4 ms·

Makes sense. Imagine if a Muslim baker was forced to make a cake with the text "Allah is a False God." Good choice by the Supreme Court!

michaelmrose 3y ago
There wasn't an actual case of injury brought before the court they ignored centuries of precedent to allow someone to bring a fake case about a hypothetical injury that they might have sustained in the future. Under this theory I ought to be able to sue a woman I'm dating in case we in the future we have sex and she may in the future choose to abort my imaginary baby.
- antiquark 3y ago
  So you think a Muslim baker could be forced to make a cake with the text "Allah is a False God"?
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    Your answer is contrived there is no reason other than deliberately fucking with the baker to ask him to bake that and furthermore any bakery could trivially forbid offensive orders without relying particularly on his religious freedoms. Meanwhile Jake loves John for instance has a meritorious purpose and is non-offensive. Can you think of a less contrived test?
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      A meritorious and non-offensive purpose, in your non-religious opinion, at the complete disregard of the deeply-held beliefs from the other party. Though I suppose I should rejoice that the law protects Muslims from bigots like you who state elsewhere that their views and people like them are the equivalent of a mental disorder. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36546184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36546184
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        It is meritorious insofar as it is designed to bring joy to another individual and celibate their relationship as opposed to provoking the baker by hiring him to produce a work designed solely to offend him.
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        Right. As though the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, as traditionally understood for over 1,900 years by Christian scholars (the "inhospitable" argument is an extremely modern take), is not one of the four sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. As if asking a Christian or Muslim (because some Muslims actually do believe the same story and incorporate it into their law) to make a message supporting gay marriage, who takes that literally, isn't meant to be offensive.
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        We should not treat as equal things which are fantasy and things which are real. Harry Potter isn't real and neither is the story of God nuking a cities because they were perverts. There is no Sin of Sodom. In reality there are folks who are exclusively sexually attracted to people of the same sex and their choice is to live without love or join with people of the same variety. Trying to make life harder for those folks who are doing nothing wrong to anyone by loving people is unjustifiable moral evil that isn't made less so by explaining the fantasies that justify such. It's exactly as if you explained to me that how all bald guys were really death eaters and you had to keep them down so that Voldemort doesn't come back.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - Natsu 3y ago
      I mean, pretty much all of these cases aren't about getting websites or cakes, they're being done by activists looking for standing to sue. This was lampshaded in Masterpiece case that noticed that they went past a whole bunch of cake shops to get to that particular one that would refuse.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago
      [dead]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- f33d5173 3y ago
  What a strange thing to get hung up over. If you were opposed to abortion, you might like to know ahead of time whether the person you're dating might end up aborting your child. Being able to know whether you are breaking the law prior to breaking it is a good thing, and we should be able to bring such cases in more situations.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    Restricting ourselves to actual injuries makes it more challenging to use a stream of hypothetical cases to effectively rewrite the law based on imaginary injuries and forces us to deal with reality as we find it which is why we have centuries of jurisprudence with that standard being applied and no reason to abandon the standard other than to help the judges serve in their new role as super legislators the populace isn't entitled to vote out.
- Fellshard 3y ago
  Colorado has shown its willingness and eagerness to prosecute purported violations of this kind before, several (two?) of which have ended up before the Supreme Court previously. Their expectation that they would run afoul of Colorado is perfectly legitimate.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwawa14223 3y ago
I can't see another ruling that doesn't lead to compelled speech.
CalChris 3y ago
The case wasn't about the editorial content of the cake but rather the sexuality of the imagined customer.
- Natsu 3y ago
  That's quite different from what the PDF says: > Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regard- less of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gen- der” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contra- dicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expres- sive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the over- all message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with in- dividual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original art- work;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.” The only opposition here is to selling a website with a message she opposes, i.e. she'd be happy to sell a website celebrating a straight marriage to a gay person, but not happy to sell a website celebrating a gay marriage to anyone. Now you can say that she's lying, but nothing in this ruling prevents them from suing her if it was really about the customer and not the message.

