SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon May 14, 2018 2:58 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Supreme Court removes federal laws against sports betting!

Always a fan of less fed intrusion


——-

It was a 6-3 vote. If someone can find who voted “no” please post the list

(ESPN has 7-2 right now, Fox and Yahoo have 6-3)


That’s huge! Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this one.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon May 14, 2018 3:49 pm

Another small win for freedom.

In Byrd vs. The United States the supreme court ruled that Police do not get to automatically search rental cars if the driver isn't the one listed on the rental agreement. It was a unanimous 9 - 0 decision.

The Supreme Court unanimously refused to adopt the federal government's sweeping argument. "As a general rule," the Court declared, "someone in otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even if the rental agreement does not list him or her as an authorized driver."
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 10:19 am

In a major defeat for workers, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that companies can force employees to seek damages individually, rather than as a group. The decision allows employers to require that workers pursue claims in individual arbitration hearings—which tend to be more favorable to employers—and bar them from filing class-action lawsuits or seeking group arbitration hearings.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 allows employers to require one-on-one arbitration hearings. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Gorsuch’s decision “egregiously wrong” in a highly critical dissent that she read from the bench, a relatively rare move that signals strong opposition.

Ginsburg argued that the majority opinion violates workers’ legal right to engage in collective action. She wrote, “The inevitable result of today’s decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.” Her dissent was joined by the court’s three other liberal justices: Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Gorsuch’s decision caps a long run of Supreme Court decisions that have greatly expanded companies’ ability to require customers and employees to sign contracts that mandate arbitration, instead of allowing them to pursue claims in open court. Unlike court rulings, decisions made by arbitrators are usually kept private, making it difficult for other employees or customers to learn about wrongdoing. And unlike judges, arbitrators are generally paid by the companies that use their services. There is usually no right to appeal an arbitrator’s decision.

As Ginsburg pointed out, it is often not practical for workers to go through arbitration to recover small damages. “But by joining together with others, similarly circumstanced,” she added, “employees can gain effective redress for wage underpayment commonly experienced.” The former federal judge Richard Posner summarized the problem with individual suits in 2004: “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”*

Ginsburg compared contracts that force workers into individual arbitration to the “yellow dog” contracts that once blocked workers from joining unions. She argued that the outcome of Monday’s decision is easy to predict. “Employers, aware that employees will be disinclined to pursue small-value claims when confined to proceeding one-by-one, will no doubt perceive that the cost-benefit balance of underpaying workers tips heavily in favor of skirting legal obligations,” she wrote.

As Mother Jones wrote last year, mandatory arbitration agreements have become increasingly common in recent years and provide significant benefits to employers:

In the early 1990s, less than 4 percent of companies surveyed by the Government Accountability Office, an independent government agency, used mandatory arbitration for their employees. Today, more than half of private-sector non-union workers are subject to it, according to a report published last week by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. Forty-one percent of those employees—24.7 million workers—have also waived their right to class-action litigation.

Alexander Colvin, an expert on arbitration at Cornell University and the author of the report, expects more companies to add these waivers if the Supreme Court declares them legally enforceable. Companies have a significant incentive to do so. In 2015, Colvin found that employees win 21 percent of arbitration cases, compared to 57 percent of cases in state court. (Employees are far less likely to pursue grievances when they’re subject to arbitration: Colvin estimates that workers are 50 times likelier to sue than to arbitrate.) Workers also get less money when they’re successful: $109,000 in arbitration compared to $575,000 in state court. Colvin says lawyers he speaks with are less likely to represent workers bound by arbitration because they take a share of the damages.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 583 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 10:21 am

Giving all the power to industry is as damaging as giving all the power to workers.

SCOTUS says now that rather than employees bringing a class action lawsuit, they have to arbitrate individually which will no doubt include a Non-disclosure agreement meaning you can't go back to your fellow screwed over worker and tell them how it went.

#freedom #freemarket #americanway
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 583 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 22, 2018 10:33 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Giving all the power to industry is as damaging as giving all the power to workers.

SCOTUS says now that rather than employees bringing a class action lawsuit, they have to arbitrate individually which will no doubt include a Non-disclosure agreement meaning you can't go back to your fellow screwed over worker and tell them how it went.

