T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's a cake. It's not artwork. It's a product. All products have unique "expression" by that standard, from cars to furniture to computer to houses.

I would say a wedding cake like this is decoration, change the coloring and it could fit almost any wedding:

 

On the other hand, a wedding cake like this, this one is making a statement and is, imo, a work of art even if not one appealing to me.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Republicans love this kind of stuff. They know they'll lose in a fair election, so they try to tip the scales with voter ID laws designed to keep black people from voting and gerrymandering. Without this kind of stuff they wouldn't have their majorities in congress.

I personally oppose voter ID laws unless they simultaneously make an effort to help affected people get IDs. I don't mind the idea, but I also think it clear some local GOP are going after short term gains at long term costs. That's been going on for a while and the last few years the long term costs are coming due.

That said though, I think the effect is exaggerated. There's only a few states that really have problematic gerrymandering in terms of affecting outcomes. Texas and North Carolina being among the worst. So it's an issue, but the effect is exaggerated with people usually comparing it to idealized districts that would favor the other party. Don't get me wrong. I think all districts should be decided in a bipartisan fashion. But the hue and cry over it is a bit silly. While it's a bit dated now the paper "Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?" is the frequently cited scholarly study on the topic. This isn't a right wing recognition either. Vox did a story not long ago making the similar point that gerrymandering's effect is exaggerated and appealed to as a scapegoat.

I think the Voter ID issue is bigger than gerrymandering, but it's also an issue where even a modicum of preparation would let people vote. So I think it's effect is exaggerated. More or less it's the classic issue of how easy we should make voting. While I'm personally on the "make it easy" side I'd simply note that it's not hard to check to ensure you can vote before an election. Rain for instance famously decreases voter turnout. It seems fair to say people who don't vote because of rain don't care that much. 

A good overview of the facts on Voter ID effects was done by the Washington Post in the spring. A big problem with most figures quoted by the left is that it's rather weak on causation. There's an effect of course. But to what degree it's an illegitimate effect seems debatable at best. Again I oppose such laws unless they make it easy to obtain the relevant ID. But I think the logic thrown around is questionable at best.

 

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are no "liberals" or "conservatives," although those are emotional states or moods which some poorly educated people use to define themselves.  They are designations without actual content.

You can stick your head in the sand, if you wish, as do many Americans who just don't want to know the facts, and who live in fantasyland, but voter suppression is specific policy in the Republican administration of most states.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/supreme-court-and-voter-suppression .

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/magazine/the-supreme-court-ruled-that-voting-restrictions-were-a-bygone-problem-early-voting-results-suggest-otherwise.html?mcubz=1 .

https://www.thenation.com/article/there-are-868-fewer-places-to-vote-in-2016-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/ .

You certainly have opinions, Darren.  The problem is that they are completely non-factual.  You need to take a two semester course in Constitutional Law at your local university.  No lawyer or judge in America believes what I have bolded above from your comments.  You are deeply misinformed.

Yes, and there are a number of such cases:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html?mcubz=1 .  Politics in America is hardball, and no punches are being pulled.  You apparently believe that states dominated by Republicans (most states now) got that way via regular democracy, but that is not true:  What really happened was an evil and cynical effort to gerrymander state districts so that Republicans are favored.  In this way, one-man-one-vote is prevented, and power goes to the privileged. Much of that was made possible through a Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, by the Roberts Court -- meaning that large donors can make unlimited contributions to special PACs and can remain anonymous.  This has guaranteed that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.  Is that what you want?  Are you even aware of such facts?  Probably not, since you have never studied constitutional law or political science professionally.

Well, politics is a mental poison to many. You out out conspiracy theories galour. 

So, no Supreme Court case you can cite beyond one which they rejected? But corruotion is rampant. Must be the default "law if the land".

There are plenty if judges who believe our rights come from God. Legally these are called civil or natural rights. The Declaration of Independence cites this as fact but legally you have leave out this rhetoric lest you create a Theocracy which is inherently decadent. But this nation was undoubtedly founded on the belief that rivhts cone from God and humans, created in God's image, naturally gave these rights. The Founders wisely left this language out of the Constitution for reasons I already stated. 

