Lefty Supremes Kagan & Breyer Tell Why They Sided With People of Faith In Colorado Gay Cake Issue

[Syriusly]

That all depends on how warped your understand of marriage is.

Marriage is a contract. Nothing more.

You don't have to be different sexes to enter into contracts. You don't have to love each other.

Marriage is a contract. Quit making it more than it is.

Well I like your strict interpretation of the situation. So you'll be interested to know that the adults involved are not the only beneficiaries (parties to) the marriage contract. In Obergefell, they said children are beneficiaries (parties) to it as well.

But of course that is not what Obergefell said.

What Obergefell did say was that denying marriage to gay parents- harmed their children.

Why do you want policies that you know would harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion Syriusly, they named that children share the marriage benefits. Read it and weep.

That all depends on how warped your understand of marriage is.

Marriage is a contract. Nothing more.

You don't have to be different sexes to enter into contracts. You don't have to love each other.

Marriage is a contract. Quit making it more than it is.

Well I like your strict interpretation of the situation. So you'll be interested to know that the adults involved are not the only beneficiaries (parties to) the marriage contract. In Obergefell, they said children are beneficiaries (parties) to it as well. That being said, do you think it was fair for that contract to be up for radical revision in Obergefell without all parties to the contract having separate counsel briefing to the Court? You DO realize that at any Hearing, a judge cannot both preside and de facto also represent the voice of one of the litigants in lieu of their having counsel?

Children had no say on whether or not the removal of a mother or father for life (their chief and ancient benefit from the marriage contract they share with adults) was something they did or did not want.

So in a pure, strict, legal sense as you like to put it, was that a fair contract-revision Hearing? ​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well I like your strict interpretation of the situation. So you'll be interested to know that the adults involved are not the only beneficiaries (parties to) the marriage contract. In Obergefell, they said children are beneficiaries (parties) to it as well. That being said, do you think it was fair for that contract to be up for radical revision in Obergefell without all parties to the contract having separate counsel briefing to the Court? Because children had no say on whether or not the removal of a mother or father for life (their chief and ancient benefit from the marriage contract they share with adults) was something they did or did not want.

So in a pure, strict, legal sense as you like to put it, was that a fair contract-revision Hearing?

Why is that any different than a hetero divorce case where the beneficiaries to the contract (children) have ZERO say in the revision or rescission thereof?

 

[Syriusly]

I may not agree with everything in the decision- but unlike Silhouette- I will not pretend that the Supreme Court decision never exists or that the decision itself is 'illegal'

Well when was the last time a judge sitting on a case you were a defendant in announced three weeks before your trial on public TV "I think Syriusly is guilty of the crime accused against her"? If that happened to you, you'd be talking about how illegal that was.

In what way is that different from Ginsburg announcing to the press three weeks before Obergefell that in her Opinion (with a capital "O") "America is ready for gay marriage"?

LOL- did I call it or what?

I may not agree with everything in the decision- but unlike Silhouette- I will not pretend that the Supreme Court decision never exists or that the decision itself is 'illegal'

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion Syriusly, they named that children share the marriage benefits. Read it and weep.​

Glad to quote Obergefell again and again- since Obergefell says what you advocate harms children.

I find it fascinating that you quote Obergefell- to support your claim that Obergefell never makes- but ignore that Obergefell calls out actions like you want- as harming children- which just shows what a hypocrite you are.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Why do you want children harmed and humiliated?

 

[Silhouette]

Why is that any different than a hetero divorce case where the beneficiaries to the contract (children) have ZERO say in the revision or rescission thereof?

Their main benefit is still preserved: regular roof-sharing with both mother and father. Unless that is shown to be a danger. But that is unusual and is again about the kids' best interests. And all that with the promise that either or both parents will remarry and provide the missing parent as a unit again under the same roof.

Gay marriage never promises this. Gay divorce never promises this.

 

[mdk]

Why is that any different than a hetero divorce case where the beneficiaries to the contract (children) have ZERO say in the revision or rescission thereof?

Their main benefit is still preserved: regular roof-sharing with both mother and father. Unless that is shown to be a danger. But that is unusual and is again about the kids' best interests. And all that with the promise that either or both parents will remarry and provide the missing parent as a unit again under the same roof.