#freedom #freemarket #americanway


That’s only if their union signed away those rights in the contracts or if they individually signed away those rights themselves if the shop isn’t unionized

This only applies to contracts that agree to arbitration. If an employment contract doesn’t specify arbitration as the sole remedial effect for grievances employees are still free to enter into class action suits

The ruling was absolutely correct.

The liberal judges argued that the NLRA signed into effect in the 30s was an implied repeal of the FAA Act of 1925. Congress is absolutely still free to repeal the FAA law if they want. But there is absolutely zero evidence that the NLRA law was supposed to repeal the earlier one.



—-

Why don’t you read Gorsuch’s paper. I read both his and RBGs. RBGs is based solely on conjecture about the intent of the laws passed nearly 100 years ago and the conjecture on what will happen in the future
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 11:27 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Giving all the power to industry is as damaging as giving all the power to workers.

SCOTUS says now that rather than employees bringing a class action lawsuit, they have to arbitrate individually which will no doubt include a Non-disclosure agreement meaning you can't go back to your fellow screwed over worker and tell them how it went.

#freedom #freemarket #americanway


That’s only if their union signed away those rights in the contracts or if they individually signed away those rights themselves if the shop isn’t unionized

This only applies to contracts that agree to arbitration. If an employment contract doesn’t specify arbitration as the sole remedial effect for grievances employees are still free to enter into class action suits

The ruling was absolutely correct.

The liberal judges argued that the NLRA signed into effect in the 30s was an implied repeal of the FAA Act of 1925. Congress is absolutely still free to repeal the FAA law if they want. But there is absolutely zero evidence that the NLRA law was supposed to repeal the earlier one.



—-

Why don’t you read Gorsuch’s paper. I read both his and RBGs. RBGs is based solely on conjecture about the intent of the laws passed nearly 100 years ago and the conjecture on what will happen in the future

Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 583 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue May 22, 2018 11:46 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:
That’s only if their union signed away those rights in the contracts or if they individually signed away those rights themselves if the shop isn’t unionized

This only applies to contracts that agree to arbitration. If an employment contract doesn’t specify arbitration as the sole remedial effect for grievances employees are still free to enter into class action suits

The ruling was absolutely correct.

The liberal judges argued that the NLRA signed into effect in the 30s was an implied repeal of the FAA Act of 1925. Congress is absolutely still free to repeal the FAA law if they want. But there is absolutely zero evidence that the NLRA law was supposed to repeal the earlier one.



—-

Why don’t you read Gorsuch’s paper. I read both his and RBGs. RBGs is based solely on conjecture about the intent of the laws passed nearly 100 years ago and the conjecture on what will happen in the future

Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.

I'm sure you believe it should be equal between owners and employees.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3960
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue May 22, 2018 11:51 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.


Does it tip it "further" or just keep things the same as currently dictated by law? I've only read two articles in addition to the responses by Gorsuch and RBG, but my take was the unless the current law was somehow deemed unlawful/unjust than the SCOTUS ruled correctly since it's NOT the role of the SCOTUS to change law unless there is legal precedence (which is why the FAA of 1925 was cited). Shouldn't Congress be the vessel to change this law instead of appealing to the SCOTUS?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11514
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 22, 2018 12:47 pm

There is really no other outcome here, it was inevitable. Employees can’t agree to arbitration but still hold a right to use the courts.

Imagine how some of the critics of this decision would feel if employers who didn’t like their chances in an arbitration case simply sued instead...they would rightfully flip out.

You simply can’t have parallel resolution avenues for parties to pick and choose as they see fit.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 22, 2018 12:56 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.


I have no problem with companies putting these policies in handbooks. I have an 80 page faculty handbook that serves as my contract. It’s my “job” to learn it.

While I think one of the companies in this case did a crappy thing in one day without warning they simply
emailed everyone informing them they are adopting an arbitration scheme and that continued employment implies the worker agrees to this change, I see no law that was broken and I can’t imagine creating a law that would help prevent these instances while not creating a massive amount of negative unintended consequences
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 22, 2018 1:47 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Was there any discussion with regard to at will employees? Because if not, a simple addition to employee manuals (that you sign for) could have a provision saying acceptance of the employment is also acceptance of arbitration.

