Page 28 of 199
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 07, 2017 3:36 pm
by Green Habit
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.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 07, 2017 3:50 pm
by B
Green Habit wrote: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.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 07, 2017 3:57 pm
by Bi_3
Green Habit wrote: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.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 07, 2017 5:08 pm
by Green Habit
Bi_3 wrote:(Allegedly the baker doesn't do Halloween cakes that depict gore for religious reasons as well.)
A friend of mine in Denver says this baker turned down a request from his wife to make Harry Potter themed stuff, because witchcraft.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon December 11, 2017 8:48 pm
by McParadigm
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed December 13, 2017 9:09 pm
by Green Habit
Did the Alabama Special Election Increase the Odds of Justice Kennedy's Retirement?
http://reason.com/volokh/2017/12/13/did ... on-increas
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 14, 2017 1:49 pm
by Bi_3
Hopefully Trump will identify a suitable judge that is suddenly moore available.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 14, 2017 1:55 pm
by McParadigm
Bi_3 wrote:
Hopefully Trump will identify a suitable judge that is suddenly moore available.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 14, 2017 2:06 pm
by 4/5
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.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 14, 2017 2:26 pm
by Bi_3
4/5 wrote:
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!
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 14, 2017 5:37 pm
by B
I'm surprised they even dare to use the term in NC. The 4th and the 12th are just the natural flow of the state's population.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 14, 2017 7:15 pm
by Green Habit
Bi_3 wrote:4/5 wrote:
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.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu December 14, 2017 7:20 pm
by 4/5
Green Habit wrote:Bi_3 wrote:4/5 wrote:
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.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 5:03 pm
by Norah
It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 5:12 pm
by Monkey_Driven
cutuphalfdead wrote:It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game.
Yup. Good day for sports fans.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 1:04 pm
by Bi_3
cutuphalfdead wrote:It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game.
Lukin -> Not for You 3:1
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 1:47 pm
by Simple Torture
Bi_3 wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game.
Lukin -> Not for You 3:1
Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 1:48 pm
by Simple Torture
Simple Torture wrote:Bi_3 wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game.
Lukin -> Not for You 3:1
Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds.
How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:49 pm
by Norah
Simple Torture wrote:Simple Torture wrote:Bi_3 wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game.
Lukin -> Not for You 3:1
Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds.
How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it.
Is Crazy Mary a cover?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:57 pm
by Simple Torture
cutuphalfdead wrote:Simple Torture wrote:Simple Torture wrote:Bi_3 wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:It's gonna be great when I can sit at Fenway Park, open up an app, and place a legal prop bet mid game.
Lukin -> Not for You 3:1
Parlay that with the over on number of covers played and there's your kids' college funds.
How high would the over/under on covers have to be for you to stay away? If it were 6.5 I would still put action on it.
Is Crazy Mary a cover?
I have long argued that it shouldn't be counted as one, but most setlist trackers do.
