Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Angrboda]

Separate question. Was the CCRC being inconsistent in its ruling in the case of Mr. Jack, who was refused service because the goods he requested contained anti-gay scriptural messages that the bakers in question found offensive, and the ruling in the Phillips case in which the service was refused, ostensibly, because it offended his sensibilities?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not in the least, theres no provision in the civil rights legislation that a person cannot be refused service on the grounds of their requesting a hate cake. Phillips wasn;t ruled against on account of his offended sensibilities, but on account of his having offended against the law.

See..thats sort of the point, civil rights exist to protect us -from- bigotry...not to protect bigotry. There;s a billion fuckin ways to deny a person service that aren;t illegal...but some people just can;t help but do those few things that are.

(brings me around to a question of my own...why on gods green earth have christers chosen baked goods as their battleground?)

---

-and in other news.

Two bigoted "artists" in Arizona were just compelled to just go ahead and write gay shit or lose their business..partly....on the basis of the masterpeice cake ruling.

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Minimalist]

And in predictable fashion, Deplorable, red-state bigots, start slapping up signs to demonstrate what miserable sonsofbitches they are!

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/supreme...owed-sign/

Supreme Court cake ruling inspires hardware store owner to put up a ‘No Gays Allowed’ sign

Tennessee, of course.

[The Grand Nudger]

Full disclosure, they;d done that years ago..but just figured that now was a good time to put the sign back up, lol.

[Angrboda]

To  determine  whether  conduct  is  suffi­ciently expressive, the Court asks whether it was “intended to  be  communicative”  and,  “in  context,  would  reasonably  be  understood  by  the  viewer  to  be  communicative.” Clark  v.  Community  for  Creative  Non-Violence,  468  U. S. 288,  294  (1984).

Justice Thomas, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 294 (1984)). The record in this case is replete with Jack Phillips’ own views on the messages he believes his cakes convey. See ante, at 5–6 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (describing how Phillips “considers” and “sees” his work). But Phillips submitted no evidence showing that an objective observer understands a wedding cake to convey a message, much less that the observer understands the message to be the baker’s, rather than the marrying couple’s. Indeed, some in the wedding industry could not explain what message, or whose, a wedding cake conveys. See Charsley, Interpretation and Custom: The Case of the Wedding Cake, 22 Man 93, 100–101 (1987) (no explanation of wedding cakes’ symbolism was forthcoming “even amongst those who might be expected to be the experts”); id., at 104–105 (the cake cutting tradition might signify “the bride and groom . . . as appropriating the cake” from the bride’s parents). And Phillips points to no case in which this Court has suggested the provision of a baked good might be expressive conduct.

Footnote to Justice Ginsberg's dissent, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

[Fake Messiah]

[Minimalist]

Full disclosure, they;d done that years ago..but just figured that now was a good time to put the sign back up, lol.

Of course.  They get the cues from the racist turd in the white house.

[Angrboda]

Statements made at the Commission’s public hearings on Phillips’ case provide no firmer support for the Court’s holding today. Whatever one may think of the statements in historical context, I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins. The proceedings involved several layers of independent decisionmaking, of which the Commission was but one. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a–6a. First, the Division had to find probable cause that Phillips violated CADA. Second, the ALJ entertained the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Third, the Commission heard Phillips’ appeal. Fourth, after the Commission’s ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals considered the case de novo. What prejudice infected the determinations of the adjudicators in the case before and after the Commission? The Court does not say. Phillips’ case is thus far removed from the only precedent upon which the Court relies, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520 (1993), where the government action that violated a principle of religious neutrality implicated a sole decisionmaking body, the city council, see id., at 526–528.

Justice Ginsberg, dissenting, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

---

Jack visited two other Denver bakeries that he’d identified from LGBT websites as gay-friendly and made similar requests. He refused to tell the bakers why, exactly, he wanted the cakes or what he was planning to celebrate with them. The other bakeries, which like Azucar regularly made religious cakes, also declined to fill Jack’s order on the grounds that his messages were offensive and hateful. Shortly after the visits, Jack filed a complaint against the three bakeries with the Colorado Civil Rights Division—which ruled in favor of the same-sex couple in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case—alleging that they had discriminated against him because he is a Christian. ... Jack did not respond to a call seeking comment, but he has published a series of videos to YouTube detailing his “undercover” operation against the bakeries, titled “Would Jesus Bake This Cake?”
. . . . . ..
Despite the criticism from Kagan and Ginsburg, Jack’s cases will have a long shelf life. Because the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling was so narrow, it didn’t put an end to the legal battles over when the religious freedom rights of a business owner can trump the civil rights of LGBT people. Alliance Defending Freedom and other Christian legal outfits are representing a host of other plaintiffs, from florists to videographers, who are suing for the right not to serve LGBT people. Jack’s work has found its way into one of those, too.

Did the Supreme Court Fall for a Stunt?

[The Grand Nudger]

It;s just the state of american christendom, I suppose.  Trolling our highest courts about some cake... in the hopes that doing this often enough will grant them the right to discriminate.

[Silver]

It;s just the state of american christendom, I suppose.  Trolling our highest courts about some cake... in the hopes that doing this often enough will grant them the right to discriminate.

"Trolling the courts" is the perfect wording.

The justice system is so imperfect, everyone is always on the lookout to sue anyone over any silly thing.