You cite the privilege ad an evil yet you consistently portray yourself as one. You do so by talking down to other's intellect. You do this now with me and you do it consistantly with those who disagree with you. 

Citizens United simply declares money donations as free speech. McCain Feingold created mountains of rules against donating to PACs. And do you remember the 2008 election? How the Obama PACs greatly outnumbered McCain's public money? Anti money in mere talk with Liberals. 

So, I think we've run  our course on this. You cannit cite any case the Supreme Court heard which showed minority oppression, I'm intellectually ignorant and you're dellusional. 

Good talk. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

They were a bakery and still are a bakery.  They did not specialize is catering weddings nor were they in the "wedding business" (they were a part of that industry, of course....but that wasn't what their business was).  They baked wedding cakes as just one of the many baked goods they offered.  The only change is that they have now opted to not bake that one item anymore, but are still open for business.

They also had other options, but chose this one as the best solution for them.  

They catered to weddings as part of their business. They Don't now. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Some did. The "haves". The "have nots" not so much. Much like the pre Civil War south were the separation was set by law.

Right. A fredom  neither calm nor myself would recognize. And, yes, it was in ways similar to the Democrat South. Pre civil war, as I recall, I don't know since I never studied history professionally, would be chronologically  before calm and I were born. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Does "deterred" mean did not bother getting an ID? 

Careful of these kinds of claims. Tis why I originally asked fir a *court case*, not a survey. 

http://www.snopes.com/300000-wisconsin-voters-turned-away-due-to-voter-id-laws/

And here's an aweful lot of Him Crowing here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/us/elections/state-legislature-change-in-control.html

Democrats are sure lucky that at a national level Republicans govern so incompetently. 

"The $55,000 survey was paid for with property tax money by Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democratic opponent of the law." 

Yeah, that's unbiased. About as unbiased as the dellusional realities people have about Republicans cannot win in a fair election, and they are sexist, racist, and homophobic. 

 

"I was shocked by the numbers and am furious to see that Jim Crow laws are alive and well," Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said in a news release." 

Yeah, totally objectionable language there. 

Um, sure you want to use Brazil as an example of a political beacon? Good grief.

Do you have any evidence to support your position other than an appeal to your own incredulity?

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say a wedding cake like this is decoration, change the coloring and it could fit almost any wedding:

 

On the other hand, a wedding cake like this, this one is making a statement and is, imo, a work of art even if not one appealing to me.

If there were images, they didn't come through, FYI

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

They catered to weddings as part of their business. They Don't now. 

I'm not sure why you continue to use the word "catered".  They were not in the business of catering weddings.  They were a bakery at the time and they still are a bakery.  The only thing that has changed is that they no longer bake wedding cakes as one of the many baked goods they make & sell. 

And, once again that is a choice that they made.  They had the option to continue baking and selling wedding cakes as long as they sold them to ALL of their customers.  The court never ordered them to stop baking wedding cakes.  

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you have any evidence to support your position other than an appeal to your own incredulity?

Regarding what? 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is rather nonsensical to broadly claim that what we make is speech. Even the cake shop owner admits this - when he suggests that he is perfectly willing to sell a pre-made wedding cake to the gay couple (and this isn't a forced expression of speech) - although should the court side with him, he could refuse to even sell those, I would expect. So it isn't that there is this broad naturally occurring phenomenon here, it is clearly a more narrow sort of thing that is the basis for the argument.

Songs and films are inherently speech to begin with, aren't they. And those who make them engage in an act of communication with their audiences - and just as importantly, those audiences understand these things as an act of communication. On the other hand, this isn't obvious at all with a wedding cake. The people who purchase them do not actually purchase the wedding cake as a speech from the baker to them (as the celebrants of their wedding). The cake becomes a prop for the couple in their own expression, but isn't used as some independent expression of its own. And as evidence of this, couldn't we order a wedding cake (special order it even), and use it in some other context than a real wedding? And if we did this, then the speech that the baker is claiming exists becomes completely incoherent (assuming that it exists at all). There are real problems with asserting this idea that a product of any sort that could be construed as giving approval to something is speech (let alone some kind of protected speech).

