SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Greatguardian]

You're not wrong. It's actually the point of the ruling. The Court decided, essentially, that the freedom of religion (and free speech) trumps the rights given to the protected class, in this case LGBT.

Did you miss the part several pages ago where multiple people pointed out that SCOTUS didn't make any ruling on the original case at all? All they decided was that the lower court ruling had procedural issues. The commission was supposed to be unbiased, but court transcripts showed some rather open hostility to religion in the proceedings.

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it? In which case, don't let me stop you.

[arus2001]

I'd be more keen on the artist defense if we had some more detail about what the gay couple wanted. Like, if they wanted him to depict two rainbow dicks crossing swords, I'd side with the baker turning them down. Yet, if the disagreement was more about some greeting card tier text, I'd say the baker is just being a whiny shitlord using religion as his shield for homophobia.

Being on the artistic side of the spectrum, myself, I've turned down requests before. Sometimes it's because I don't believe I'd do the material justice (I'm more of a character artist than environmental). Others because I was literally not a fan of the requested (furries doing furry things, as an example). Now and then I just feel like I've done too much of something and would like another take. If I had a general rule, it'd probably be you'd never see me draw sexual acts or the implied aftermath of such. It's a mix of personal taste, public perception, and generally what would be accepted within media at large. I'm not gay, I'd rather not be "the person that draws dudes kissing", but I can also accept that such happens in TVs/movies frequently enough nowadays and that it certainly isn't the end of civilization. So, it'd probably get done with them understanding it probably wouldn't be my best work, nor would I intentionally try to put out a shit work. Interest in one's own art is pretty crucial to that output. And given the baker unlikely works alone, he could've easily done everything else and let the helper do the designer frosting.

But maybe that's just me.

[Prim]

I'd be more keen on the artist defense if we had some more detail about what the gay couple wanted.

That info doesn’t exist because the conversation never got that far (specifically about wedding cakes, not about other non-wedding cake products). “Hi we’re gay and want a wedding cake.” “No.” End. Fin.
It’s entirely possible that both “sides” of what was said is true- if someone asks for a wedding cake, a baker only makes custom wedding cakes, and that baker refuses to make any [custom] wedding cake, then it’s true that they were denied both a custom wedding cake and “any” wedding cake.

Actualy, that sounds exactly like how a court would rule on a minefield like this.

[Tymon]

Did you miss the part several pages ago where multiple people pointed out that SCOTUS didn't make any ruling on the original case at all? All they decided was that the lower court ruling had procedural issues. The commission was supposed to be unbiased, but court transcripts showed some rather open hostility to religion in the proceedings.

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it? In which case, don't let me stop you.

Well, I was really bored at work, so kind of, yeah.

[6souls]

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/0...isan-districts

The Supreme Court is resolving partisan redistricting cases from Wisconsin and Maryland without ruling on the broader issue of whether electoral maps can give an unfair advantage to a political party.

The justices ruled against Wisconsin Democrats who challenged legislative districts that gave Republicans a huge edge in the state legislature. They also did not side with Maryland Republicans who objected to a single congressional district.

The court sidestepped a definitive ruling in both cases.

[Salodin]

God damn every substantial case lately has been "eh were not gonna answer the larger question at hand". Might as well go back down to 8 judges for as useful as these bunch are...

[archibaldcrane]

God damn every substantial case lately has been "eh were not gonna answer the larger question at hand". Might as well go back down to 8 judges for as useful as these bunch are...

It's getting pretty ridiculous.

[zoobernut]

Hasn't that been the M.O. for the supreme court for a very long time? They frequently defer a larger judgement if they can see an out?

[Zealot]

For a very long time. Basically since Taft died.

Now that I'm thinking about it, their very first decision of consequence, Marbury v. Madison, didn't actually address the main issue.

[zoobernut]

For a very long time. Basically since Taft died.

That is what I thought so why are people surprised when it is happening now? All the major decisions that have happened in the SCOTUS happen when their hand is forced and the issue keeps coming to them over and over again like the same sex marriage debate.

[Zealot]

It's not necessarily a bad thing. They define themselves as a Court of Last Resort; a decision from them is binding on every other court in the nation. They only want to make a decision when it's been shown that 1) the other districts are not going to agree, 2) their disagreement causes substantial confusion about the status of a law, and 3) Congress won't act on it.

[zoobernut]

It's not necessarily a bad thing. They define themselves as a Court of Last Resort; a decision from them is binding on every other court in the nation. They only want to make a decision when it's been shown that 1) the other districts are not going to agree, 2) their disagreement causes substantial confusion about the status of a law, and 3) Congress won't act on it.

Yeah I am not saying it is a bad thing I am just responding to others posts showing surprise that it is happening.

[Gredival]

SCOTUS actually cares about judicial restraint. The two sides only care about restraint when SCOTUS rules against the side they want to win.

[archibaldcrane]

But they signaled pretty strongly a full decade ago that they'd be open to deciding on a standard for partisan gerrymandering that was "too much" and now they kick the can again when presented a chance.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[6souls]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/20/62183...-including-fra

W-VA Supreme Court judge Allen Loughry has been suspended without pay after being charged by the FBI with 22 counts of defrauding the government. Ironic considering he wrote a book in 2006 about political corruption within the state.

[DrClout]

First hand experience baby

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Supreme Court allows states to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax on internet purchases.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-494_j4el.pdf

Fuck.

[Zealot]

I'm ok with this.

[Salodin]

I understand why they want it like this, but generally speaking I either pay less locally with my 6% taxes, or occasionally online when they don't collect. I really don't want to have to pay the taxes of other, more expensive states. But c'est la vie

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[TsingTao]

You won't pay taxes of other, more expensive states. You will have to pay your state taxes on internet purchases though, whether or not the online retailer has a physical presence in your state. They're closing out the 'We don't have a presence in your state so we don't collect your state taxes' exception.

I don't really like it either.