We have a lawyer on staff

Post #434,523 by malraux 6/15/20 1:05:11 PM 6/15/20 1:05:11 PM Reply	We have a lawyer on staff He has a keen interest in constitutional law and he said you'd be surprised how often a judge will vote against their supposed bias depending on the fine point of law that is being argued. Case in point being the Denver cake maker: according to the media it was just the baker discriminating against Teh Gayz. According to the decision, however, the crux was that the baker offered the couple the same cake, same as any other customer, just without the writing. It became a first amendment suit at that point, not a discrimination suit. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #434,524 by drook 6/15/20 2:13:24 PM 6/15/20 2:13:24 PM Reply	More hours than I care to remember reading / watching discussion about this story And this is the first time I heard they were willing to do the cake but not the writing. I used to think this was a slam-dunk case. Now, not so much. This feels like the inverse of the McDonalds coffee case. That one looked like a frivolous suit, but the facts showed the franchise was clearly in the wrong. The cake one looked like obvious discrimination, but now I'm not so sure. -- Drew
Post #434,525 by Another Scott 6/15/20 2:41:34 PM 6/15/20 2:41:34 PM Reply	Wikipedia makes the case seem clear. Of course, lawyers can argue about anything, but it seems to me that the cake shop was breaking the law. And Wikipedia articles are written by humans, so... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Facts_of_the_case Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]:1–2 FWIW. IANAL. Cheers, Scott.
Post #434,528 by drook 6/15/20 3:41:37 PM 6/15/20 3:41:37 PM Reply	Sounds like Scott's staff lawyer mis-read something The court distinguished its decision in Craig from another case, brought to the Commission by William Jack, in which three bakeries refused to create a cake for William Jack with the message "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22",[2]:21[original research?] citing that in the latter, the bakeries had made other cakes for Christian customers and declined that order based on the offensive message rather than the customers' creed, whereas Masterpiece Cakeshop's refusal to provide Craig and Mullins with a wedding cake "was because of its opposition to same sex marriage which...is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." They specifically noted in their decision that this one lost because there was no text. -- Drew
Post #434,533 by malraux 6/15/20 5:44:54 PM 6/15/20 5:44:54 PM Reply	He read the ruling itself. Which presumably has the legal details that aren't in the Wiki article. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!