EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 252
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
I thought this thread got started out pretty well with a discussion that boiled down to the differences between prepreared goods and custom goods that a company can chose or not to chose to create as well as the definition of a company when it comes to its owners and employees beliefs. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On June 05 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote: I'm actually really disispointed they didn't make the gay marriage cake into a bigger deal. It represents a crossroads of a ton of emerging issues in the country that they could have addressed at a couple different issues that don't involve religious liberty or LGBT issues at all. Especially with the national attitude twords the supreme court being the only branch of government capable currently of making the kind of society reaching decisions on issues. I thought this thread got started out pretty well with a discussion that boiled down to the differences between prepreared goods and custom goods that a company can chose or not to chose to create as well as the definition of a company when it comes to its owners and employees beliefs. Our entire system of government is playing hot potato trying to get out of establishing "how ought the country exist" | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 05 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote: I'm actually really disispointed they didn't make the gay marriage cake into a bigger deal. It represents a crossroads of a ton of emerging issues in the country that they could have addressed at a couple different issues that don't involve religious liberty or LGBT issues at all. Especially with the national attitude twords the supreme court being the only branch of government capable currently of making the kind of society reaching decisions on issues. I thought this thread got started out pretty well with a discussion that boiled down to the differences between prepreared goods and custom goods that a company can chose or not to chose to create as well as the definition of a company when it comes to its owners and employees beliefs. One sad result is if you're a Christian baker, you don't know if you can legally refuse to bake a same-sex marriage wedding cake in the wake of this. Right now, it depends on how the state commission handles themselves in your case and how they handle other cases. The constitutionality of the order to bake cakes will have to be decided in a future case. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On June 05 2018 06:26 Plansix wrote: From the ruling I think it is pretty clear the court is not in favor of denying services to gay couples, even with religious objections. I would say a baker would be best served by finding a solution they are comfortable with, rather than outright denying the service on religious grounds. I don't see that at all. I think the court at least is signaling that business's can reserve the right to refuse to make cakes that are at least explicitly for a gay wedding but must sell premade or offered designs for custom cakes. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21951 Posts
On June 05 2018 04:27 Simberto wrote: That sheriff he pardoned hadn't He can't preemptively pardon himself though? Wouldn't he have to wait until he is found guilty of something? And afaik you basically can't have a trial for the president while he is president anyways, right? been found guilty yet, the courts even had to pause and go 'wha, how does this work'. He has already tried if he could do this and got away with it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 05 2018 06:31 Sermokala wrote: I don't see that at all. I think the court at least is signaling that business's can reserve the right to refuse to make cakes that are at least explicitly for a gay wedding but must sell premade or offered designs for custom cakes. The ruling specifically stated that both parties have the right to dignity, so knowingly creating products that the vendor intends to deny to gay couples has this pitfall that they plan of humiliating all potential gay couple that want the service. The ruling said several times that compromise was should have been reached when the civil rights commission heard the case. And the court reserved the right to hear the matter again when the ruling body is more neutral on the subject of religious reasons for not providing the service. Nothing in the ruling pointed to the court siding with outright denial of a custom product, only that they were unwilling to rule that subject given the shaky foundation of the case caused by the commission. If they carved out an expectation for custom products, like you said, there is a risk that it will be abused. Suddenly all wedding products are custom and artistic in nature. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On June 05 2018 07:12 ticklishmusic wrote: generally speaking, isn't it 'judicial best practice' to make precedent more narrow/ specific to the key facts of the case? It would if the ruling was clear and specific but I don't really see how this ruling is used in the specific issue at hand. I think everyone would be better off if they specifically ruled if you could deny or on what grounds you could deny. What we really get is more confusion on the matter. Without an outright denile we dont get any reason to say either way on the issue so effectively cake bakers can deny and people can take them to court again. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23460 Posts
