|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Since we are not able to read minds just yet, what would be stopping people from citing bullshit reasons to deny service? Who would be stupid enough to actually say or write "I wont provide service to you because you believe in x, your skin color is y or your sexual orientation is z"?
|
On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Show nested quote +Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech.
I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews.
Consistency, people.
|
United States42009 Posts
On December 05 2017 06:21 amyamyamy wrote:
Since we are not able to read minds just yet, what would be stopping people from citing bullshit reasons to deny service? Who would be stupid enough to say or write "I wont provide service to you because you believe in x, your skin color is y or your sexual orientation is z"?
Absolutely nothing. This happens all the time. Discrimination is actually really hard to prove in court for precisely this reason.
|
On December 05 2017 06:21 amyamyamy wrote:
Since we are not able to read minds just yet, what would be stopping people from citing bullshit reasons to deny service? Who would be stupid enough to say or write "I wont provide service to you because you believe in x, your skin color is y or your sexual orientation is z"?
Generally, nothing. But usually there tends to be a trend. If someone refuses service to a black person, they're not going to do it just once. If there's a pattern of "I only banned all of these people because they look like thieves" applied to only black people, you're going to get in trouble.
|
On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse.
The question arises when the bakers sell cakes to all comers, regardless of race sex or sexual orientation, but their expressive custom service is subject to compelled government speech depending on if the government agrees with the message presented or not. The customers were customers for years and had bought all manner of baked goods, having been long time friends with the owner.
|
On December 05 2017 06:21 amyamyamy wrote:
Since we are not able to read minds just yet, what would be stopping people from citing bullshit reasons to deny service? Who would be stupid enough to say or write "I wont provide service to you because you believe in x, your skin color is y or your sexual orientation is z"?
I'm fairly certain thid guy has shown evidence that his beliefs are earnestly held, but beyond that, why would you fake an objection like this? Why would he make up this reason instead of something else? It's not like he's trying to dodge the draft.
|
United States42009 Posts
On December 05 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse. The question arises when the bakers sell cakes to all comers, regardless of race sex or sexual orientation, but their expressive custom service is subject to compelled government speech depending on if the government agrees with the message presented or not. The customers were customers for years and had bought all manner of baked goods, having been long time friends with the owner.
This is absolutely not what the issue was. Whether the government agreed with the message is completely irrelevant.
|
On December 05 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:16 zlefin wrote:
if danglars was arguing in good faith they'd be fine with laying off him, but he is not, so they do not. If people attacked his arguments more and not the poster he would argue in better faith in return.
people have, on many MANY occasions done so, he still argued in bad faith anyways. there comes a time when benefit of the doubt has been exceeded.
|
On December 05 2017 06:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars, I don't see how you come to that conclusion looking at the quote train. No one called you phobic, you decided that you was was (homo?)phobic. It's all on you.
I also don't see how the Colorado commission is discriminating against religious customers either, but I admit I am not overly familiar with the case. Criticizing same-sex marriage is not a religious right, unless somehow in the USA there is a religion based upon the criticizing of same-sex religion as a practice of the religion. or religious rights are different from what I commonly understand them to be. On December 05 2017 05:03 Artisreal wrote:On December 05 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:33 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote:
Oral arguments on Masterpiece Cakeshop begin tomorrow.
false equivalence a+. though i can’t see the progressive win here, sexual preference isn’t a protected class yet is it? but i guess while government has run amok with foregoing all checks and balances there’s no reason the courts can’t make it so. Which discrimination do you find legal? When the bakeries don’t like the message (celebratory or antagonistic to gay marriage) or the government commission doesn’t like the message? It really just sounds like you like one flavor of discrimination, in this case shared by people in power against the powerless. Very progressive, I might add. Do you dislike the protected classes that the US currently has? Basically all these bakery talks are is people saying, in a roundabout way, that sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected classes. It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary. No, not really. At issue is custom designs, because it’s uncontested that the cake shop has long served gay and lesbian customers their baked goods. Maybe your “no moral quandary” wants to give your easy moral analysis at the other bakeries allowed to discriminate against religious customers? Religion is a protected class, so that would be illegal. Yet the Colorado commission sees no issues discriminating against religious customers based on the cakes they want made. You're so preoccupied by being afraid what might happen to group xyz you sympathize with that you're oblivious to the same thing actually happening to group zyx right now. And that's giving you the good faith bullshit you don't deserve. It's basically an affirming stance on sexual freedom against a restricting stance from religious fundamentalists who want to lessen the freedom of others. Surely you must, again, stand on the other side of freedom. The one that restricts the other side's freedom. How predictable you are. Your argument is driven by your fear, not by the merits of the dilemma presented. I say your response to me can only be seen in light of your fear that I have a valid point. Tell me if I haven’t alleged you’re being driven by a phobia. Are you trying to be ironic? This isn't how irony operates. Or perhaps it is, but it certainly isn't humorous.
