Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: every hole's a goal

Topic: in a 5-4 decision (Read 1291 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #25
I will admit that when I first saw the "narrow ruling" headline I got real mad and only later realized it meant a legally narrow ruling.

At least I'm not the President's son or a sitting US Senator with a law degree who also confused this and tweeted out my stupidity to the world.


  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #27
jesus christ
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • uncool
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #28
The next test case may have already come up. From the Arizona Court of Appeals:

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #29
Not sure I understand the outrage at this decision. It is pretty obvious that there are some occupational activities for which laws that prohibit discrimination agagainst gay people infringe on religious liberty (e.g., way at the margins, being an officiant at weddings). The cake guy seems to see himself as some kind of artist who can't bake for this wedding in good conscience, and there are surely tons of other bakers available for this relatively unimportant part of the wedding. Thinking that the cake guy should be legally required to bake a cake seems like a punitive viewpoint that accords no respect at all to stupid religious opinions, and objecting to the decision because it will erroneously be used as ammunition for fundamentalist legislative pushes is just slippery-slope thinking. And all of this pragmatism about free speech is especially strange in light of the fact some of the pragmatists (thinking of PD here) are pretty much absolutists when it comes to free speech for literally neo-Nazis.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #30
Not sure I understand the outrage at this decision. It is pretty obvious that there are some occupational activities for which laws that prohibit discrimination agagainst gay people infringe on religious liberty (e.g., way at the margins, being an officiant at weddings). The cake guy seems to see himself as some kind of artist who can't bake for this wedding in good conscience, and there are surely tons of other bakers available for this relatively unimportant part of the wedding. Thinking that the cake guy should be legally required to bake a cake seems like a punitive viewpoint that accords no respect at all to stupid religious opinions, and objecting to the decision because it will erroneously be used as ammunition for fundamentalist legislative pushes is just slippery-slope thinking. And all of this pragmatism about free speech is especially strange in light of the fact some of the pragmatists (thinking of PD here) are pretty much absolutists when it comes to free speech for literally neo-Nazis.
:goonsay:

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #31
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.

  • MikeB
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #32
e.g.

https://thinkprogress.org/south-dakota-lawmaker-supports-racial-discrimination-23fee8061132/
Hahaha, look what ThinkProgress called Clark:

"making him a likely shoe-in for reelection in the fall."

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #33
Well, neo-nazis are special cases. Intolerant of intolerance and all that.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #34
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #35
Well, neo-nazis are special cases. Intolerant of intolerance and all that.
That cuts the other way, though. Something is wrong if you think neo-Nazi propaganda is just fine but this court decision is a victory for bigotry or whatever.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #36
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.


came here to make this exact post

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #37
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #38
The court didn't even reach the question of free speech or religion here, anyway, fwiw

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #39
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #40
The court didn't even reach the question of free speech or religion here, anyway, fwiw
Yeah, but the more interesting dispute is the one we'd be having if they had.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #41
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.

Can't that uppity black couple just go to the hotel down the street?

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #42
Well, neo-nazis are special cases. Intolerant of intolerance and all that.
That cuts the other way, though. Something is wrong if you think neo-Nazi propaganda is just fine but this court decision is a victory for bigotry or whatever.
I don't think nazi propaganda is fine with anyone after Charlottesville/trump.

Eta: except nazis.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #43
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.
What about the pharmacist who won't fill a birth control prescription?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #44
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.

Can't that uppity black couple just go to the hotel down the street?

Yeah. This.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #45
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.

Can't that uppity black couple just go to the hotel down the street?

Due to the nature of hotels and traveling, very often they cannot (and it is much less reasonable to expect someone to do that after a long day, at any rate). And also hotels are a vastly more important service to one's life than wedding cakes. And also racial discrimination has poweful dimensions in American politics that discrimination against gay people does not. And also there are real differences in the seriousness of the competing rights in the two situations afaics.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #46
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.
What about the pharmacist who won't fill a birth control prescription?
Exactly the example I had in mind when I mentioned something more important or urgent.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #47
Go with the pharmacist then.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • uncool
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #48
There is something that at least feels a bit contradictory to me: the argument that there are other places to go (and so no harm done) relies on the fungibility of the item in question, but that seems like it should deny the artistic value of the object.

This isn't a fully fleshed out argument, because it isn't exactly true as is. Still trying to see if it's at all meaningful.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #49
Colorado law doesn't allow bigot assholes to deny public accommodations based on, among other things, race, religion or sexuality.

Why should there be a "will you can go to someone else" exemption? How do you define that? Where is the cut off? Why does the baker in Denver get to deny whomever he wants but the baker in ruralfuck doesn't?

Why isn't it both simpler and more just to have a public accommodations law without these exemptions and to tell bigots to go pound sand?