Supreme Court rules in case of Colorado bakery

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alas, that's not our legal environment.
So the question is to what extent government compels service to whom.
Compelled speech...should I be forced to bake a cake which says...
"Atheists will rot in hell"?
I don't know where the line will eventually be drawn.

The government shouldn't compel speech, but one interesting implication of these sorts of rulings: by supporting the idea that the design of a cake is the personal expression of the baker, it could mean that the baker is liable in the case of a defamatory cake.

This ruling suggests that a made-to-order cake, made as per the directions of the customer, is still the expression of the cake maker. That might make it hard for a baker to argue that they shouldn't be liable for libelous writing on a cake, even if they were just following the customer's directions.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

At this point, it would be worth it just to see the look on their faces, the stir of controversy, and the idea that a Christian is going to be left thinking "oh my god, I was just turned away for who I am." Let it sink in for a good moment when they are the ones who aren't allowed services.

Sadly, I think all you'd manage is to provide fodder for the "poor persecuted Christian" bunker mentality.

 

[Revoltingest]

The government shouldn't compel speech....

We have all sorts of legal notices we must post on walls.
And we have to get tenants to even sign some of them
as proof they've received them. This is pretty normal.

....but one interesting implication of these sorts of rulings: by supporting the idea that the design of a cake is the personal expression of the baker, it could mean that the baker is liable in the case of a defamatory cake.

I haven't seen anyone claim that putting the customer's
message on a cake is actually an expression of the baker.
That's in the nature of speech which is compelled.

This ruling suggests that a made-to-order cake, made as per the directions of the customer, is still the expression of the cake maker. That might make it hard for a baker to argue that they shouldn't be liable for libelous writing on a cake, even if they were just following the customer's directions.

It wouldn't be likely that a baker would know if a message is libelous.
They've no duty to investigate if little Daisy is actually turning 4.

 

[Thief]

The government shouldn't compel speech, but one interesting implication of these sorts of rulings: by supporting the idea that the design of a cake is the personal expression of the baker, it could mean that the baker is liable in the case of a defamatory cake.

This ruling suggests that a made-to-order cake, made as per the directions of the customer, is still the expression of the cake maker. That might make it hard for a baker to argue that they shouldn't be liable for libelous writing on a cake, even if they were just following the customer's directions.

I agree....

how about sign makers
commission to paint a sign
doesn't like the message.....

then.....no

 

[Jainarayan]

no one seems to think.....
it's MY business what I do....and who I do it for

seems my handiwork is a work of will
and should I decide ....no.....
for whatever reason.....
no one should press their will upon my hand

I don't care who they are

when I say....no.....
well then ......no

You're forgetting already-established public accomodation laws.

 

[ecco]

no one seems to think.....
it's MY business what I do....and who I do it for

seems my handiwork is a work of will
and should I decide ....no.....
for whatever reason.....
no one should press their will upon my hand

I don't care who they are

when I say....no.....
well then ......no

Like the owners of this laundromat.

 

[ecco]

what transpires between me and my customers......is private

...said the Madame to the judge just before he sentenced her to ten years for running a whorehouse.

 

[ecco]

This ruling centered on the fact that cake design is artistic expression

No it didn't.

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it didn't.

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members.​

Read your own article:

In another concurring opinion, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, said he would have ruled in favor of Mr. Phillips on free speech grounds. Mr. Phillips’s cakes are artistic expression worthy of First Amendment protection, Justice Thomas wrote, and requiring him to endorse marriages at odds with his faith violated his constitutional rights.

 

[fantome profane]

Read your own article:

“Would have”

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Read your own article:

Also from the same source:

and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.

They basically heard the case, and made a decision about something that wasn't even the actual subject of the debate.

 

[ecco]

Posted by Penguin:

In another concurring opinion, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, said he would have ruled in favor of Mr. Phillips on free speech grounds. Mr. Phillips’s cakes are artistic expression worthy of First Amendment protection, Justice Thomas wrote, and requiring him to endorse marriages at odds with his faith violated his constitutional rights.​

my emphasis in following post...

This ruling centered on the fact that cake design is artistic expression,

Read your own article:

sigh

First off, a Concurring Opinion is not the Ruling.

Second...
I just scanned the Ruling and the Opinions and could not find the words from your post : "artistic expression worthy of First Amendment protection". The word "worthy" is just used once:

Often the purposeful pursuit of worthy commitments requires us to accept unwanted but entirely foreseeable side effects...​

Where did you get Thomas writing "artistic expression worthy of First Amendment protection" from? It's clearly not the SCOTUS decision.


Here is the Ruling. Read it yourself
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

If you find it in there, I'll be more than glad to apologize.

 

[Fool]

Justices side with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

A victory for religious liberty. The right to refuse to service a religious event on religious grounds should have been obvious. Sad that it had to go all the way through the Colorado system to the Supreme Court to find some sense.

the baker won on a technicality


“The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU.

“Today’s decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue,” said Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, client in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. “We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are. We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told ‘we don’t serve your kind here’ that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does.”


the times, they are a changin

 

[Jainarayan]

the baker won on a technicality

Yes.

 

[Shaul]

You seem to be suggesting that the Jewish printer would be legally justified because the Klan is only promoting a set of values. Should this "substantive difference" similarly govern the case of a baker refusing to serve a Planned Parenthood event?

Would celebrating how many abortions they performed be a Planned Parenthood event?

 

[ecco]

Would celebrating how many abortions they performed be a Planned Parenthood event?

Sure. Why not?

 

[Thief]

...said the Madame to the judge just before he sentenced her to ten years for running a whorehouse.

what?.....she denied someone service?

and she would have to service ANYONE coming in the door?

no pun intended

 

[Thief]

Like the owners of this laundromat.

and the sign maker should have said......no

 

[Thief]

You're forgetting already-established public accomodation laws.

quote one for me

 

[Jainarayan]

quote one for me

*sigh*

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

States have the right to expand on this to include any group of citizens, which Colorado has done.

Public Accommodations Discrimination | Department of Regulatory Agencies