No, and would you answer the question?
|
On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.
This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. Source Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes.
An AMT for corporations would probably be a good idea (from what I understand an AMT of 20% would still in effect be a tax raise on average)
|
On December 05 2017 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews. Consistency, people.
xDaunt is supportive of nationalism so he’s being consistent here. Cut through the crap and he’s basically saying Western (rather baptist because most Church of England diocese I’ve been a part of have zilch relation to the shit I hear in Ohio) values much be kept sacred and that means keeping the muslims and their value beliefs out.
Can’t see how it isn’t racist but apparently the only way to be racist anymore is to wear a white hood and a flaming cross. Even then, apparently that isn’t enough considering they consistently deflect Trump’s racism with something from they believe to be from the left.
|
On December 05 2017 06:26 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:On December 05 2017 06:16 zlefin wrote:
if danglars was arguing in good faith they'd be fine with laying off him, but he is not, so they do not. If people attacked his arguments more and not the poster he would argue in better faith in return. people have, on many MANY occasions done so, he still argued in bad faith anyways. there comes a time when benefit of the doubt has been exceeded.
Coming from the guy who literally created a thread for the sole purpose of complaining about him which died as soon as you stooped posting in it you're the last person to talk about exceeding the benefit of the doubt.
|
On December 05 2017 04:18 Introvert wrote:Since Nevuk postted about obstruction here is an interesting piece from NRO. The author has been posted here before. Show nested quote +
The smoke is clearing from an explosive Mueller investigation weekend of charges, chattering, and tweets. Before the next aftershock, it might be helpful to make three points about where things stand. In ascending order of importance, they are:
1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.
2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.
3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.
Building a Case
Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.
That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.
As I’ve tried to explain a few times now (see here and here), if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.
Strategically, and for public-relations purposes (which are not inconsequential in a high-profile corruption investigation, just ask Ken Starr), a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election. The guilty-plea allocution, in which the accomplice explains to the court what he and others did to carry out the scheme, puts enormous pressure on other accomplices to come forward and cooperate. In a political corruption case, it can drive public officials out of office.
Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song.
The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence.
Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate.
It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony.
The pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
It’s Now an Obstruction Investigation
...
rest here http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment
This makes little sense to me if only because it would seem incredibly weak to go after the President for obstruction when you can't even prove their motivations or intentions behind obstructing the investigation.
I can't see them moving forward with an obstruction case unless they can also prove collusion on some level.
|
On December 05 2017 06:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:26 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2017 06:17 Sermokala wrote:On December 05 2017 06:16 zlefin wrote:
if danglars was arguing in good faith they'd be fine with laying off him, but he is not, so they do not. If people attacked his arguments more and not the poster he would argue in better faith in return. people have, on many MANY occasions done so, he still argued in bad faith anyways. there comes a time when benefit of the doubt has been exceeded. Coming from the guy who literally created a thread for the sole purpose of complaining about him which died as soon as you stooped posting in it you're the last person to talk about exceeding the benefit of the doubt.
I'm hardly the only person to notice it, I was simply the first to be so outspoken about it. also that thread didn't die, it merely acts up intermittently when there are issues to address, and is otherwise quiet.
my words are correct regardless of whether or not i'm the best person to talk about it.
also, your argument simply doesn't work, it does not demonstrate that i'm the last person who complain about people exceeding the benefit of the doubt at all. it's simply a dumb argument, sorry, but that's the truth.
I also note that you are attacking the poster rather than the argument. (which is not unreasonable in this case, I'm just noting it for irony).
|
On December 05 2017 06:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 05 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars, I don't see how you come to that conclusion looking at the quote train. No one called you phobic, you decided that you was was (homo?)phobic. It's all on you.