I'm terribly curious if Danglars is as concerned about the large segment of Republicans who don't give a damn about religious liberty or the constitution and would ban a religion in a heartbeat if they had a chance. Or if he views forcing Christian bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings to be a bigger threat to religious freedom than Republicans forcing people to abandon their religion altogether? Based on the positions themselves that is. Would it be a bigger affront to religious freedom to force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding or to criminalize Islam? Large swaths of Republicans seem to find one unacceptable and the other acceptable. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 05 2018 07:36 Sermokala wrote: It would if the ruling was clear and specific but I don't really see how this ruling is used in the specific issue at hand. I think everyone would be better off if they specifically ruled if you could deny or on what grounds you could deny. What we really get is more confusion on the matter. Without an outright denile we dont get any reason to say either way on the issue so effectively cake bakers can deny and people can take them to court again. I think you will be waiting a very long time for specific guidelines for when people can deny service based on religious objection. Because the justices are aware that is creating a road map to legally discriminate. Gay marriage is a reality of the wedding industry, people need to find compromises rather than wait for the high court to tell them what to do. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On June 05 2018 08:00 Plansix wrote: I think you will be waiting a very long time for specific guidelines for when people can deny service based on religious objection. Because the justices are aware that is creating a road map to legally discriminate. Gay marriage is a reality of the wedding industry, people need to find compromises rather than wait for the high court to tell them what to do. Yeah but the compromises are going to be based,like abortion, on the horse trading of when its okay to discriminate vs not. By being careful to not create the map they force others to do it for them. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
On June 05 2018 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote: Since I've looked into the history of some of the justices I'm not surprised they (the 'liberals') sided with the baker. I'm terribly curious if Danglars is as concerned about the large segment of Republicans who don't give a damn about religious liberty or the constitution and would ban a religion in a heartbeat if they had a chance. Or if he views forcing Christian bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings to be a bigger threat to religious freedom than Republicans forcing people to abandon their religion altogether? Based on the positions themselves that is. Would it be a bigger affront to religious freedom to force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding or to criminalize Islam? Large swaths of Republicans seem to find one unacceptable and the other acceptable. Yeah, religious freedom seems to only matter if the religion in question i christianity. I also don't see why religious people should gain any additional rights. The only additional right that is reasonable is the right to not be discriminated against based on their religion. No weird "right to do x because christian" stuff. Otherwise i want my additional rights because i am nondenominational. Maybe a right to blast loud music in the middle of the night. Religious people get to blast annoying bells all the fucking time. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 05 2018 08:05 Sermokala wrote: Yeah but the compromises are going to be based,like abortion, on the horse trading of when its okay to discriminate vs not. By being careful to not create the map they force others to do it for them. That is what happens when the debate is an election issue and part of larger “culture wars”. The politicians don’t want compromise and the court isn’t going to solve the problem for them. People who want guidelines should push their elected officials to draft legislation and pass it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2018 07:12 ticklishmusic wrote: generally speaking, isn't it 'judicial best practice' to make precedent more narrow/ specific to the key facts of the case? not per se. Whether or not its best practice to rule narrowly varies somewhat. It's common practice though to make narrow rulings on contentious issues so as to avoid having to deal with the hard questions (and the political blowback of a ruling). And in some matters, the number of cases is sufficiently rare that you can avoid ever having to really solve the big underlying questions, or you can just dodge the matter until changing social mores make it much easier to decide the matter. Since this is the supreme court (though similar would apply to any appellate court) there's an increase in the value of making precedent that would cover other related cases. The supreme court can't hear every case, there's just not time; and it's good for the legal system to have clear, consistent rules that are applied everywhere. In particular, one of the most important jobs of the supreme court is to decide matters when different appellate courts reached different conclusions on the same question. to sermo: the republicans have, for decades now, made a specific point of attacking the integrity of the judicial branch. This makes the judiciary even more reluctant to wade into politically sensitive issues since there's even more blowback for deciding the matter. PPS mozoku -> based on your failure to substantiate your points, plus the problems with them that indicated a need for substantiation; I'll conclude you're BS'ing like you usually do. | ||
KwarK
United States43212 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:08 mozoku wrote: Who thought it possible that so many of our thread experts could be wrong? Shocking. That doesn't make sense unless you're also saying that 2 Supreme Court justices who disagreed were wrong. The Supreme Court believed that there were two valid sides, more of them were on one than the other but it's not like they ruled "this is the stupidest thing we've ever heard, 9-0, let's go home early". 2 Supreme Court justices believed you were wrong, and I agree with them. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35162 Posts
The Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles' White House visit has been canceled due to the controversy over standing for the national anthem at NFL games, President Donald Trump announced Monday. "The Philadelphia Eagles are unable to come to the White House with their full team to be celebrated tomorrow," Trump said in a statement. "They disagree with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country. The Eagles wanted to send a smaller delegation, but the 1,000 fans planning to attend the event deserve better." Thin skinned child in chief cancels the Super Bowl champs visit because the entire team doesn't want to come/didn't stand for the anthem. If they don't kiss the ring, they can't come over to play! | ||
| ||
