David Ermold, an English professor at Pikeville University who was among the many who sued Davis in 2015.
...
Mat Staver, founder of the Florida-based law firm Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis during the monthslong controversy, confirmed Tuesday that she will seek a second term. He said Davis was unavailable for comment because of a medical procedure.
...
Davis has not kept a low profile since getting out of jail. She caused an international outcry when she greeted Pope Francis during his visit to Washington, eventually leading to the resignation of the Vatican's U.S. ambassador who had arranged the visit.
...
Her protest also inspired the state's Republican governor to issue an executive order to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses. The state legislature then made the change permanent.
Silver - 2k

Autobots and Starfleet officers — we fight together!

User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 2182
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Punisher » Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:58 am

Her protest also inspired the state's Republican governor to issue an executive order to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses. The state legislature then made the change permanent.
Can someone explain this part please?
Does it mean that marriage license don't require a county clerk any more or does it mean that it just works to hide the county clerks identity?
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us

User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 7416
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Max Peck » Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:10 am

Punisher wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:58 am
Her protest also inspired the state's Republican governor to issue an executive order to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses. The state legislature then made the change permanent.
Can someone explain this part please?
Does it mean that marriage license don't require a county clerk any more or does it mean that it just works to hide the county clerks identity?
My understanding is that her defense was that it violated her religious beliefs to sign same-sex marriage licenses, so the state removed the requirement for her (as a county clerk) to sign any marriage licenses.
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 39980
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:47 am

Like she personally was giving her blessing to the marriage, as if her opinion was what allowed people to marry or not.

User avatar
Punisher
Posts: 2182
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Punisher » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:35 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:10 am
Punisher wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:58 am
Her protest also inspired the state's Republican governor to issue an executive order to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses. The state legislature then made the change permanent.
Can someone explain this part please?
Does it mean that marriage license don't require a county clerk any more or does it mean that it just works to hide the county clerks identity?
My understanding is that her defense was that it violated her religious beliefs to sign same-sex marriage licenses, so the state removed the requirement for her (as a county clerk) to sign any marriage licenses.
Thanks. I knew about her reasons, just didnt understand the "remove names of county clerks" part.
All yourLightning Bolts are Belong to Us

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17656
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:13 am

A solid majority of Australians voted in favor of same-sex marriage in a historic survey that, while not binding, paves the way for Parliament to legally recognize the unions of gay and lesbian couples.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/worl ... e-gay.html

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17656
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:29 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped a clash over Houston’s practice of providing benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees, leaving intact a Texas Supreme Court decision that calls the city’s policy into question.

The justices, without comment or published dissent, rejected the city’s appeal, which pointed to the court’s 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The rejection Monday doesn’t preclude the Supreme Court from taking up the dispute later.

The Texas court had said the 2015 gay-marriage ruling "did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons." The Texas ruling revived a lawsuit by two Houston residents who said the city was violating state law.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... its-policy

User avatar
tjg_marantz
Posts: 14553
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Queen City, SK

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by tjg_marantz » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:09 pm

Home of the Akimbo AWPs

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 39980
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:09 pm

coopasonic wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:24 am
My father-in-law is one of the 32%. He has a gay step-daughter (my wife's sister) that is engaged. They haven't set a date yet, but this is going to be interesting. He skipped his gay nephew's wedding. Can he skip his step-daughter's? I think he is hoping Texas or the Feds will put a stop to it before he has to make that call.
Did this happen yet? How did it turn out?

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 58951
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:52 am

Advocate
Hours after oral arguments concluded in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case — where a Colorado baker argued to the Supreme Court that his religion allows him to refuse service to gay people — Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was confronted on legalized discrmination during today's White House press briefing.

"The lawyer for the solicitor general's office for the administration said today in the Supreme Court if it would be legal, possible for a baker to put a sign in his window saying we don't bake cakes for gay weddings," The New York Times's Michael Shear asked. "Does the president agree that that would be ok?"

"The president certainly supports religious liberty and that's something he talked about during the campaign and has upheld since taking office," Sanders replied.

When pressed on whether that included support for signs that deny service to gay people, Sanders responded: "I believe that would include that."
Silver - 2k

Autobots and Starfleet officers — we fight together!