I also don't see how the Colorado commission is discriminating against religious customers either, but I admit I am not overly familiar with the case. Criticizing same-sex marriage is not a religious right, unless somehow in the USA there is a religion based upon the criticizing of same-sex religion as a practice of the religion. or religious rights are different from what I commonly understand them to be. On December 05 2017 05:03 Artisreal wrote:On December 05 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:33 brian wrote:
[quote]
false equivalence a+. though i can’t see the progressive win here, sexual preference isn’t a protected class yet is it?
but i guess while government has run amok with foregoing all checks and balances there’s no reason the courts can’t make it so. Which discrimination do you find legal? When the bakeries don’t like the message (celebratory or antagonistic to gay marriage) or the government commission doesn’t like the message? It really just sounds like you like one flavor of discrimination, in this case shared by people in power against the powerless. Very progressive, I might add. Do you dislike the protected classes that the US currently has? Basically all these bakery talks are is people saying, in a roundabout way, that sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected classes. It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary. No, not really. At issue is custom designs, because it’s uncontested that the cake shop has long served gay and lesbian customers their baked goods. Maybe your “no moral quandary” wants to give your easy moral analysis at the other bakeries allowed to discriminate against religious customers? Religion is a protected class, so that would be illegal. Yet the Colorado commission sees no issues discriminating against religious customers based on the cakes they want made. You're so preoccupied by being afraid what might happen to group xyz you sympathize with that you're oblivious to the same thing actually happening to group zyx right now. And that's giving you the good faith bullshit you don't deserve. It's basically an affirming stance on sexual freedom against a restricting stance from religious fundamentalists who want to lessen the freedom of others. Surely you must, again, stand on the other side of freedom. The one that restricts the other side's freedom. How predictable you are. Your argument is driven by your fear, not by the merits of the dilemma presented. I say your response to me can only be seen in light of your fear that I have a valid point. Tell me if I haven’t alleged you’re being driven by a phobia. Are you trying to be ironic? This isn't how irony operates. Or perhaps it is, but it certainly isn't humorous. No, and would you answer the question? Do you have a question?
You said you have been called a slur, but looking at the quotes, no one called you phobic until you decided that you was called phobic. What you have decided you have been phobic of, I can only but wonder, it's not a question I can answer.
|
On December 05 2017 06:28 doomdonker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews. Consistency, people. xDaunt is supportive of nationalism so he’s being consistent here. Cut through the crap and he’s basically saying Western (rather baptist because most Church of England diocese I’ve been a part of have zilch relation to the shit I hear in Ohio) values much be kept sacred and that means keeping the muslims and their value beliefs out. Can’t see how it isn’t racist but apparently the only way to be racist anymore is to wear a white hood and a flaming cross. Even then, apparently that isn’t enough considering they consistently deflect Trump’s racism with something from they believe to be from the left.
There, fixed that for you. No need to be so limiting.
|
On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Show nested quote +Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech.
In a perfect world, at least five posters here read the actual question the Supreme Court wants answers on, as well as the linked and quoted WSJ briefing on the issue, and doesn’t try to pretend there’s no constitutional question on free speech/exercise looking for resolution here. I go further to say the unequal treatment under the law make it pretty obvious that Colorado picks and chooses who gets rights, but that’s just showing they didn’t enforce the law uniformly to be acting in good faith on one interpretation of the constitution. If they had been neutral in application, the state interest line might have been more compelling (aka Colorado would be legitimately trying to safeguard its public accommodation provisions for all citizens of their state).
From the arguments presented, many on the left think only a knucklehead would have granted certiorari to such a clear-cut case. Honestly, I expected a more rational treatment of the underlying matter given an understanding of the legal viewpoints being argued. Scotusblog has the petition for writ of certiorari for anybody interested in why the Supreme Court would hear a case so apparently obviously decided in favor of the commission against the cakeshop.
|
On December 05 2017 06:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse. The question arises when the bakers sell cakes to all comers, regardless of race sex or sexual orientation, but their expressive custom service is subject to compelled government speech depending on if the government agrees with the message presented or not. The customers were customers for years and had bought all manner of baked goods, having been long time friends with the owner. This is absolutely not what the issue was. Whether the government agreed with the message is completely irrelevant.
Actually, whether government agreed with the message is precisely the point. This becomes very clear if you look at the briefing.
|
On December 05 2017 06:27 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.
This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. Source Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes. An AMT for corporations would probably be a good idea (from what I understand an AMT of 20% would still in effect be a tax raise on average)
It already exists. It's 20%. That's why it's funny.
|
United States42009 Posts
On December 05 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:26 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse. The question arises when the bakers sell cakes to all comers, regardless of race sex or sexual orientation, but their expressive custom service is subject to compelled government speech depending on if the government agrees with the message presented or not. The customers were customers for years and had bought all manner of baked goods, having been long time friends with the owner. This is absolutely not what the issue was. Whether the government agreed with the message is completely irrelevant. Actually, whether government agreed with the message is precisely the point. This becomes very clear if you look at the briefing.
It's not though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