The point here is that employment is already tipped in favor of owners and this decision would tip the scale even further.

I'm sure you believe it should be equal between owners and employees.


Neither side should be holding a gun to the other side. An agreement on employment should equitably benefit both parties. The employee is already at a disadvantage going into the situation by needing to work or go bankrupt. Employers seldom have that dilemma and its unethical to take advantage of the situation. It would be equally unethical for employees to sabotage the company before even attempting to negotiate whatever grievance they had with the employer.

It should be equitable, not equal. Equal is a co-op.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 583 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Caradoc » Wed May 23, 2018 6:26 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:An agreement on employment should equitably benefit both parties. The employee is already at a disadvantage going into the situation by needing to work or go bankrupt..


There it is, the dumbest thing I've read on the internet today.
Caradoc
 
Posts: 4040
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed May 23, 2018 8:15 pm

Caradoc wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:An agreement on employment should equitably benefit both parties. The employee is already at a disadvantage going into the situation by needing to work or go bankrupt..


There it is, the dumbest thing I've read on the internet today.

You should read your own posts.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 583 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 29, 2018 1:50 pm

another great ruling by the supreme court....they are on a roll!!

This one was 8 - 1

Fourth Amendment advocates scored a victory today when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a warrantless police search that involved an officer entering private property for the purpose of examining a motorcycle stored under a tarp in the driveway near a home. "In physically intruding on the curtilage of [Ryan Austin] Collins' home to search the motorcycle," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority in Collins v. Virginia, the officer "not only invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the item searched, i.e., the motorcycle, but also invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the curtilage of his home."

The central question before the Supreme Court in Collins v. Virginia was whether the so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows the police certain latitude to search vehicles on public streets without a warrant, also allows the police to walk up a driveway without a warrant and search a vehicle parked in the area near a house. The Court ruled 8-1 that the automobile exception should not apply in this scenario.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue May 29, 2018 2:01 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:another great ruling by the supreme court....they are on a roll!!

This one was 8 - 1

Fourth Amendment advocates scored a victory today when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a warrantless police search that involved an officer entering private property for the purpose of examining a motorcycle stored under a tarp in the driveway near a home. "In physically intruding on the curtilage of [Ryan Austin] Collins' home to search the motorcycle," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority in Collins v. Virginia, the officer "not only invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the item searched, i.e., the motorcycle, but also invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the curtilage of his home."

The central question before the Supreme Court in Collins v. Virginia was whether the so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows the police certain latitude to search vehicles on public streets without a warrant, also allows the police to walk up a driveway without a warrant and search a vehicle parked in the area near a house. The Court ruled 8-1 that the automobile exception should not apply in this scenario.

Alito being the sole dissenting opinion.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Tue May 29, 2018 2:24 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:another great ruling by the supreme court....they are on a roll!!

This one was 8 - 1

Fourth Amendment advocates scored a victory today when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a warrantless police search that involved an officer entering private property for the purpose of examining a motorcycle stored under a tarp in the driveway near a home. "In physically intruding on the curtilage of [Ryan Austin] Collins' home to search the motorcycle," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority in Collins v. Virginia, the officer "not only invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the item searched, i.e., the motorcycle, but also invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the curtilage of his home."

The central question before the Supreme Court in Collins v. Virginia was whether the so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows the police certain latitude to search vehicles on public streets without a warrant, also allows the police to walk up a driveway without a warrant and search a vehicle parked in the area near a house. The Court ruled 8-1 that the automobile exception should not apply in this scenario.

As a bonus, I learned a new word. Curtilage.

Edit: Just had another thought. How would this ruling be applied in an apartment complex? What about a townhouse parking lot where the units are generally individually owned?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9687
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 815 times
Been thanked: 317 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue May 29, 2018 2:32 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:another great ruling by the supreme court....they are on a roll!!

This one was 8 - 1


As a bonus, I learned a new word. Curtilage.

Edit: Just had another thought. How would this ruling be applied in an apartment complex? What about a townhouse parking lot where the units are generally individually owned?

That's an interesting question. What about gated vs non-gated complexes?

My gut feeling is that while it's private property, the tenant does not have an ownership claim to the property so it would be up to the discretion of the complex management.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue May 29, 2018 3:39 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Buc2 wrote:As a bonus, I learned a new word. Curtilage.