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 25131
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by YellowKing » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:02 am

Cool, because my religion doesn't support darkies, towelheads, or wetbacks. #MAGA!!!

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 15540
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by coopasonic » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:04 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:09 pm
coopasonic wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:24 am
My father-in-law is one of the 32%. He has a gay step-daughter (my wife's sister) that is engaged. They haven't set a date yet, but this is going to be interesting. He skipped his gay nephew's wedding. Can he skip his step-daughter's? I think he is hoping Texas or the Feds will put a stop to it before he has to make that call.
Did this happen yet? How did it turn out?
Still no date set to my knowledge (or I wasn't invited - kidding, I think).
-Coop

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17656
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:48 am

Australia has legalized Marriage Equality.

:clap: :gay-rainbow: :gay-rainbowflag: :gay-umbrella:

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 58951
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:56 am

Austria has legalized Marriage Equality.

:gay-umbrella: :gay-rainbow: :clap: :gay-rainbowflag:
Austria's Constitutional Court has decided that same-sex couples will be allowed to marry by the beginning of 2019, ruling that the existing laws are discriminatory.

The move brings Austria into line with many other European nations including Germany, France, Britain and Spain.

Same-sex couples in Austria have been allowed to enter legal partnerships since 2010, but until now have not been able to marry.
Silver - 2k

Autobots and Starfleet officers — we fight together!

User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 6006
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by msteelers » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:10 pm

YellowKing wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:02 am
Cool, because my religion doesn't support darkies, towelheads, or wetbacks. #MAGA!!!
I don't think he's actually arguing that it's a violation of his religion to bake a cake for a gay wedding. A recent episode of The Daily made it sound like he is arguing that it's a free speech issue. He is claiming that his wedding cakes are art, and he shouldn't be forced to express himself via art if he doesn't want to.
Thus, in classic “compelled speech” rulings, the Supreme Court has protected the right not to be forced to say, do or create anything expressing a message one rejects. Most famously, in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), it barred a state from denying Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to attend public schools if they refused to salute the flag. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the court prevented New Hampshire from denying people the right to drive if they refused to display on license plates the state’s libertarian-flavored motto “live free or die.”

On Tuesday, the court will consider whether Colorado may deny Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the right to sell custom wedding cakes because he cannot in conscience create them for same-sex weddings. Mr. Phillips, who has run his bakery since 1993, sells off-the-shelf items to anyone, no questions asked. But he cannot deploy his artistic skills to create cakes celebrating themes that violate his religious and moral convictions. Thus he does not design cakes for divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, Halloween parties or same-sex weddings.

Colorado’s order that he create same-sex wedding cakes (or quit making any cakes at all) would force him to create expressive products carrying a message he rejects. That’s unconstitutional.
I firmly believe that a business should be able to deny business to anyone, unless that reason has anything to do with the customers race, sex, sexuality, or religion. I'm not sure if the constitution agrees with me or not.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 58951
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:16 pm

Then make an off-the-shelf/out-of-the-book wedding cake and let them hire a decorator to customize it themselves.
Silver - 2k

Autobots and Starfleet officers — we fight together!

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 8185
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Jaymann » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:19 pm

Defiant wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:48 am
Australia has legalized Marriage Equality.

:clap: :gay-rainbow: :gay-rainbowflag: :gay-umbrella:
Is this just a coincidence with Austria?
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22920
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by RunningMn9 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:08 pm

msteelers wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:10 pm
he shouldn't be forced to express himself via art if he doesn't want to.
Who is forcing him to sell wedding cakes in the metaphorical public square?! He *wants* to sell wedding cakes in the metaphorical public square. That comes with rules that you have to abide by. Because we're trying to have a civilization here.

He can just as easily choose to not abide by the rules of doing business in the public square and not sell wedding cakes.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 6006
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by msteelers » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:26 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
msteelers wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:10 pm
he shouldn't be forced to express himself via art if he doesn't want to.
Who is forcing him to sell wedding cakes in the metaphorical public square?! He *wants* to sell wedding cakes in the metaphorical public square. That comes with rules that you have to abide by. Because we're trying to have a civilization here.

He can just as easily choose to not abide by the rules of doing business in the public square and not sell wedding cakes.
What if it was a woman asking him to make a dick cake for a bachelorette party? Should he be forced to make it, or can he refuse?

