I guess if you really want to try to force a SCOTUS ruling that lets everyone discriminate against LGBT people that’s one way of doing it.
Yeah, that seems like it’s not going to play out like they want.
Not sure what else the Commission was supposed to do. SCOTUS did not strike down the Colorado law which governs what the Commission does; the decision in that case was limited solely to the Masterpiece case, on the grounds that the Commission demonstrated hostility to Masterpiece rather than impartiality. The Court did not rule that Colorado law or the Commission were generally violating religious freedom rights; they ruled that in that one case, because they were openly hostile, they had violated someone’s rights.
So the owner does the same thing again - refusing to serve someone on the grounds that it offends his religious views - and that person makes a complaint. The Commission is bound to act on that complaint under the law. It is the owner of Masterpiece who has escalated, not the Commission.
It’s possible the customer was looking for this outcome, but that isn’t clear. But if baking a cake which is one color on the inside and another color on the outside is an abuse of your religious convictions, then anything is an abuse of your religious convictioms. Can a taxi driver refuse to take you to the coming out party? Can the grocer refuse to sell you food to make hors d’oeuvres? Can the florist refuse to sell you a bouquet?
Can a Jewish baker refuse to make a swastikas cake?Genuine question.
Nazi’s do not belong to a religion (or rather, Nazi-ism isn’t a religion), nor is it an inherent trait.
So the answer is obviously yes.
Wut?
The owner is being sued, how is he escalating?
No. The Civil Rights Commission ruled against him (again), and he’s suing Colorado (again).
It’s worth noting that the guy who is sueing him is a lawyer who had apparently trolled the cake shop a bunch of times in the past year, along to have cakes made with satanic symbols and stuff on them, supposedly with the lawyer’s name on the caller ID for those calls.
If that’s the case, it’s going to further screw up this case and cause it to backfire.
As it stands, it seems likely that it will go to the Scotus and end up actually creating precedent for people to refuse to do work for people on a religious basis, which is not really what folks want.
Most of Trump’s supporters want this. I look forward to when one of them gets refused service on the same basis. I am sure they will fully understand and agree with that person’s right to exercise their religious freedom.
The CRC that the SCOTUS slapped with their dicks for gross incompetence?
Those guys?
And him defending himself isn’t exactly escalating. Dude came in to blatantly bait a response and then the government agency that was biased against him ruled against him… again. I guess he’s supposed to just bow down to a government agency that is on the record as being biased against him and he already won against on that basis?
This would be an upside, but you can already refuse them service for being dickhead for the most part.
Though the first time someone like Pence gets denied service by an actual Christian would be hilarious.
It doesn’t even have to be a Christian right. There are ton of religions out there as well as atheists… so the first time someone wants God Bless on a cake and the owner says no thanks, take a hike, what do you think that Christian will do, other than head straight to Fox News to voice hypocrisy?
True, I hadn’t considered the atheist/non-Christian cake maker/business owner angle. I’m sure they’ll add it to their War on Christmas bullet point list when it happens.
The problem is, this particular group of Christians doesn’t want religious freedom, they want to enforce Christianity. The laws won’t work that way. If these intolerant Christians, not to be mistaken for all Christians, get what they say they want, they could easily be on the receiving end. They just assume it will never and could never happen.
You can’t even keep straight who is suing whom. So there’s that.
If you’re not addressing this point :
Then you’re not being serious. If the complaint is filed, the Commission doesn’t have any choice. The SCOTUS decision was limited to the circumstances of that one case, and they did not invalidate the law.
I mean… they obviously have a choice which is why there is a commission. You’re acting like they have to rubber stamp everything that comes to them, which is silly. And then you act like someone who is unfairly found guilty can’t contest said decision. None of that resembles reality or the rule of law.
Only because the commission was so insanely biased against religion that they couldn’t even rule on the actual case.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination.
How can you show animus when you “don’t have a choice” in something? You can’t. They completely fucked the dog. Now that same organization is going after the same person who is again defending himself in the same manner.
It’s perfectly clear that you’re ignorant of the case. The Court ruled there was animus not because the Commission found against Masterpiece, but because of the hostile language members of the Commission used in their discussion of the case and in their ruling. It wasn’t the ruling that was the animus, it was the context in which the ruling was made. Effectively, the Commission assumed that Masterpiece’s religious conviction was insincere, that he was lying about it; and the Court ruled that by so doing, they denied him a fair hearing. They said nothing at all about his claim that his religious objection trumped the legal rights of his would-be customers.
The Colorado law stands, and the Commission is obligated to enforce it. If you mean to say ‘state agencies can and should pick and choose when they follow the law and when they ignore it’, just say that clearly.
Do tell.
Literally the thing I said.
No they considered religious objection as a concept to not be a valid reason. Which is why the SCOTUS told them to get their shit together and ruled for Masterpiece without even considering the details.
They’re obliged to see if there are merits. If I call the police they aren’t obligated to come arrest you. You’re making the case that the Commission must automatically decide against anyone brought to them. That’s not the case.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/commission
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a seven-member, bipartisan board whose mission is to:
Conduct hearings regarding illegal discriminatory practices
Advise the Governor and General Assembly regarding policies and legislation that address illegal discrimination
Review appeals of cases investigated and dismissed by CCRD
Adopt and amend rules and regulations to be followed in enforcement of Colorado’s statutes prohibiting discrimination
(b) 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.
I’m sure the law is to berate someone’s religion and compare them to slave owners and the SS.
Also adjudication probably means “required obligation to find someone guilty or something, I don’t know, now let me tell you how you don’t know anything cause I’m so smart.”
Ah, good, now that we’re in agreement that the Court did nothing to invalidate the Colorado anti-discrimination laws or the Commission that enforces them, which of these things are you saying?
- That gay and trans people in Colorado should simply accept that Masterpiece cake shop and other businesses like them are permitted to discriminate against them despite the law?
- That the Commission should ignore any discrimination complaints lodged by gay or trans people against Masterpiece cake shop or any other businesses like them?
I mean, I’m genuinely curious. You know (now) that the Court never ruled on the actual law, and that the law is still on the books; so what do you think should happen? That people should just suck it up and endure discrimination because if they don’t maybe something bad will happen?
I always knew that. Stop being an asshole. I refuse to interact with this kind of horseshit.