Edit: Just had another thought. How would this ruling be applied in an apartment complex? What about a townhouse parking lot where the units are generally individually owned?

That's an interesting question. What about gated vs non-gated complexes?

My gut feeling is that while it's private property, the tenant does not have an ownership claim to the property so it would be up to the discretion of the complex management.

Ownership is not an issue. Having a rental unit does not void your 4th Amendment rights. A building supervisor cannot grant access to a tenant’s apartment without a warrant or probable cause (gas leak being the classic buddy cop show trope).

Now, if understand the case here, the central issue is the tarp. A police officer can look inside a vehicle parked on a driveway. I would imagine that is unchanged in a parking lot. But if the vehicle is covered, this ruling says they cannot remove it without a warrant.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2942
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue May 29, 2018 9:15 pm

Ken, I think it is broader then that. I think it means cops can’t come on your property and look into your car with no cause whatsoever, tarp or no tarp. Just like a cop can’t come to your house and look through all your windows without cause.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue May 29, 2018 9:35 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Ken, I think it is broader then that. I think it means cops can’t come on your property and look into your car with no cause whatsoever, tarp or no tarp. Just like a cop can’t come to your house and look through all your windows without cause.

Cars can be parked on public property or private property not owned by the owner of the car.

Case law is pretty clear on residences, but has been iffy on cars for some time.

At the end of the day, beat cops need to do what they've always done which is clean up society's messes. It's when they try to get all gumshoe that they end up trampling someone's rights.

You're a beat cop. Run traffic and listen to the radio. Quit trying to get off the road for half a shift running a guy to jail for a half-assed search of a car that resulted in a stem in the guy's ashtray.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 583 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Wed May 30, 2018 6:53 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Ken, I think it is broader then that. I think it means cops can’t come on your property and look into your car with no cause whatsoever, tarp or no tarp. Just like a cop can’t come to your house and look through all your windows without cause.

It seems clear to me that they did not strike down the automobile exception, but clarified it in ‘this scenario’ in which a tarp was covering the vehicle.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2942
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 8:09 am

That’s not how I am reading it at all. The automobile exemption as I have read it and understand it applies to vehicles on public land. This case seems to strengthen that by saying it does not apply to the owners provaye property (curtilage). Granted I have only read 2 articles on the ruling but neither spend any time saying the vehicle must be covered to get the protections the judges granted here.

If you can find the requirement of a tarp please share.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Wed May 30, 2018 8:38 am

Sotomayor says that it was both a violation for lifting the tarp and curtailage, so we may both be right.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2942
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:40 am

Supreme Court rules 7-2 in favor of Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for gay couple


Another solid win for liberty.

Apart from a case or two when they ruled in favor of authoritarian branches of the gov’t, this composition of the Supreme Court is kicking butt!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Rocker » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:45 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Supreme Court rules 7-2 in favor of Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for gay couple


Another solid win for liberty.

Apart from a case or two when they ruled in favor of authoritarian branches of the gov’t, this composition of the Supreme Court is kicking butt!


Pleasantly surprised.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Valrico
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:48 am

I’m pleasantly surprised by the margin


Not surprised at all at the decision


This case was a slam dunk in my mind. You really have to hate freedom and love the nanny state to disagree with the ruling
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:07 am

The comments on Yahoo are priceless on this one


So much stupidity in one place (both from supporters and critics of the decision). It’s hilarious yet sad at the same time.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justices-sid ... itics.html
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:12 am

For the record, Kagan and Breyer crossed the ideological aisle.

Though, truly, this ruling is about the specific incident, not a blanket win for anti-gay religious business owners.

Kennedy wrote that the question of when religious beliefs must give way to anti-discrimination laws might be different in future cases. But in this case, he said, Phillips did not get the proper consideration.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws,” he wrote. “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.”


Essentially, the court ruled that the Colorado Commission treated Phillips unfairly due to his religion when the case was brought before them, not that any business person can decide not to serve someone due to religious beliefs. I think the nail in the coffin was that the same Commission ruled in favor of a baker who refused to write an anti-gay message on a cake. That's an obvious double standard, and while I do not agree that the original discrimination was valid, that forces me to also concede that the Colorado courts discrimination was equally invalid.