User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 11244
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by ImLawBoy » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:30 pm

msteelers wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:26 pm
RunningMn9 wrote:
msteelers wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:10 pm
he shouldn't be forced to express himself via art if he doesn't want to.
Who is forcing him to sell wedding cakes in the metaphorical public square?! He *wants* to sell wedding cakes in the metaphorical public square. That comes with rules that you have to abide by. Because we're trying to have a civilization here.

He can just as easily choose to not abide by the rules of doing business in the public square and not sell wedding cakes.
What if it was a woman asking him to make a dick cake for a bachelorette party? Should he be forced to make it, or can he refuse?
While I think the point you raise is an interesting one (i.e., to what extent does the baker/artist need to cater the "art" on the cake for the client), this is a bad comparison, because you're not dealing with a protected class (e.g., sexual orientation or gender). The customer wouldn't have grounds to sue without some protected class hook.
We had subs. It was crazy

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22920
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by RunningMn9 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:38 pm

msteelers wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:26 pm
What if it was a woman asking him to make a dick cake for a bachelorette party? Should he be forced to make it, or can he refuse?
We've been through this before.

If I am a seller of cakes, and as a rule, I don't make cakes that look like giant dicks, or swastikas, or people being lynched, or what have you - then the power of the State cannot compel me to make a cake that looks like a giant dick, or a swastika, or people being lynched.

In other words, the rules of doing business in the public square don't necessarily cover the kinds of cakes that you make. So while I would heartily agree with a seller of cakes refusing to make a cake that looks like a giant dick against their will, I heartily disagree with a seller of cakes refusing to make/sell a cake that looks like all of the other cakes that they make/sell, because the person buying it is black.

The seller can certainly refuse to make/sell a cake to people that are black. They just can't achieve that by making/selling the same cakes to white people. They have to adhere to that belief by not being in the business of making/selling cakes to people in the "public square".

No one compels anyone to be in the business of making/selling cakes in the public square.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:51 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:38 pm
msteelers wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:26 pm
What if it was a woman asking him to make a dick cake for a bachelorette party? Should he be forced to make it, or can he refuse?
We've been through this before.

If I am a seller of cakes, and as a rule, I don't make cakes that look like giant dicks, or swastikas, or people being lynched, or what have you - then the power of the State cannot compel me to make a cake that looks like a giant dick, or a swastika, or people being lynched.

In other words, the rules of doing business in the public square don't necessarily cover the kinds of cakes that you make. So while I would heartily agree with a seller of cakes refusing to make a cake that looks like a giant dick against their will, I heartily disagree with a seller of cakes refusing to make/sell a cake that looks like all of the other cakes that they make/sell, because the person buying it is black.

The seller can certainly refuse to make/sell a cake to people that are black. They just can't achieve that by making/selling the same cakes to white people. They have to adhere to that belief by not being in the business of making/selling cakes to people in the "public square".

No one compels anyone to be in the business of making/selling cakes in the public square.
So if he normally makes cakes with a Bride and Groom on top he wouldn't be forced to make ones with two grooms or two brides?

To be clear I am just playing devil's advocate. I find the entire issue to be somewhat silly. If I didn't like the customer or didn't really want to do the job for some reason I would just do it shitty. I doubt it would take too many dog shit tasting cakes to resolve the issue to my satisfaction.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 39980
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:35 pm

Which is worse for your business, shitty cakes or refusing to make cakes?

Who's going to pay for a shitty cake?

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:50 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:35 pm
Which is worse for your business, shitty cakes or refusing to make cakes?

Who's going to pay for a shitty cake?
Not all cakes taste the same. I have no idea why all the cakes for the customers I want taste good and the ones I didn't really want to taste like shit.

Perhaps love really is the secret ingredient and you can't force people to put love into their work.
There is no refuge from memory and remorse in this world. The spirits of our foolish deeds haunt us, with or without repentance.
--

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 39980
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:55 pm

Yeah, that only works on message boards.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:06 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:55 pm
Yeah, that only works on message boards.
In the real world I don't think it even goes that far. If I'm a gay man the last thing I want to do is eat something baked by a homophobe let alone do business with them.