On top of this, what do we do about all of the actual requirements that we recognize that the government can place on manufacturing things. Does the idea that the cake is now speech suddenly mean that the FDC no longer can regulate the process? That it can no longer impose rules on what sorts of ingredients can and cannot be used? Could government no longer enforce sanitation regulations on the setting in which the cake is made? All of these things could be argued to be a part of making the speech, couldn't they? And couldn't we apply the same sort of thinking to much more complex building projects? What about a home. Should we allow builders to justify discrimination in home sales over the view that the home itself is a speech, and that the sale of that home then should be understood in the context of making that speech and so protected from discrimination claims when that discrimination claim could be viewed through the lens of religious belief?

The problem that we face is that this opens a great big can of worms. Any product or service that could be viewed as being able to carry a message of approval or endorsement would suddenly be given an exemption from any sort of discrimination protection. And we certainly shouldn't want this (although I suppose there are people who do).

And finally, to get back to the communication issue - if the cake baker has to meet the couple to make sure that what the couple wants is represented in the cake, then can the cake maker really claim that the cake's message is his own?

I think that generally speaking, we do not consider baking a cake to be speech (although what the cake is used for might be).

Personally, I also think the title of the thread is regrettable. It's a lot like saying, "I can't be a racist, see, I have a black friend ...."

Excellent post. Truly exceptional. 

[Darren10]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure why you continue to use the word "catered".  They were not in the business of catering weddings.  They were a bakery at the time and they still are a bakery.  The only thing that has changed is that they no longer bake wedding cakes as one of the many baked goods they make & sell. 

And, once again that is a choice that they made.  They had the option to continue baking and selling wedding cakes as long as they sold them to ALL of their customers.  The court never ordered them to stop baking wedding cakes.  

"Catered to" can mean to gratify or minister to. They did do that for weddings. 

The court never ordered them to stop baking but made their business for weddings near impossible to do. The court did so because they objected to baking a cake for a gay wedding. An objection based in their Christian conscience. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

If there were images, they didn't come through, FYI

They did for me.

Refresh or update your browser. Or try a different browser.

 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"Catered to" can mean to gratify or minister to. They did do that for weddings. 

There are definitely wedding caterers, but that is not the business they were in.  They were and still are a bakery.  That has not changed.

I guess if you want to use the word "cater" for baking a wedding cake and selling it, then they also cater to birthday parties, office parties or just hungry customers who walk through their door.  But the word "cater" usually refers to a more specialized service when used in conjunction with weddings.

15 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The court never ordered them to stop baking but made their business for weddings near impossible to do. 

Not true.  They very definitely could have easily continued baking wedding cakes.  They simply needed to bake them for all of their customers.

They have made the choice not to do that and I assume they believe that was the right choice for them.  

Edited September 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

Who has made such a claim?

The guy who wants to discriminate has - isn't this part of the basis for his appeal to the Supreme Court? (It has failed up to this point, so I don't actually expect the earlier rulings to be overturned - but mostly for other reasons).

Quote

I said that if what you produce is considered speech, then you don't have to provide that good/service to everyone; which is manifestly true (see, e.g., the link to the T-Shirt maker in the OP).

This isn't manifestly true at all. When the question of First Amendment Rights has come up against discrimination in a commercial space, the first amendment rights have always taken a back seat. Always. If you provide goods/services to the public in a commercial space, you don't get to exclude certain groups. And so the Law can in fact require you to "speak" in this context. As the baker notes, the only way for him not to break the law currently is to simply stop making custom wedding cakes. That is his way of avoiding being forced to make this sort of speech - and our laws and courts have determined that this is an acceptable outcome.

This case is attempting to avoid the history by making the free speech a part of the free exercise of religion. So we are really asking the question, in the context of practicing religion, can we have protected speech in a public, commercial context? That is the question the courts are going to be looking at. The first question will be simply whether or not making a cake amounts to speech. The second issue is whether or not that speech (assuming it is speech) is actually entangled in the free exercise clause (that is, is being forced to bake a cake in this context really preventing you from practicing your religion).