I see this ruling more as offsetting penalties rather than a giant win for religious freedom.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2942
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:20 am

Ken Carson wrote:For the record, Kagan and Breyer crossed the ideological aisle.

Though, truly, this ruling is about the specific incident, not a blanket win for anti-gay religious business owners.

Kennedy wrote that the question of when religious beliefs must give way to anti-discrimination laws might be different in future cases. But in this case, he said, Phillips did not get the proper consideration.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws,” he wrote. “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.”


Essentially, the court ruled that the Colorado Commission treated Phillips unfairly due to his religion when the case was brought before them, not that any business person can decide not to serve someone due to religious beliefs. I think the nail in the coffin was that the same Commission ruled in favor of a baker who refused to write an anti-gay message on a cake. That's an obvious double standard, and while I do not agree that the original discrimination was valid, that forces me to also concede that the Colorado courts discrimination was equally invalid.

I see this ruling more as offsetting penalties rather than a giant win for religious freedom.



I agree with what you say here. Very few people read that backstory


To me the case was never about refusing to do business with gay people because of your religious affiliation or beliefs. (And in fact the baker didn’t refuse to sell them goods he had premade)

It was about coerced speech and forcing people to create commercial expression that violates other protected rights (that phrase is used in the brief).

some may not see the distinction between refusing to serve someone and refusing to create for them. To be clear ...Businesses should NOT be able to discriminate selling products to a gay/lesbian couple. However Every business should be able to pick and choose what creative projects they commission


This holds in all regards, A Muslim shouldn’t have to create a t-shirt that says Jesus is King, a black person shouldnt have to create a banner that is racist against blacks and A Jewish Business owner shouldn’t have to design a billboard that says “It’s a shame Hitlers final solution wasn’t carried out”.

Said Muslim, black and Jew should all have to sell any prepackaged product off the shelf to all of those customers
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 231 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:40 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:For the record, Kagan and Breyer crossed the ideological aisle.

Though, truly, this ruling is about the specific incident, not a blanket win for anti-gay religious business owners.



Essentially, the court ruled that the Colorado Commission treated Phillips unfairly due to his religion when the case was brought before them, not that any business person can decide not to serve someone due to religious beliefs. I think the nail in the coffin was that the same Commission ruled in favor of a baker who refused to write an anti-gay message on a cake. That's an obvious double standard, and while I do not agree that the original discrimination was valid, that forces me to also concede that the Colorado courts discrimination was equally invalid.

I see this ruling more as offsetting penalties rather than a giant win for religious freedom.



I agree with what you say here. Very few people read that backstory


To me the case was never about refusing to do business with gay people because of your religious affiliation or beliefs. (And in fact the baker didn’t refuse to sell them goods he had premade)

It was about coerced speech and forcing people to create commercial expression that violates other protected rights (that phrase is used in the brief).

some may not see the distinction between refusing to serve someone and refusing to create for them. To be clear ...Businesses should NOT be able to discriminate selling products to a gay/lesbian couple. However Every business should be able to pick and choose what creative projects they commission


This holds in all regards, A Muslim shouldn’t have to create a t-shirt that says Jesus is King, a black person shouldnt have to create a banner that is racist against blacks and A Jewish Business owner shouldn’t have to design a billboard that says “It’s a shame Hitlers final solution wasn’t carried out”.

Said Muslim, black and Jew should all have to sell any prepackaged product off the shelf to all of those customers

That is the important distinction.

For some silly reason, cakes are the creative medium here, but no sane person would want the state to mandate that a songwriter MUST write a song praising Jesus or Chluthu because a paying customer wants them to. I'll write you a song about chrome rims on a Chevy Nova or anything else under the sun, but you're not going to use the government to force me to write a song about how the Holocaust was fake. Or that all Baby Boomers must die.

When we get into the commission of creative work, the artist....even if his medium is cake.....is going to make their creation and sell it to the customer. If you want it to say "Death to zion" you're going to have to do it yourself. Mama's little bakery doesn't HAVE to make **** shaped cakes.

The plantiff would absolutely have a case in a "we don't serve your kind here" scenario and if that were the situation, I would expect the court to rule accordingly.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 583 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests