Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[unofan]

BTW, if this case goes to the side of the baker, then it should be perfectly ok to ask if someone is an R or a gun holder to deny them business. I doubt that will go over well.

In most places that is perfectly legal to do. Only a few places ban discrimination based on political affiliation.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In most places that is perfectly legal to do. Only a few places ban discrimination based on political affiliation.

Really? So a private bus company could refuse to take Democrats to the polls on election day?

[unofan]

Really? So a private bus company could refuse to take Democrats to the polls on election day?

In most jurisdictions, yes.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In most jurisdictions, yes.

Wow!

That is f-cked up.

[Drew S.]

BTW, if this case goes to the side of the baker, then it should be perfectly ok to ask if someone is an R or a gun holder to deny them business. I doubt that will go over well.

Restaurant in Maine banned gun owners last year.

[unofan]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

"Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who seemed ready to side with Mr. Phillips, said wedding cakes can have shortcomings. “I’m yet to have a wedding cake that I’d say tasted great,” he said."

The new Scalia tried to make a funny and came off as a *******. Color me shocked.

[unofan]

Wow!

That is f-cked up.

Remember, the default is a private party can do whatever they want. You'd have to affirmatively pass a law banning such discrimination. And discrimination based upon politics hasn't traditionally been an issue necessitating a corrective law.

[Drew S.]

He can't (legally) give them a quote with a higher price than he would a straight couple. That's also discrimination.

Here's the gist of it, would you be ok with him telling an interracial couple to take a hike because he believes miscegenation is a sin. If not, then this isn't ok either.

The element in this case that is troubling to me was that it was a custom job. I certainly agree that you shouldn’t be able to deny selling someone something that is in stock. I don’t really think the government should more or less force people into doing custom work though. I would feel the same way regardless of the party involved.

[unofan]

The element in this case that is troubling to me was that it was a custom job. I certainly agree that you shouldn’t be able to deny selling someone something that is in stock. I don’t really think the government should more or less force people into doing custom work though. I would feel the same way regardless of the party involved.

"Custom job" in the loosest sense of the term, seeing as he denied them before they ever talked about details.

For all he knew, they'd have asked for a simple two tiered chocolate cake that he could make in his sleep. Just because it wasn't already sitting there on a shelf waiting doesn't make it a custom job.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Remember, the default is a private party can do whatever they want. You'd have to affirmatively pass a law banning such discrimination. And discrimination based upon politics hasn't traditionally been an issue necessitating a corrective law.

Understood.

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The element in this case that is troubling to me was that it was a custom job. I certainly agree that you shouldn’t be able to deny selling someone something that is in stock. I don’t really think the government should more or less force people into doing custom work though. I would feel the same way regardless of the party involved.

Uh, most cake makers are making custom cakes all the time.

They are no some random bread making bakery, they are making cakes for specific people and events. So if THAT is your core business, how can you justify denying service based on who a person is.

This isn't McDonald's who can deny your special 1/4 pounder. This is a custom baking company. It is exactly what they do.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I would actually be perfectly happy for a bakery to deny service to gays, on the condition that they publicize the fact (i.e., "no shoes, no service"). Let's see how that boycott works out for them.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I would actually be perfectly happy for a bakery to deny service to gays, on the condition that they publicize the fact (i.e., "no shoes, no service"). Let's see how that boycott works out for them.

I'm not. It sets a bad precedent and basically legalizes discrimination. Instead of even starting to open Pandora's box, I'd rather keep that closed and never return.

It didn't work for Donald Trump advertising he was a sex offender. It didn't work for Donald Trump admitting he had racist housing practices. It isn't going to work for Roy Moore being a pedophile*.

Best to just avoid that mess altogether.
*Allegedly

[burd]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In most places that is perfectly legal to do. Only a few places ban discrimination based on political affiliation.

People tend to lose sight of the distinction between constitutional and statutory protection and the state action requirement of the former.

But you do a nice job of keeping us straight, uno.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I'm not. It sets a bad precedent and basically legalizes discrimination. Instead of even starting to open Pandora's box, I'd rather keep that closed and never return.

It didn't work for Donald Trump advertising he was a sex offender. It didn't work for Donald Trump admitting he had racist housing practices. It isn't going to work for Roy Moore being a pedophile*.

Best to just avoid that mess altogether.
*Allegedly

Ideally we make sexual identification and orientation protected categories, yes. But in the meantime, let's register the bigots.