SCOTUS thread

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

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
16
57%
No
12
43%
 
Total votes : 28

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:56 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:That is the important distinction.

For some silly reason, cakes are the creative medium here.




Because of the bigotry of the ruling by the commission the court didn't have to specifically address this....two judges chose to address it though of their own volition (Thomas and Gorsuch). Both disagreed with you. After listening to the defendant describe the process he employs to design and create the cake, both said it was a creative process.


You might not think it takes much skill to make a cake (I would argue that it takes a lot of skill to design and create a traditional wedding cake - I certainly couldn't do it) but the amount of skill shouldn't matter. Unique creativity is towards commission is creativity...full stop.

It wouldn't take a lot of skill or creativity for a Gay t-shirt shop owner to have to simply write "All gays are sodomites and should burn in hell" on a t-shirt, but that should be protected too. Surely designing and baking a wedding cake would be more skilled then ironing on a few letters right? Would you tell the gay shop owner he has to make that t-shirt because it doesn't fit your level of creativity?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 335 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:That is the important distinction.

For some silly reason, cakes are the creative medium here.




Because of the bigotry of the ruling by the commission the court didn't have to specifically address this....two judges chose to address it though of their own volition (Thomas and Gorsuch). Both disagreed with you. After listening to the defendant describe the process he employs to design and create the cake, both said it was a creative process.


You might not think it takes much skill to make a cake (I would argue that it takes a lot of skill to design and create a traditional wedding cake - I certainly couldn't do it) but the amount of skill shouldn't matter. Unique creativity is towards commission is creativity...full stop.

It wouldn't take a lot of skill or creativity for a Gay t-shirt shop owner to have to simply write "All gays are sodomites and should burn in hell" on a t-shirt, but that should be protected too. Surely designing and baking a wedding cake would be more skilled then ironing on a few letters right? Would you tell the gay shop owner he has to make that t-shirt because it doesn't fit your level of creativity?

Pump the brakes professor. Your suggesting I do not consider cake decorating a creative medium when I just said that it is.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13870
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:05 pm

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.

Agreed. Just like I originally said...
I haven't kept up with it enough to give a knowledgeable answer. A cake maker being an artist is literally laughable, IMO. I do believe, however, that they should have the right to refuse service. Are they douchers for refusing services? Yes, but it should be their right, IMO.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5177
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:13 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Pump the brakes professor. Your suggesting I do not consider cake decorating a creative medium when I just said that it is.



If when you wrote what I quoted you were being sarcastic...I didn't see it. Sorry.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 335 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:33 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Pump the brakes professor. Your suggesting I do not consider cake decorating a creative medium when I just said that it is.



If when you wrote what I quoted you were being sarcastic...I didn't see it. Sorry.

Oh, I see. Yeah, it's just weird that it happens to be cake. If it were music or a painting the answer would be much clearer. That's why I made the analogy.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13870
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:16 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

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.


Rage Against The Machine is required to vend a CD to Paul Ryan as they would anyone else, regardless of what they think about him, his politics, his beliefs, blah blah blah.
Rage Against The Machine is obviously NOT required to play a Paul Ryan fundraiser if he wants them to.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 388 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:53 pm

There are two possible outcomes here, eventually:

One, the state requires all service providers to take on all good-faith business and be able to provide logistical documentation when they can't or wont, on penalty of law.

Two, we accept that the threat of bigotry might never completely disappear (certainly not through legislation), and we trust free market solutions to provide goods and services to those who need them.

Had the plaintiffs won, a precedent would have been set that only would have been built upon in the years to come. Any service provider that refused to provide any service, for any reason, would have been vulnerable.

That said, scenario two, the "not batshit" scenario, wasn't exactly validated by the court, either. Instead, they essentially punted with the narrowest possible interpretation of the case.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 388 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:17 pm

Thoughts on this decision?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Ohio could continue to use an aggressive process for removing people from its voting rolls, saying the procedure did not run afoul of federal voter protections...

In Ohio, officials send anyone who doesn’t vote for two consecutive years a notice in the mail to determine whether they’ve moved. If someone fails to respond to the notice and then doesn’t vote for four consecutive years, the state removes them from its voter rolls.


