Before the Supreme Court


Also:

12 Comments for “Before the Supreme Court”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I guess we can spend the next 6 months speculating about the outcome. Everybody and his dog will have an opinion, but speculation is most likely useless. Expect a decision in June.

    If you are interested in reading a transcript of the oral arguments, rather than reading spin from one side or the other about the arguments, the transcript has been posted.

    Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I should add that ScotusBlog usually attracts reasonably intelligent analysis, and it might be worth a look at the Masterpiece Cake section of the blog in a couple of days after the commentary has been posted.

    Reply
  3. posted by Kosh III on

    http://www.newsweek.com/same-sex-wedding-cake-case-scotus-testimony-trump-lawyer-735692

    President Donald Trump’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court Tuesday that businesses should be able to hang a sign in their window that announces they won’t serve LGBT customers.

    Tell me again how Trump is the bestest there ever was for sure by golly for equal rights for gay citizens?

    Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    President Donald Trump’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court Tuesday that businesses should be able to hang a sign in their window that announces they won’t serve LGBT customers.

    This is the exchange, from pages 28-29 of the oral argument transcript:

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: If you prevail, could the baker put a sign in his window, we do not bake cakes for gay weddings?

    GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your Honor, I think that he could say he does not make
    custom-made wedding cakes for gay weddings, but most cakes –

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: And you would not –

    GENERAL FRANCISCO: — would not cross that threshold.

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: — think that an affront to the gay community?

    GENERAL FRANCISCO: Well, Your Honor, I — I agree that there are dignity interests at stake here, and I would not minimize the dignity interests to Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins one bit, but there are dignity interests on the other side here too.

    If the Court carves out an exemption to public accommodations laws allowing business owners to refuse to provide goods and services for same-sex weddings, I would prefer that the business owners post signs, so that people of good will would have sufficient notice of the business owner’s practices to avoid doing business with that owner. In fact, I would make it a requirement.

    In many areas of the country, posting a such a sign would significantly reduce the number of people willing to do business with the owner. In other areas, of course, conservative Christians would rally around and raise millions to keep the owner in business, because Jesus.

    Whatever the net effect of market forces, I don’t want to do business with creeps, and without the sign, how would I know?

    Reply
    • posted by Doug on

      I suspect most businesses would not want to hang a sign in the window saying they will not serve LGBT folks. They don’t want to advertise they are bigots. They prefer stealth bigotry. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

      Reply
      • posted by Fritz Keppler on

        Tenability and edibility are in general not simultaneous functions of proverbial confections.

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I suspect most businesses would not want to hang a sign in the window saying they will not serve LGBT folks. They don’t want to advertise they are bigots. They prefer stealth bigotry. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

      That’s certainly true.

      We know it is true because after Mississippi law was changed to permit open business discrimination against gays and lesbians, a campaign developed to distribute “We Don’t Discriminate” stickers for businesses willing to serve gays and lesbians to put in their windows.

      All hell broke loose among conservative Christians, who complained that the “We Don’t Discriminate” campaign was anti-Christian and an attempt to put Christians out of business.

      The “family values” crowd is determined to do their dirty work in the dark.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Evidently “conservative Christians” don’t like dog whistles.

        A shame.

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      For anyone interested, here’s a sample of the conservative Christian reaction to the “We Don’t Discriminate” campaign:

      Buddy Smith, executive vice president of Tupelo-based American Family Association, offers his take on the sticker campaign.

      “It’s not really a buying campaign, but it’s a bully campaign,” he says, “and it’s being carried out by radical homosexual activists who intend to trample the freedom of Christians to live according to the dictates of scripture.

      “They don’t want to hear that homosexuality is sinful behavior – and they wish to silence Christians and the church who dare to believe this truth.”

      Smith offers a word of caution for those who do business with facilities posting the decal supporting homosexual activism. “If you do that, you are agreeing with these businesses that Christians no longer have the freedom to live out the dictates of their Christian faith and conscience,” he tells OneNewsNow.

      Jerks.

      Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Whatever the net effect of market forces, I don’t want to do business with creeps, and without the sign, how would I know?

      Reminds me of W. W. Bridal Boutique in Pennsylvania. Twice now they’ve had lesbians show up looking for a dress, and refused them. Years apart.

      Goodness knows if they’d posted a sign after the first time, the second time wouldn’t have happened. But they didn’t, the first time went down the memory hole eventually, and so a couple of years later it happened again.

      And I’ll wager that if they don’t put up a sign (both in their physical location and online) then they’ll have it happen again in another couple of years.

      Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        And I’ll wager that if they don’t put up a sign (both in their physical location and online) then they’ll have it happen again in another couple of years.

        Of course it will. And the owners of W.W. Bridal will get that Jesus thrill all over again when it does.

        I can understand why conservative Christian business owners would not want to post a notice (fair-minded potential customers might well take their business elsewhere, cutting profits).

        What I don’t understand is why market conservatives who advocate “The market will handle it …” think that the market can or will operate efficiently without information. It doesn’t make much sense.

        I lived in rural Wisconsin most of the time since I retired in 2005. In rural communities, everyone pretty much knows who is who, and it wasn’t at all difficult to withhold my trade from conservative Christians.

        But in a city or online? Without information from the business owner, I’m flying blind. So much for market forces.

        Reply
        • posted by JohnInCA on

          It’s pretty simple: those “market conservatives” don’t *want* the market to promote “liberal” causes.

          Reply

Leave a Comment