Gay marriage never promises this. Gay divorce never promises this.

Children are not parties to the marriage contract of their parents in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

Also, your own roof doesn't provide a father. You demand gay people live by a standard that you can't meet yourself. In your addled mind, a father or mother missing under a roof gets a pass if a contract isn't involved.

 

[Silhouette]

Except that Obergefell said they were/are parties to the marriage contract benefits. Does that mean they are not parties to it? I notice how you try to get personal every time I bring up the argument. It shows your weak position and deflection mdk.

mdk, do you think this cake Decision is a gain or a loss for LGBT? And your thoughts on why?

 

[Silhouette]

mdk? Was the Court's finding a gain or a loss for LGBT?

 

[mdk]

Except that Obergefell said they were/are parties to the marriage contract benefits. Does that mean they are not parties to it? I notice how you try to get personal every time I bring up the argument. It shows your weak position and deflection mdk.

mdk, do you think this cake Decision is a gain or a loss for LGBT? And your thoughts on why?

No, it really didn’t.

It must really stink having to live by the same standards you set for others. I am exposing your position for the hypocritical bullshit that is and you don’t like that. Good.

Does it matter what I think about the decision? We both know you'll just lie about the finding to buttress your rabidly anti-gay obsession. You just did in above post concerning Obergefell.

 

[Silhouette]

mdk? Was the Court's finding a gain or a loss for LGBT?

In your last post you did not directly answer. Gain or loss mdk?

 

[Silhouette]

OK, you won't talk about it so I'll post what others of your ilk are saying about it: Thomas and Gorsuch’s Bizarre First Amendment Theory Would Sabotage Civil Rights Law

Presumably to keep their delicate ranks from hurling themselves off of buildings, this website touts the Decision as at least a quasi-victory. But then they admit they also saw the Trojan horse inserted and looming in their litigious future:

two justices disagreed: In a disgruntled and ominous concurring opinion, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch signaled their desire to tear down this regime at the next opportunity, subverting basic nondiscrimination principles in favor of unbridled bigotry in the marketplace.

Kennedy decided Masterpiece Cakeshop solely on free exercise grounds. But Alliance Defending Freedom—the anti-LGBTQ law firm that represented the store—litigated it chiefly as a free expression case. ADF argued that Jack Phillips, the store’s anti-gay baker, had a free speech right not to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because baking a cake for profit constitutes expression protected by the First Amendment. By ordering Phillips to bake cakes for gay weddings, ADF asserted, Colorado had unconstitutionally compelled him to express his support for same-sex marriage.

In a separate opinion joined only by Gorsuch, Thomas stepped in to address free expression—buying the ADF’s argument hook, line, and sinker. Phillips’ baking, he explained, qualifies as constitutionally protected expression for three reasons. First, he wrote that Phillips’ work “is expressive” because he “considers himself an artist.” (To prove this claim, he cites Phillips’ logo, “an artist’s paint palette with a paintbrush and baker’s whisk,” and a picture behind the counter “that depicts him as an artist painting on a canvas.”) Second, Thomas asserted that “Phillips is an active participant in the wedding celebration” because he consults with the couple before baking their cake. Third, the justice proclaimed that wedding cakes “communicate” the message that “the couple should be celebrated”—and a wedding cake for a gay couple must thus “express approval of same-sex marriage.”

A Christian cannot celebrate, promote or participate in the befouling of the word marriage with two men or two women.

 

[Silhouette]

Then onto the finer dissection: (same link last post)

These leaps of logic are each highly questionable and raise a number of thorny questions. Do hairdressers also get to turn away gay clients if they consider themselves artists? What about a jeweler who designs rings? Can a vendor who supplies tables and chairs refuse to serve same-sex couples because they will be an “active participant in the wedding celebration”? What about a catering company? Can other foodstuffs communicate a message, too? Phillips, for instance, once refused to bake cupcakes for a lesbian couple’s commitment celebration. Do cupcakes “express approval of same-sex marriage”? What if they’re terrible cupcakes? Would that express disapproval of gays?