Was this the right decision? Will this negatively impact potential voters? I think this was the wrong decision, but I would like to hear other's thoughts.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-voter-p ... on-brknews
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:52 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:Thoughts on this decision?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Ohio could continue to use an aggressive process for removing people from its voting rolls, saying the procedure did not run afoul of federal voter protections...

In Ohio, officials send anyone who doesn’t vote for two consecutive years a notice in the mail to determine whether they’ve moved. If someone fails to respond to the notice and then doesn’t vote for four consecutive years, the state removes them from its voter rolls.


Was this the right decision? Will this negatively impact potential voters? I think this was the wrong decision, but I would like to hear other's thoughts.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-voter-p ... on-brknews

That sounds a little extreme and too aggressive to me. I don't know what the answer is off the top of my head, but you'd think that there would be some kind of national registration database. And you'd think that once you register in one state, it takes you off the roll in your previous state. That's what makes sense to me off the top of my head, but we are talking about the federal government so.....
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5177
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:58 pm

From the way I understand it, it appears SCOTUS interpreted the current laws the correct way and Ohio wasn't breaking any federal law...I probably would have voted on the majority side.

That being said, I think the law that allows purges like this is crap.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 335 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:06 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:From the way I understand it, it appears SCOTUS interpreted the current laws the correct way and Ohio wasn't breaking any federal law...I probably would have voted on the majority side.

That being said, I think the law that allows purges like this is crap.


That’s where I’m at. I know Ohio didn’t break the law, but voters should never be purged from voter rolls. What problem is this law attempting to correct?
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:08 pm

I don't like their purge law, but if it isn't breaking a law, then the court was correct in leaving it alone.

Like Delt said, there should be a better way without having to purge voter rolls.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11670
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 963 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:32 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:From the way I understand it, it appears SCOTUS interpreted the current laws the correct way and Ohio wasn't breaking any federal law...I probably would have voted on the majority side.

That being said, I think the law that allows purges like this is crap.


That’s where I’m at. I know Ohio didn’t break the law, but voters should never be purged from voter rolls. What problem is this law attempting to correct?

I'm guessing it's some old law from before we had technology and a better way to do things. Its probably being used now to stop 3 million illegal aliens from voting again.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5177
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PanteraCanes » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:39 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:From the way I understand it, it appears SCOTUS interpreted the current laws the correct way and Ohio wasn't breaking any federal law...I probably would have voted on the majority side.

That being said, I think the law that allows purges like this is crap.


That’s where I’m at. I know Ohio didn’t break the law, but voters should never be purged from voter rolls. What problem is this law attempting to correct?



Maybe to lower voter fraud? People voting in places they no longer live? People "voting" who no longer live?
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:18 pm

PanteraCanes wrote:
PrimeMinister wrote:
That’s where I’m at. I know Ohio didn’t break the law, but voters should never be purged from voter rolls. What problem is this law attempting to correct?



Maybe to lower voter fraud? People voting in places they no longer live? People "voting" who no longer live?



I just read an article on Bloomberg about this. Apparently 40% of people who move don’t fill out the official change of address form with the USPS and the roles are getting massive and unreliable
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 335 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:44 pm

PanteraCanes wrote:
PrimeMinister wrote:
That’s where I’m at. I know Ohio didn’t break the law, but voters should never be purged from voter rolls. What problem is this law attempting to correct?



Maybe to lower voter fraud? People voting in places they no longer live? People "voting" who no longer live?


Are those things happening? Are dead people voting? Are people voting in places they no longer live?
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:12 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
PanteraCanes wrote:

Maybe to lower voter fraud? People voting in places they no longer live? People "voting" who no longer live?


Are those things happening? Are dead people voting? Are people voting in places they no longer live?

By "Dead people" they mean black people.

By "illegals" they mean hispanic people.

Republicans don't want dead people or illegals voting and they are absolutely committed to making sure its kept to an acceptable minimum.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13870
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Deuce » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:17 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
PrimeMinister wrote:
Are those things happening? Are dead people voting? Are people voting in places they no longer live?

By "Dead people" they mean black people.

By "illegals" they mean hispanic people.