I had a customer who I made a lot of money from. After going out to a few business lunches with him I discovered he was uncomfortably pervy. Hitting on young waitresses and making comments I felt were inappropriate. So I started putting off work for him and avoiding his calls. In a short time he was no longer a customer. There was no conscious plan or anything, just a natural tendency to avoid doing business with people who you develop a disdain for.

User avatar
Ænima
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Ænima » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:12 pm

Rip wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:06 pm
GreenGoo wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:55 pm
Yeah, that only works on message boards.
In the real world I don't think it even goes that far. If I'm a gay man the last thing I want to do is eat something baked by a homophobe let alone do business with them.

I had a customer who I made a lot of money from. After going out to a few business lunches with him I discovered he was uncomfortably pervy. Hitting on young waitresses and making comments I felt were inappropriate. So I started putting off work for him and avoiding his calls. In a short time he was no longer a customer. There was no conscious plan or anything, just a natural tendency to avoid doing business with people who you develop a disdain for.
Hopefully he'll run for senate next year so you can vote for him!

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 37304
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by hepcat » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:13 pm

Rip wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:06 pm

I had a customer who I made a lot of money from. After going out to a few business lunches with him I discovered he was uncomfortably pervy. Hitting on young waitresses and making comments I felt were inappropriate.
Was this in Alabama by chance?
Rip wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:06 pm
In the real world I don't think it even goes that far. If I'm a gay man the last thing I want to do is eat something baked by a homophobe let alone do business with them.
And if you, as a gay man, had no other convenient source of cakes and it was a cake emergency?
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4507
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:48 pm

Cases like this aren't about cakes. They're about the ability of minority populations to have a guarantee that they will get services they need, no matter where they happen to be. Is it a big deal if one cake shop won't serve a gay couple? No. But if every, or all but the most expensive, or all but the lowest quality, cake shops refuse to serve gay people, that is a significant hardship on that couple. Multiply that out, and you create a system where no LGBT person can be confident that he or she can eat in the restaurant of his choosing, or stay in a hotel in a town she happens to be in.

What this cake maker is arguing for is not "freedom" for himself, but the reestablishment of Jim Crow style policies with a veneer of "religious liberty" used to justify them.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 39980
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:38 pm

Of course.

But Rip and others see it as a business owner's right to pick and choose their clients.

What they don't understand is that it's illegal to pick and choose their clients based on protected classes/traits, for very important and valid reasons.

I don't believe homosexuals are a protected class in the US, are they? Obviously they should be, and if things were just, they would be added in short order. If they are not, however, things get murky. There's what's right, and then there's what's legal.

Where are we on the legal front on this subject?

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:51 pm

Has there been an instance of someone denying to make a cake for someone who was gay that wasn't a wedding cake?

It seems the issue isn't about cakes just wedding cakes. Given the number of gay wedding planners I can't imagine there are not gay bakers. I just can't imagine that a gay couple would have much trouble finding someplace that is more than happy to make them an affordable high quality wedding cake in the US. Is there any evidence of some wedding cake deserts where there are no bakers willing to make wedding cakes for gay couples?

Should a bakery owned by a black man be forced to bake a cake for David Duke? Or a Muslim bakery be forced to make Christmas cookies? A native american bakery forced to make a birthday cake celebrating Custer's birthday?

The libertarian in me doesn't care much for the restricting private businesses from conducting business with whomever they choose.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 39980
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:59 pm

Rip wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:51 pm

The libertarian in me doesn't care much for the restricting private businesses from conducting business with whomever they choose.
If your country didn't have a history of trying to screw over a large portion of its population for fairly arbitrary reasons, you wouldn't need laws telling you who you must do business with.

If it's any consolation, it also means no one can screw you over because you're white. But of course you don't care, because you've never encountered systematic discrimination on a large enough scale that in order to avoid it you'd have to move. Possibly to another state.

edit: To answer your questions: Yes, No, Yes.

The middle one is less about religion and more about the fact that they aren't in the business of making Christmas cookies. It's not that they don't make Christmas cookies for Christians, it's that they don't make Christmas cookies, period. A baker who doesn't make wedding cakes cannot be forced to make a wedding cake for anyone. Wedding cakes are not a service they provide.

A better question might be, if a bakery is in the business of providing baked goods for all religious occasions except one, can they be forced to make them for that one exception? The answer is: Probably.

Post Reply