Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah, that damned government was making the south racist..its not like the government of the south was a refelction of our innate prejudice or something.  Now we'll never know if racists would have stopped being racists because free market!

Even racists will sometimes set aside their feelings and keep it to themselves just to make a buck.

[Divinity]

There's no better argument against Christianity than Chrisitans.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that damned government was making the south racist..its not like the government of the south was a refelction of our innate prejudice or something.  Now we'll never know if racists would have stopped being racists because free market!

Even racists will sometimes set aside their feelings and keep it to themselves just to make a buck.

Strange....they didn;t seem to be interested in doing that.  They had to be compelled by law...and even then, they resisted.

See, we do actually know the answer to your black hole of racist free market mystery.  Aided and abetted by a normalizing state racists will be racists.  At home, at work, at church, wherever they are.  The same is and will forever be true of bigoted bakers.

[polymath257]

So, were the lunch counter owners in the South during the 50's and 60's free to deny service to blacks?

The marketplace in the South was distorted by prejudicial government restrictions on public facilities and businesses. It could be that the absence of state laws restricting the liberties of blacks and those who would serve them would have allowed the free market to properly favor businesses that served a wider clientele. But we will never know.

OK, would a business *today* have the right to refuse someone just because of their race?

[A Theist]

Shock news! Supreme court full of Abrahamic theists in a proto-theocracy rule in favour of a religionist who wants to discriminate against a minority.

Not that it's any of your business how our Supreme Court rules or how our government here operates since you're a citizen of another country. Two of the Justices who sided with the Baker, Kagan and Breyer, are liberal, and Justice Kennedy who's known as the swing vote on the Court.

Also, refer to Tibs' post. It was more an issue with the Baker not getting a fair hearing by Colorado's own civil rights commission because of what the SCOTUS majority viewed as hostility toward the Baker's religious views by that commission.

[polymath257]

While you may believe that in this instance the use of state power serves a noble cause, the larger issue is whether government power is ever justified to force people to perform work against their will in service of others. It should be noted that the baker's refusal to be the servant of the plaintiffs in no way restricted the liberties of the plaintiffs.

Yes, the government is justified *at times* in requiring people to perform work against their will in the service of others. That is, after all, what a military draft does. It is what happens when someone is *required* to serve on a jury. It is what happens when people are *required* to pay taxes.

There are many cases where governments do, in fact, have that right and are justified in using it.

[CapnAwesome]

While you may believe that in this instance the use of state power serves a noble cause, the larger issue is whether government power is ever justified to force people to perform work against their will in service of others. It should be noted that the baker's refusal to be the servant of the plaintiffs in no way restricted the liberties of the plaintiffs.

Yes, the government is justified *at times* in requiring people to perform work against their will in the service of others. That is, after all, what a military draft does. It is what happens when someone is *required* to serve on a jury. It is what happens when people are *required* to pay taxes.

There are many cases where governments do, in fact, have that right and are justified in using it.

The draft is your example!?!

[Shell B]

Not that it's any of your business how our Supreme Court rules or how our government here operates since you're a citizen of another country.

Oh, shut up. You're not in a private relationship with our government.

[A Theist]

Not that it's any of your business how our Supreme Court rules or how our government here operates since you're a citizen of another country.

Oh, shut up. You're not in a private relationship with our government.

And neither are you. Tough shit if you don't like my response.

[Neo-Scholastic]

While you may believe that in this instance the use of state power serves a noble cause, the larger issue is whether government power is ever justified to force people to perform work against their will in service of others. It should be noted that the baker's refusal to be the servant of the plaintiffs in no way restricted the liberties of the plaintiffs.

Yes, the government is justified *at times* in requiring people to perform work against their will in the service of others. That is, after all, what a military draft does. It is what happens when someone is *required* to serve on a jury. It is what happens when people are *required* to pay taxes.

There are many cases where governments do, in fact, have that right and are justified in using it.

There must be a compelling state interest. There is no compelling state interest for the government to insert itself into voluntary and honest private business transactions any more than there is one for the government to insert itself into private consensual sexual behavior. Even in the extreme case of military conscription during times of war, there have always been exceptions for conscientious objectors, such as for Quakers, etc.