Republicans don't want dead people or illegals voting and they are absolutely committed to making sure its kept to an acceptable minimum.


Yeah, Democrats are such angels making sure every minority has an opportunity to have a voice. Right?
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:27 am

Deuce wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:By "Dead people" they mean black people.

By "illegals" they mean hispanic people.

Republicans don't want dead people or illegals voting and they are absolutely committed to making sure its kept to an acceptable minimum.


Yeah, Democrats are such angels making sure every minority has an opportunity to have a voice. Right?

That wasn't even worth responding to. Pure trollish trash is all that was.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11670
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 963 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Deuce » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:39 am

Buc2 wrote:
Deuce wrote:
Yeah, Democrats are such angels making sure every minority has an opportunity to have a voice. Right?

That wasn't even worth responding to. Pure trollish trash is all that was.


Sorry, I didn't think it was that bad. It's just a stupidly partisan issue. The Republicans know minorities aren't voting for them so they're gonna make sure you have your ID, immigration papers, etc. in order to cast a vote for the opposition. The Democrats know minorities are voting for them so they want any John Doe to come in off the street and cast a ballot. For either side to act like the other is in the wrong is silly.
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:29 am

Buc2 wrote:
Deuce wrote:
Yeah, Democrats are such angels making sure every minority has an opportunity to have a voice. Right?

That wasn't even worth responding to. Pure trollish trash is all that was.

Yep
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5177
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:05 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
PrimeMinister wrote:
Are those things happening? Are dead people voting? Are people voting in places they no longer live?

By "Dead people" they mean black people.

By "illegals" they mean hispanic people.

Republicans don't want dead people or illegals voting and they are absolutely committed to making sure its kept to an acceptable minimum.


:roll: SMDH..

C'mon man...
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13229
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 572 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:18 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:By "Dead people" they mean black people.

By "illegals" they mean hispanic people.

Republicans don't want dead people or illegals voting and they are absolutely committed to making sure its kept to an acceptable minimum.


:roll: SMDH..

C'mon man...

aww. did I ruin the decorum?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13870
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:31 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
:roll: SMDH..

C'mon man...

aww. did I ruin the decorum?

It's just bigotry of low expectations. I'm sure your reaction is similar when stewie or SDBucs use similar generalizations to describe Democrats.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13229
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 572 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:34 am

Identity politics dies hard with some apparently...even someone who espouses to not contribute
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 335 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:38 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Identity politics dies hard with some apparently...even someone who espouses to not contribute

Did I say something that wasn't true?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13870
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:39 am

Lol, yes


DN’s SD comparison is spot on.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 335 times
Been thanked: 288 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:43 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Lol, yes

That surprises me you say that because I am still in agreement with you when you say things like this.

That being said, I think the law that allows purges like this is crap.


It IS crap. And it is demonstrably true that Republican legislatures have been actively seeking to suppress minority turnout in places like North Carolina and Alabama for quite some time.

They use purges, gerrymandering, closing of DMVs in minority districts, closing polling places, stopping early voting, and who knows what else to disenfranchise voters. This is not new information.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13870
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:45 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Lol, yes

That surprises me you say that because I am still in agreement with you when you say things like this.

That being said, I think the law that allows purges like this is crap.


It IS crap. And it is demonstrably true that Republican legislatures have been actively seeking to suppress minority turnout in places like North Carolina and Alabama for quite some time.

They use purges, gerrymandering, closing of DMVs in minority districts, closing polling places, stopping early voting, and who knows what else to disenfranchise voters. This is not new information.

This would have been a lot easier for everyone if you just would have said this to start with.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5177
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:47 am

deltbucs wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:That surprises me you say that because I am still in agreement with you when you say things like this.



It IS crap. And it is demonstrably true that Republican legislatures have been actively seeking to suppress minority turnout in places like North Carolina and Alabama for quite some time.

They use purges, gerrymandering, closing of DMVs in minority districts, closing polling places, stopping early voting, and who knows what else to disenfranchise voters. This is not new information.

This would have been a lot easier for everyone if you just would have said this to start with.

I'm told that political correctness is a cancer so I got to the unfiltered point.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13870
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 646 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests