Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the odd thing: they could have simply made a horrible cake, but instead they were honest. Message to the Christians in the US: either do a bad job, lie, or get out of business.

That's what I would do if I was in their shoes. I would make a cake that tasted like sawdust, or the florist give them a bunch of wilted centerpieces. You want to force me to do something I don't want to do. Fine, I'll do it but you will get the crappiest job I can contractually get away with.

Luckily for me,as a divorce attorney, I applaud the decision. It means in about 6 months to a year business will explode for my industry. Anecdotal evidence says that once same sex marriage because legal, couples run out and get married without thinking about all that it entails. Then a year later, many of those quick to marry couple realize it was a mistake and file for divorce.

I hope you give them good legal advice because your back up careers as a baker or florist are not going to be successful.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the odd thing: they could have simply made a horrible cake, but instead they were honest. Message to the Christians in the US: either do a bad job, lie, or get out of business.

That's what I would do if I was in their shoes. I would make a cake that tasted like sawdust, or the florist give them a bunch of wilted centerpieces. You want to force me to do something I don't want to do. Fine, I'll do it but you will get the crappiest job I can contractually get away with.

In the good old days, professional pride was a thing. Now it's all about the vendor's ego, right?

Luckily for me,as a divorce attorney, I applaud the decision. It means in about 6 months to a year business will explode for my industry. Anecdotal evidence says that once same sex marriage because legal, couples run out and get married without thinking about all that it entails. Then a year later, many of those quick to marry couple realize it was a mistake and file for divorce.

Surely a true Christian would have no truck with divorce, let alone facilitating them. Jesus was pretty clear about it - more so than about homosexuality.

Ray Jay wrote:Dr Fate:

Here's the odd thing: they could have simply made a horrible cake, but instead they were honest.

It's good that they are honest. I presume they are good people. Are the gay couple similarly honest? I assume they didn't say the cake is for a straight friend's wedding.

Did you read their list of "damages?"

It does not bespeak of "honesty."

freeman3 wrote:Justice Kennedy did not create a right of dignity, DF.

He certainly did. It was in his decision.

The right infringed upon was the right to marry. The Supreme Court had already found this right.

"Found" is certainly the operative word. They are "finding" enough "rights" to virtually eliminate the 10th Amendment's reservation, aren't they?

The question is whether there are any legitimate reasons to bar gays from marrying.

Wrong question. The question is does the word "marriage" have any meaning at all? The Supreme Court said, "No."

(3) Protecting the right to marry safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child-rearing, procreation and education;
(4) marriage is key to our social order.

Both of those are made a farce in light of the Court's finding.

rickyp wrote:archduke

That's what I would do if I was in their shoes. I would make a cake that tasted like sawdust, or the florist give them a bunch of wilted centerpieces

.

Purposely providing poor quality products accomplishes two things.
1) It demonstrates their bigotry to some
2) To others it just demonstrates the quality of their products.

Either is likely going to be detrimental to business. Imagine the newspaper stories that will be published showing how the bakery sabotaged the ceremony ?
Imagine the comparisons between the behavior of these "Christians" and the ethic of reciprocity?
They wouldn't come off as looking anything but hateful. And that won't be good for business. Younger people of marrying age are the most likely to accept gay marriage. And less likely to accept bigotry. And there goes the customer base...
Nose to spite face.

If baking the odd cake for a gay wedding is going to be that corrosive to the Christian bakers, they should get out of the business and any and all service industries. In the modern world they have to interact with Gays and lesbians as equals, and they have to accept that means in every way... Not just as they choose.

Yes, yes. All Christians have to do to survive is simply deny their faith.

What is wrong with these people? Can't they just grasp that they owe nothing to the God they worship?

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Dr Fate:

Here's the odd thing: they could have simply made a horrible cake, but instead they were honest.

It's good that they are honest. I presume they are good people. Are the gay couple similarly honest? I assume they didn't say the cake is for a straight friend's wedding.

Did you read their list of "damages?"

It does not bespeak of "honesty."

Yes, I see that now. But that doesn't change their legal rights.

Justice Kennedy wrote: "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The constitution grants them that right." This was at the end of the opinion and it is not talking about right in the sense of fundamental rights but that gay couples have right to be treated equally. This was an equal protection argument. Rights in the sense of fundamental rights, in the sense of personal autonomy/right of privacy are substantive due process rights. The equal protection argument alluded to above was that gay couples should not be discriminated against with regard to the exercise of the fundamental right of marriage. You're not a lawyer so I assume you're making your claim in good faith but a conservative lawyer who formulated this interpretation would be engaging in sheer sophistry.

As for the right to marry being "found", I imagine you might have a different take on things if a state forbade Christians from marrying in a church or forbade marriage altogether. In any case, a right to marry was not carved out to justify allowing gay marriage--the right was already there and the court simply found it was not justifiable to exclude them from exercising that right.