michaelmrose 3y ago

There wasn't an actual case of injury brought before the court they ignored centuries of precedent to allow someone to bring a fake case about a hypothetical injury that they might have sustained in the future. Under this theory I ought to be able to sue a woman I'm dating in case we in the future we have sex and she may in the future choose to abort my imaginary baby.

antiquark 3y ago
So you think a Muslim baker could be forced to make a cake with the text "Allah is a False God"?
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Your answer is contrived there is no reason other than deliberately fucking with the baker to ask him to bake that and furthermore any bakery could trivially forbid offensive orders without relying particularly on his religious freedoms. Meanwhile Jake loves John for instance has a meritorious purpose and is non-offensive. Can you think of a less contrived test?
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    A meritorious and non-offensive purpose, in your non-religious opinion, at the complete disregard of the deeply-held beliefs from the other party. Though I suppose I should rejoice that the law protects Muslims from bigots like you who state elsewhere that their views and people like them are the equivalent of a mental disorder. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36546184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36546184
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      It is meritorious insofar as it is designed to bring joy to another individual and celibate their relationship as opposed to provoking the baker by hiring him to produce a work designed solely to offend him.
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        Right. As though the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, as traditionally understood for over 1,900 years by Christian scholars (the "inhospitable" argument is an extremely modern take), is not one of the four sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. As if asking a Christian or Muslim (because some Muslims actually do believe the same story and incorporate it into their law) to make a message supporting gay marriage, who takes that literally, isn't meant to be offensive.
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        We should not treat as equal things which are fantasy and things which are real. Harry Potter isn't real and neither is the story of God nuking a cities because they were perverts. There is no Sin of Sodom. In reality there are folks who are exclusively sexually attracted to people of the same sex and their choice is to live without love or join with people of the same variety. Trying to make life harder for those folks who are doing nothing wrong to anyone by loving people is unjustifiable moral evil that isn't made less so by explaining the fantasies that justify such. It's exactly as if you explained to me that how all bald guys were really death eaters and you had to keep them down so that Voldemort doesn't come back.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - Natsu 3y ago
    I mean, pretty much all of these cases aren't about getting websites or cakes, they're being done by activists looking for standing to sue. This was lampshaded in Masterpiece case that noticed that they went past a whole bunch of cake shops to get to that particular one that would refuse.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago
    [dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
f33d5173 3y ago
What a strange thing to get hung up over. If you were opposed to abortion, you might like to know ahead of time whether the person you're dating might end up aborting your child. Being able to know whether you are breaking the law prior to breaking it is a good thing, and we should be able to bring such cases in more situations.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Restricting ourselves to actual injuries makes it more challenging to use a stream of hypothetical cases to effectively rewrite the law based on imaginary injuries and forces us to deal with reality as we find it which is why we have centuries of jurisprudence with that standard being applied and no reason to abandon the standard other than to help the judges serve in their new role as super legislators the populace isn't entitled to vote out.
Fellshard 3y ago
Colorado has shown its willingness and eagerness to prosecute purported violations of this kind before, several (two?) of which have ended up before the Supreme Court previously. Their expectation that they would run afoul of Colorado is perfectly legitimate.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwawa14223 3y ago

I can't see another ruling that doesn't lead to compelled speech.

CalChris 3y ago

The case wasn't about the editorial content of the cake but rather the sexuality of the imagined customer.

Natsu 3y ago
That's quite different from what the PDF says: > Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regard- less of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gen- der” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contra- dicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expres- sive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the over- all message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with in- dividual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original art- work;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.” The only opposition here is to selling a website with a message she opposes, i.e. she'd be happy to sell a website celebrating a straight marriage to a gay person, but not happy to sell a website celebrating a gay marriage to anyone. Now you can say that she's lying, but nothing in this ruling prevents them from suing her if it was really about the customer and not the message.