In these circumstances, it is quite different from what is being discussed in the link in the OP. There the issue is going to revolve around the question of whether or not the circumstances suggest that the issue is primarily about the message (there the question of speech is clearly in the forefront in a much more significant way) or if the issue is primarily about who is trying to buy the goods/services. If the courts decide that ambiguity in favor of the message, then it is about speech and not about discrimination. If they determine that it is more about who is trying to buy the goods/services, then we would expect the earlier decision to be overturned. Is it discrimination or not? That is more of a question in that case than it is here with the cakes.

Quote

Yeah. Commissioned pieces of art are different than mass-produced goods.

Only in certain contexts. We can talk about the meaning of some pieces of art where that question has much more meaning, than in other contexts. I think it is a very legitimate question to ask how a wedding cake could be a piece of art in the same sense as making a film.

Quote

I was merely using the songwriter and filmmaker examples to show that there are clearly situations where discrimination is allowed. Whether or not creating a wedding cake is like creating an oil painting and should be similarly treated a protected form of expression is subject to debate.

They don't work, because it isn't analogous. Songwriters and filmmakers don't usually work in a public commercial space. If they do, then descrimination wouldn't be allowed. (not working for one church, while working for another wouldn't actually meet the requirements for discrimination - not producing the work for someone because they were black would meet that requirement). Not having a diverse cast might not be an issue if the script called for it - we can recognize that there are circumstances where these kinds of things can be a legitimate issue. Not hiring a black person to work in other ways on a movie project specifically because he was black would not be allowed. If a movie production company refused to hire a scriptwriter because he was black, that would be illegal discrimination. Can you see the difference and why your examples are not particularly helpful?

Quote

The expression at issue is the expression that goes into the creation of it. When somebody goes to a tattoo artist they no doubt want to get a tattoo that will server as a prop for their own personal expression, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an expression on the artists part as well. 

No this isn't true. If you think this is the case, then I recommend that you go back and actually read through the case documentation. If this was all it was, the Supreme Court would never have even taken the case. This has been settled for quite some time by the courts (most similarly in the case over the photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex couples wedding). What makes this interesting for the courts is the religious entanglement. The baker is claiming that in making this cake, he is being forced to "say" that he approves of same-sex marriages. And he claims that being forced to say this violates his right to free exercise. So the expression (the speech) isn't simply some sort of artistic creation, rather it is the expression of approval over the wedding itself. This is why I worded my earlier comments the way that I did (my language was very deliberate).

Quote

Um, no.

As an obvious counterpoint, remember that television and radio have been considered speech for quite some time now, and the FCC still manages to regulate those industries. Do you seriously think the specialty food industry would be any different?

No, I don't expect it to be any different. This is why I expect the courts to say that the baking of a custom wedding cake isn't protected by the First Amendment at all (either the speech aspect of it, or the free exercise aspect of it). Television and Radio are not allowed to discriminate in this way either.

Quote

Again, no. And nobody has suggested otherwise. 

But this is the outcome of this decision if it decides that both the making of a cake is speech, and that it is speech that is immune to government interference.

Quote

It doesn't open a great big can of worms. It will open up a brief period of litigation where floral designers, calligraphers, and a handful of other wedding related industries will all get their day in court and try to argue that their work product ought to be considered protected expression as well. Trust me, the sky won't be falling even if the baker wins.

We are already well into that window. As I pointed out, it isn't simply a straight up question of speech versus discrimination. If it were, it wouldn't even have gotten to this point. Every first amendment case brought to defend discrimination in public commerce has been shot down.

Quote

Artists meet with the people who commission their works all the time to get feedback and make the work more to their patron's liking. That doesn't mean that they aren't still expressing themselves though.

It does bring into question whether it is actually speech though. This isn't about simple expression. This is about communicating a specific message, and whose message that is. And this is important because the claim is that the specific message interferes with a persons ability to practice their religion. That is the issue here. It isn't just a simple question of protecting speech.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Well, politics is a mental poison to many. You out out conspiracy theories galour. 

So, no Supreme Court case you can cite beyond one which they rejected? But corruotion is rampant. Must be the default "law if the land".

