Message 1021 of 1024 (824977)
12-05-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1020 by NoNukes
12-05-2017 10:53 AM
Re: Even Stupid Cases Make it to the Supreme Court
It is discrimination, pure and simple, and Mr. Phillips, in a just world, would lose the case. My guess is that he will lose a very close vote. However, it is a vote that could and like would go another way if Kennedy or one of the very old Justices (like Ginsburg) retires during a Trump presidency.
Indeed, because this question has been before the Supreme Court twice and both times was slapped down: There is no religious exemption to anti-discrimination statutes.
There was a BBQ place, Piggie Park, that claimed a religious exemption to the Civil Rights Act. They didn't want to serve black people. The Court dismissed the case as "patently frivolous” in an 8-0 ruling:
|Indeed, this is not even a borderline case, for the respondents interposed defenses so patently frivolous that a denial of counsel fees to the petitioners would be manifestly inequitable. Thus, for example, the “fact that the defendants had discriminated both at [the] drive-ins and at [the sandwich shop] was . . . denied . . . [although] the defendants could not and did not undertake at the trial to support their denials. Includable in the same category are defendants’ contention, twice pleaded after the decision in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, . . . that the Act was unconstitutional on the very grounds foreclosed by McClung, and defendants’ contention that the Act was invalid because it ‘contravenes the will of God’ and constitutes an interference with the ‘free exercise of the Defendant’s religion.'”|
And indeed, Bob Jones University tried to claim a religious exemption to civil rights legislation by denying interracial couples which the Supreme Court slapped down 8-1.
That this is even close shows just how corrupt Republicans have become.
One possible outcome depends upon just how prickly Kennedy decides to be. He (and a few others) were very upset that a member of the Colorado civil rights commission made the following comment:
|And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others|
The baker's case included a claim that this somehow indicated that there was anti-Christian bias on the part of the commission...and Kennedy was kinda buying it.
But this is precisely the right position: The Supreme Court has already resoundly denounced the idea that religious beliefs can trump the civil rights of others as has been pointed out. So from a strictly constitutional-law basis, it is "despicable" that someone would try to come before the courts to claim that they have the right to a religious exemption to anti-discrimination regulations...a demonstrable harm to others.
But, Kennedy is all about "dignity" and he's getting the vapors that somebody might actually be offended at being called out for violations of the law.
And thus, what this means is that he might send it back to the lower courts to be re-adjudicated.
And thus, we'll have yet another five years of limbo instead of them just doing the right thing right now and stop delaying justice. Of course, from the Supreme Court's point of view, this is a good thing because if the opinion of the country regarding gay people being seen as actual persons deserving of equal treatment under the law and full protections of the Fourteenth Amendment becomes stronger, then their decision to actually do that won't be so "controversial."
And even worse, he might pull a Hobby Lobby and rule against gay people and attempt to bullshit his way out of the clear implications by saying that this ruling "doesn't apply to race"...despite the fact that the very regulation the baker is fighting specifically equates race and sexual orientation (and sex and....) Because that is the point: Can we regulate behaviour in order to prevent discrimination? The Court has regularly said yes. So if we carve out a religious exemption with regard to sexual orientation, why not any of the other categories? What is the difference? If you can allow discrimination against gay people based upon a religious veto, why not discrimination against blacks? Or Jews? Or Christians?
Because the Court can simply say, "Because." That the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people.
One of the most ridiculous things that happened was the exchanges regarding other types of businesses...what about makeup artists? The baker's argument was that they weren't artists. "But it has 'artist' right in the name."
The correct decision is, indeed, clear: 9-0, there is no religious exemption to anti-discrimination statutes.
If we are lucky, it will be 5-4.
And justice will die just a little bit because of that.
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 1020 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2017 10:53 AM|| ||NoNukes has acknowledged this reply|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 1024 by dwise1, posted 12-06-2017 1:56 AM|| ||Rrhain has not yet responded|