Well let's just say that "gays" don't exist. What does exist are regular men and women engaged in a gay lifestyle. Now that we cleared up that flaw in the premise, the questions aren't so thorny after all. They are simply a matter of "do lifestyles have protections in the US Constitution to where others must abdicate their faith in order to accommodate them no matter how repugnant those lifestyles are?" That isn't thorny. That's a smooth and easy "NO". And this Case just gave the spoonful of sugar to help that smooth but bitter pill slide down easier in the near future.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Their main benefit is still preserved: regular roof-sharing with both mother and father. Unless that is shown to be a danger. But that is unusual and is again about the kids' best interests. And all that with the promise that either or both parents will remarry and provide the missing parent as a unit again under the same roof.

Gay marriage never promises this. Gay divorce never promises this.

Dear Odin, you have a fucked up view of marriage, remarriage, and child custody.

A divorce can occur without children being involved.

A child custody matter can occur without people being married.

In a child custody case, the best interest of the child is ALWAYS paramount.

What you have said is that single parents are SHIT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kennedy wrote the Opinion on behalf of the Court. He's a middle grounder.

Kagan and Breyer however are steeped liberals. They're just barely to the right of Ginsburg. So their opinions are a bit more deserving of the microscope in this situation because as future challenges check back in with this case, they must acknowledge that even the liberal opinion concurs.

Kagan wrote this but Breyer concurred. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
On what would be the next page after page 18 on the Opinion of the Court written by Kennedy.

********
Pages 1-2

“It is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Ante, at 9. But in upholding that principle, state actors cannot show hostility to religious views; rather, they must give those views “neutral and respectful consideration.” Ante, at 12. I join the Court’s opinion in full because I believe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not satisfy that obligation. I write separately to elaborate on one of the bases for the Court’s holding.

The Court partly relies on the “disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of [three] other bakers” who “objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience.” Ante, at 14, 18. In the latter cases, a customer named William Jack sought “cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text”; the bakers whom he approached refused to make them. Ante, at 15; see post, at 3 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (further describing the requested cakes). Those bakers prevailed before the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Commission, while Phillips—who objected for religious reasons to baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple—did not. The Court finds that the legal reasoning of the state agencies differed in significant ways as between the Jack cases and the Phillips case. See ante, at 15. And the Court takes especial note of the suggestion made by the Colorado Court of Appeals, in comparing those cases, that the state agencies found the message Jack requested “offensive [in] nature.” Ante, at 16 (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Court states, a “principled rationale for the difference in treatment” cannot be “based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ibid.

Page 4

Colorado can treat a baker who discriminates based on sexual orientation differently from a baker who does not discriminate on that or any other prohibited ground. But only, as the Court rightly says, if the State’s decisions are not infected by religious hostility or bias. I accordingly concur.

********

So what I'm reading here is what looks like a punt back to Colorado to retool their language and handling of the Christian baker.

But what has Kagan (the uber-liberal, remember) really said and laid down in concrete with respect to "the message" to Colorado and the baker? Kagan said "you will be nice to Christians and respectful, and considerate of their beliefs of conscience." And "no government may make the determination what is considered offensive to a person of faith". And "no government can punish a person of faith in the marketplace using hostility towards their religion or bias". Egads! A LIBERAL championed religious freedoms???

What I'm reading between the lines is, at least from Kagan, that she is sending a message "down below" that state or local governments cannot launch attacks or punitive measures on people of faith based on those people's legitimate rejection of participating in an act that would make them abdicate their faith.

More simply put, even the ,most liberal blue Justice on the Court just right of Ginsburg said "people of faith in business can object to participation in gay weddings without punishment. They must be respected as such and left the fuck alone".

Discuss.​

My reading of the whole decision was "You can deny people their First Amendment rights, but you have to be nice and polite while you do it", and it was tailored that way to get Kagan and Breyer to go along with it. If you look at what she said in that light, you'll see that's EXACTLY what she's saying. The decision doesn't actually give any protection to First Amendment rights, OR the ability to act on your beliefs or conscience; it simply insists that the bureaucrats have to pretend to respect your rights while they deny them.