There are plenty if judges who believe our rights come from God. Legally these are called natural rights. The Declaration of Independence cites this as fact but legally you have leave out this rhetoric lest you create a Theocracy which is inherently decadent. But this nation was undoubtedly founded on the belief that rivhts cone from God and humans, created in God's image, naturally gave these rights. The Founders wisely left this language out of the Constitution for reasons I already stated. 

You cite the privilege ad an evil yet you consistently portray yourself as one. You do so by talking down to other's intellect. You do this now with me and you do it consistantly with those who disagree with you.

You consistently make false statements, such as suggesting that the Declaration of Independence has legal standing, or that someone's religious views have legal standing in America.  American law is not based on God, the Bible, or any other religious consideration.  The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing whatsoever.  American law is based on the Constitution only.  You desperately need to put aside your fantasies and deal with reality.  One way to obtain that is to take a two semester university course in Constitutional Law, such as here https://politicalscience.byu.edu/Syllabi/F14/Christensen_421_F14.pdf .  Would do you a world of good.

11 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Citizens United simply declares money donations as free speech. McCain Feingold created mountains of rules against donating to PACs. And do you remember the 2008 election? How the Obama PACs greatly outnumbered McCain's public money? Anti money in mere talk with Liberals. 

So, I think we've run  our course on this. You cannit cite any case the Supreme Court heard which showed minority oppression,

I cited a case on real voter suppression, and you ignored it.  For over a century, many states (especially in the South) made sure that minorities were not allowed to vote.  It didn't matter whether you were a doctor, lawyer, school teacher, etc., you simply were not allowed to register or vote.  That was the genesis of the Voting Rights Act.  The horrendous racism of the white southerners required it.  That law was upheld by the Supreme Court until recently, the Court deciding in many cases that various states were now no longer practicing voter suppression.  You appear to be completely unfamiliar with these facts.

11 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I'm intellectually ignorant and you're dellusional. .............................

Your massive use of false statements indicates where you are coming from, and it is the same for a guy who pretends to be a surgeon, but who has never been trained in surgery or medical school.  You apparently believe that falling off a turnip truck qualifies you to understand the law, and are incensed that anyone would think otherwise.   Yokels do believe that secret monetary donations are O.K.  Intelligent people believe that all donations must be recorded and publicly available.  The Citizens United decision made sure that unlimited contributions to PACs will be anonymous, because that is free speech, and that is now the supreme law of the land.

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are definitely wedding caterers, but that is not the business they were in.  They were and still are a bakery.  That has not changed.

Not true.  They very definitely could have easily continued baking wedding cakes.  They simply needed to bake them for all of their customers.

They have made the choice not to do that and I assume they believe that was the right choice for them.  

Sir, here's my quote in it's entirety. 

16 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"Catered to" can mean to gratify or minister to. They did do that for weddings. 

The court never ordered them to stop baking but made their business for weddings near impossible to do. The court did so because they objected to baking a cake for a gay wedding. An objection based in their Christian conscience. 

The court made it impossible for them to bake cakes for weddings *based on their (the cakemakers') Chriatizn conscience*. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The court made it impossible for them to bake cakes for weddings *based on their (the cakemakers') Chriatizn conscience*. 

No, not impossible.  They had a choice and they made the one they felt was best for them.  (I think they made the best choice for them as well.)

If the court had ordered them to never bake another wedding cake, that would have taken away their choice.  But that didn't take place.

Edited September 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

It's a cake. It's not artwork. It's a product. All products have unique "expression" by that standard, from cars to furniture to computer to houses.

Don’t be obtuse. By this line of reasoning there would be no such thing as art. After all, a work of art is merely something that an artist uses his labor to produce. Oh, that’s not artwork. It’s just a canvas with oil on it – nothing different about it than any other product. 

[Darren10]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You consistently make false statements, such as suggesting that the Declaration of Independence has legal standing, or that someone's religious views have legal standing in America.  American law is not based on God, the Bible, or any other religious consideration.  The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing whatsoever.  American law is based on the Constitution only.  You desperately need to put aside your fantasies and deal with reality.  One way to obtain that is to take a two semester university course in Constitutional Law, such as here https://politicalscience.byu.edu/Syllabi/F14/Christensen_421_F14.pdf .  Would do you a world of good.

