Movie Watcher's Oasis Discussion Message Board Forum

Miscellaneous Discussion Boards => Political Discussion Board => Topic started by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 11, 2018, 01:26:46 pm

Title: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 11, 2018, 01:26:46 pm
Since the Court is unveiling a lot of their termís decisions now, I thought itíd be an opportune time to discuss their implications (and whether weíll be happy if certain justices die or retire).

The Colorado baker case is currently the talk of the nation, having resulted in a 7-2 majority in favor of the baker (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html). I personally think this was a reasonable decision. I understand that it skirts a very fine line between free expression and condoning discrimination (hence why I think there should be no law either way on the issue) the notion that one can be coerced into serving someone doesnít sit well with me at all.

Thereís also todayís 5-4 ruling that Ohioís voter purging policies donít violate federal voter laws (http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-justices-rule-for-ohio-in-voter-registration-dispute/). I still need to do some research there.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 11, 2018, 07:55:45 pm
Since the Court is unveiling a lot of their termís decisions now, I thought itíd be an opportune time to discuss their implications (and whether weíll be happy if certain justices die or retire).

The Colorado baker case is currently the talk of the nation, having resulted in a 7-2 majority in favor of the baker (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html). I personally think this was a reasonable decision. I understand that it skirts a very fine line between free expression and condoning discrimination (hence why I think there should be no law either way on the issue) the notion that one can be coerced into serving someone doesnít sit well with me at all.

Thereís also todayís 5-4 ruling that Ohioís voter purging policies donít violate federal voter laws (http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-justices-rule-for-ohio-in-voter-registration-dispute/). I still need to do some research there.

And the Colorado baker decision was a very limited decision that doesn't really open the floodgates as some people seem to think.  It was really more of a referendum on the CCRC and their inability to stay neutral with respect to religion than a landmark decision against LGBTQ.

I haven't done research on the Ohio ruling either - largely because I vote every election so it's not going to really affect me much.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 11, 2018, 08:40:57 pm
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 12, 2018, 12:36:34 am
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
The important distinction is that the baker was willing to sell the couple any other pastry with the exception of the wedding cake on account of his religious values. The refusal of service in this case was not from a deliberately malicious context but rather personal value, and therefore isnít the type of discrimination seen in, say, the Jim Crow era.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 12, 2018, 05:24:03 pm
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
The important distinction is that the baker was willing to sell the couple any other pastry with the exception of the wedding cake on account of his religious values. The refusal of service in this case was not from a deliberately malicious context but rather personal value, and therefore isnít the type of discrimination seen in, say, the Jim Crow era.

More than that - it was refusal to make a specific cake for the couple - and SCOUTS acknowledged cake-making as a form of art.  That acknowledgment was a big part of the ruling.  If they had refused to sell the couple an already made cake, that absolutely would have been discriminatory.  But making a brand new cake for an event that goes against his religious beliefs is what was the crux of the decision.