On the issue of strict constructionism, it is interesting justice Scalia ignored the clear language of the Second Amendment in one gun decision holding that there is a right to own guns for self- defense (the Second Amendment is very clear about what's for--defense against the central government ) and in another gun decision he held that the Second Amendment applied to the states when the original amendment was solely concerned about tyranny of the federal government. So strict constructionism only when it suits is his motto...

freeman3 wrote:Justice Kennedy wrote: "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The constitution grants them that right." This was at the end of the opinion and it is not talking about right in the sense of fundamental rights but that gay couples have right to be treated equally.

He wrote a good deal more than that, as I suspect you know. I'm leery of any single sentence quote to support a position. I read much of his opinion and he did discuss the "right to dignity." It was the violation of this "right" that led him to his equal protection argument.

In any event, what is sheer sophistry is the belief that there are any limits to what the Court can do. What does the 10th Amendment even mean? Answer: precious little. Things that were "left to the States" have been seized by the Court.

As for the right to marry being "found", I imagine you might have a different take on things if a state forbade Christians from marrying in a church or forbade marriage altogether.

Of course, that is a silly argument. If marriage was forbade altogether, the church would still do it and we would take our lumps. We're going to be doing that soon anyway (taking our lumps--spending time in jail) as the 1st Amendment has its meaning altered by the Court.

On the issue of strict constructionism, it is interesting justice Scalia ignored the clear language of the Second Amendment in one gun decision holding that there is a right to own guns for self- defense (the Second Amendment is very clear about what's for--defense against the central government ) and in another gun decision he held that the Second Amendment applied to the states when the original amendment was solely concerned about tyranny of the federal government. So strict constructionism only when it suits is his motto...

All I will say is the Constitution now means nothing.

danivon wrote:In the good old days, professional pride was a thing. Now it's all about the vendor's ego, right?

I would argue professional pride and vendor's ego are one in the same. One takes pride in their work because it makes them feel good about themselves. In other words vendor's ego.

danivon wrote:Surely a true Christian would have no truck with divorce, let alone facilitating them. Jesus was pretty clear about it - more so than about homosexuality.

]

Where have I ever said I opposed same sex marriage because of Christian beliefs? Hell when have I ever claimed to be a Christian? If this were me making a comment about a post of yours, wouldn't this be the part where you go apeshit about putting words in your mouth?

My opposition to what happened to the bakers in Oregon comes from my libertarian leanings. I kind of oppose the government forcing a privately owned business to do anything they do not want to do. We had this same argument during the Hobby Lobby issue. If someone wants to be a bigoted @#$! and run their business like that, as long as they don't take any monies collected by taxes, they should have every right to do so.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:In the good old days, professional pride was a thing. Now it's all about the vendor's ego, right?

I would argue professional pride and vendor's ego are one in the same. One takes pride in their work because it makes them feel good about themselves. In other words vendor's ego.

True, although one is about the vendor as a vendor, the other is the vendor bringing other aspects of themself into it.

danivon wrote:Surely a true Christian would have no truck with divorce, let alone facilitating them. Jesus was pretty clear about it - more so than about homosexuality.

]

Where have I ever said I opposed same sex marriage because of Christian beliefs? Hell when have I ever claimed to be a Christian? If this were me making a comment about a post of yours, wouldn't this be the part where you go apeshit about putting words in your mouth?

I was addressing the overall comments - if you were in their shoes you would do X. If they were in yours, would they be divorce lawyers at all?

My opposition to what happened to the bakers in Oregon comes from my libertarian leanings. I kind of oppose the government forcing a privately owned business to do anything they do not want to do. We had this same argument during the Hobby Lobby issue. If someone wants to be a bigoted @#$! and run their business like that, as long as they don't take any monies collected by taxes, they should have every right to do so.

Not "every" right. I would say that while it is bit not always a crime, that does not mean that people can't have civil claim against them. Which check seems to be where it went.

danivon wrote:Not "every" right. I would say that while it is bit not always a crime, that does not mean that people can't have civil claim against them. Which check seems to be where it went.

Except there was no "civil wrong" between the parties. There was no preexisting contract that the bakers had violated and the bakers had not committed any intentional or negligent tort against the engaged couple.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Not "every" right. I would say that while it is bit not always a crime, that does not mean that people can't have civil claim against them. Which check seems to be where it went.

Except there was no "civil wrong" between the parties. There was no preexisting contract that the bakers had violated and the bakers had not committed any intentional or negligent tort against the engaged couple.

You don't need a pre-existing contract, and courts seem to have found tort.

danivon wrote:You don't need a pre-existing contract, and courts seem to have found tort.

And that is the problem. The courts should not be "discovering" laws particularly since the Oregon case it wasn't even a court. It was an administrative body.

All I will say is the Constitution now means nothing.

Just because of this one decision?

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:You don't need a pre-existing contract, and courts seem to have found tort.

And that is the problem. The courts should not be "discovering" laws particularly since the Oregon case it wasn't even a court. It was an administrative body.

Under English Common Law (and so also US law), judges and juries have indeed set precedents which have the effect of creating new law.

It is how we differ from French/Latin systems of law. Louisiana doesn't use Common Law, and so courts are limited to what is prescribed there. Otherwise, Common Law applies to the other 49 States & DC.