 

[Silhouette]

My reading of the whole decision was "You can deny people their First Amendment rights, but you have to be nice and polite while you do it", and it was tailored that way to get Kagan and Breyer to go along with it. If you look at what she said in that light, you'll see that's EXACTLY what she's saying. The decision doesn't actually give any protection to First Amendment rights, OR the ability to act on your beliefs or conscience; it simply insists that the bureaucrats have to pretend to respect your rights while they deny them.

Then what was all that wording in the Opinion about how a man of faith cannot be punished for practicing that faith at all times, even in the marketplace?

Really? You thought the Court said that governments only have to pretend to respect people of faith's 1st Amendment protections while they can simultaneously deny them? Yer funny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My reading of the whole decision was "You can deny people their First Amendment rights, but you have to be nice and polite while you do it", and it was tailored that way to get Kagan and Breyer to go along with it. If you look at what she said in that light, you'll see that's EXACTLY what she's saying. The decision doesn't actually give any protection to First Amendment rights, OR the ability to act on your beliefs or conscience; it simply insists that the bureaucrats have to pretend to respect your rights while they deny them.

Then what was all that wording in the Opinion about how a man of faith cannot be punished for practicing that faith at all times, even in the marketplace?

Really? You thought the Court said that governments only have to pretend to respect people of faith's 1st Amendment protections while they can simultaneously deny them? Yer funny.

Well, let's look at it.

"While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful."

In other words, it may have been arguable that it was okay - not that it WAS okay, just arguable - when he did it, because same-sex marriage hadn't yet been legally recognized, but NOW it wouldn't be, because NOW his Constitutional rights have been superseded by Colorado law.

"Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection."

So it appears that their objection is not to the decision, but the way the case was conducted, and the way the decision was reached. In other words, they're not saying that Colorado was wrong to deny him his rights, but that they didn't deny them in the right way.

"In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause.

Once again, we are not hearing "The Free Exercise Clause guarantees his right to refuse", but only that it guarantees that the government will act nicely when deciding whether or not he has rights.

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality."

Hey, look. Confirmation that they are NOT deciding whether or not the First Amendment trumps Colorado civil rights law, but only deciding on whether the Commission approached the question with the right attitude.

"Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here."

Once again, "we're not saying whether the decision was right or wrong, only that you didn't go about it correctly".

 

[Silhouette]

The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause.

*******

So either a local government forces a gay graphic designer to print a huge billboard for a busy highway that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" or they won't require that and will respect his right to not promote values that disagree with his core values on lifestyles.

Law applied equally. That's what the Court said. So I predict a spate of Christians inundating gay-lifestylist businesses requesting offending creations as "just another paying customer". Then the Courts will have to make a decision about the marketplace and lifestyle judgment calls. Race, country of origin and actual gender won't apply though because they are static and not lifestyle choices. And they enjoy enumerated protections while lifestyles do not. Oh and faith enjoys enumerated protections; the most important and original from the founding of our country.

All in all, gay lifestyles hold a very low rung on that ladder of protections.

vv It'll be OK dudmuck. You knew the party had to end sooner or later.

 

[dudmuck]

 

[Cecilie1200]

The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause.

*******

So either a local government forces a gay graphic designer to print a huge billboard for a busy highway that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" or they won't require that and will respect his right to not promote values that disagree with his core values on lifestyles.

Law applied equally. That's what the Court said. So I predict a spate of Christians inundating gay-lifestylist businesses requesting offending creations as "just another paying customer". Then the Courts will have to make a decision about the marketplace and lifestyle judgment calls. Race, country of origin and actual gender won't apply though because they are static and not lifestyle choices. And they enjoy enumerated protections while lifestyles do not. Oh and faith enjoys enumerated protections; the most important and original from the founding of our country.

All in all, gay lifestyles hold a very low rung on that ladder of protections.

vv It'll be OK dudmuck. You knew the party had to end sooner or later.

That's the part that bothers me: we WILL see a slew of cases, and the question will continue to rage and divide us, because they didn't make a clear decision on the actual issues. They decided it based on the tangential question of how "mean" the Commission was.