Bi_3 wrote:I'm confused by all the fake news about this case... did the baker offer to sell them an existing cake from the store (just not decorate as they requested)? Did the baker sell cakes for other LGBTQ events? What is real anymore?!?!?!?!
As I understand the facts (copied from that Carpenter/Volokh brief I linked):
In 2012, Respondent Craig and Mullins walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop and were looking through a photo album of owner Jack Phillips’s custom-designed cakes. Phillips sat down to greet them at a consultation table. According to Phillips’s own account, “the men said they wanted a wedding cake for ‘our wedding.’” Phillips replied that he does not “create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.” Phillips then added, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” The couple got up and left, with no further discussion. The entire exchange lasted 20 seconds.
Bi_3 wrote:I'm confused by all the fake news about this case... did the baker offer to sell them an existing cake from the store (just not decorate as they requested)? Did the baker sell cakes for other LGBTQ events? What is real anymore?!?!?!?!
As I understand the facts (copied from that Carpenter/Volokh brief I linked):
In 2012, Respondent Craig and Mullins walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop and were looking through a photo album of owner Jack Phillips’s custom-designed cakes. Phillips sat down to greet them at a consultation table. According to Phillips’s own account, “the men said they wanted a wedding cake for ‘our wedding.’” Phillips replied that he does not “create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.” Phillips then added, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” The couple got up and left, with no further discussion. The entire exchange lasted 20 seconds.
Y'know, I don't think businesses should be able to discriminate, but this really just looks like some liberals looking for a problem where there wasn't one.
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Bi_3 wrote:I'm confused by all the fake news about this case... did the baker offer to sell them an existing cake from the store (just not decorate as they requested)? Did the baker sell cakes for other LGBTQ events? What is real anymore?!?!?!?!
As I understand the facts (copied from that Carpenter/Volokh brief I linked):
In 2012, Respondent Craig and Mullins walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop and were looking through a photo album of owner Jack Phillips’s custom-designed cakes. Phillips sat down to greet them at a consultation table. According to Phillips’s own account, “the men said they wanted a wedding cake for ‘our wedding.’” Phillips replied that he does not “create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.” Phillips then added, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” The couple got up and left, with no further discussion. The entire exchange lasted 20 seconds.
That's definitely discrimination against a protected class engaging in a legal activity, but in such a limited scope I could totally see a judge siding with the baker. (Allegedly the baker doesn't do Halloween cakes that depict gore for religious reasons as well.)
B wrote:
Y'know, I don't think businesses should be able to discriminate, but this really just looks like some liberals looking for a problem where there wasn't one.
My first thought as well, but I haven't read anything to suggest the couple was acting in bad faith, and we are at a point where the SCOTUS could become very unfriendly to certain communities should Kennedy or Ginsberg retire during Trump's reign so maybe it's fight to have now.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
That's a pretty decent prediction although I would hope it'd be on the day he reads from his Gill v. Whitford / Benisek v. Lamone opinion ending partisan gerrymandering.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
That's a pretty decent prediction although I would hope it'd be on the day he reads from his Gill v. Whitford / Benisek v. Lamone opinion ending partisan gerrymandering.
Partisan gerrymandering? Not here in Maryland!
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
That's a pretty decent prediction although I would hope it'd be on the day he reads from his Gill v. Whitford / Benisek v. Lamone opinion ending partisan gerrymandering.
That's a pretty decent prediction although I would hope it'd be on the day he reads from his Gill v. Whitford / Benisek v. Lamone opinion ending partisan gerrymandering.
Partisan gerrymandering? Not here in Maryland!
The Court did just accept a case dealing with MD.
I'm hoping that's to give them cover from accusations of partisanship if they were to strike down the Wisconsin map.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