I cited a case on real voter suppression, and you ignored it. For over a century, many states (especially in the South) made sure that minorities were not allowed to vote.  It didn't matter whether you were a doctor, lawyer, school teacher, etc., you simply were not allowed to register or vote.  That was the genesis of the Voting Rights Act.  The horrendous racism of the white southerners required it.  That law was upheld by the Supreme Court until recently, the Court deciding in many cases that various states were now no longer practicing voter suppression.  You appear to be completely unfamiliar with these facts.

Your massive use of false statements indicates where you are coming from, and it is the same for a guy who pretends to be a surgeon, but who has never been trained in surgery or medical school.  You apparently believe that falling off a turnip truck qualifies you to understand the law, and are incensed that anyone would think otherwise.   Yokels do believe that secret monetary donations are O.K.  Intelligent people believe that all donations must be recorded and publicly available.  The Citizens United decision made sure that unlimited contributions to PACs will be anonymous, because that is free speech, and that is now the supreme law of the land.

You are dellusional. I never said the Declaration of Independence has legal standing. In fact I specifically said it's language needed to be left out or our society's legalities. The DoI does, however, outline the founding idea if the Constitution. I typically declare the Declaration the coscience or soul of the Constitution. That the Constiturion itself is the political and legal framework which our society functions. The Founders wisely left out religious language in that document. But the Constitution was absolutely based upon the idea that our rights come from God. For legal purposes and/or discourse we call these natural rights or civil rights.

 American law is very much based on biblical law. The more and values behind our laws are distinctly, though not exclusively, from a Jude-Christizn ethos background. They are not theocratic but what we decide as a society is right or wrong/ good or bad, is heavily based on on biblical teachings. 

I can take free courses from Hilsdale College but thank you for assuring me of your elite superiority. It's comforting, especially since you fight against elitism. 

"I cited a case on real voter suppression, and you ignored it. "

The link I clicked on said the Supreme Court rejected the case. You said that voter suppression is current and by Republicans. I say that does not happen and asked for a Supreme Court case which dealt with this and the outcome of the case. 

Yes, in centuries and mere decades past, Democrats in the South did suppress votes from minorities. Democrats used Jim Crow laws to target blacks and Republicans lead the fight to overcome this injustice. That Republicans surpress minorities currently is dellusional. 

Now Supreme Court jurists are yokels. They should probably take law courses and study political science professionally. Them they can reach your own elite status. 

Here was one Supreme Court Justice yokel Thourgood Marshall  asked for assistance. This yokel  was a Democrat US Senator and Associate Supreme Court Justice. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/01/thurgood-marshall-asked-an-ex-klan-member-to-help-him-make-supreme-court-history/?utm_term=.a805958d6b80

Edited September 27, 2017 by Darren10

[Gray]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I personally oppose voter ID laws unless they simultaneously make an effort to help affected people get IDs. I don't mind the idea, but I also think it clear some local GOP are going after short term gains at long term costs. That's been going on for a while and the last few years the long term costs are coming due.

That said though, I think the effect is exaggerated. There's only a few states that really have problematic gerrymandering in terms of affecting outcomes. Texas and North Carolina being among the worst. So it's an issue, but the effect is exaggerated with people usually comparing it to idealized districts that would favor the other party. Don't get me wrong. I think all districts should be decided in a bipartisan fashion. But the hue and cry over it is a bit silly. While it's a bit dated now the paper "Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?" is the frequently cited scholarly study on the topic. This isn't a right wing recognition either. Vox did a story not long ago making the similar point that gerrymandering's effect is exaggerated and appealed to as a scapegoat.

Gerrymandering of course isn't a factor at all in things like presidential elections. But there are clearly examples where districts are drawn specifically with the intent of securing GOP wins, which I don't think you're disputing.

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the Voter ID issue is bigger than gerrymandering, but it's also an issue where even a modicum of preparation would let people vote. So I think it's effect is exaggerated. More or less it's the classic issue of how easy we should make voting. While I'm personally on the "make it easy" side I'd simply note that it's not hard to check to ensure you can vote before an election. Rain for instance famously decreases voter turnout. It seems fair to say people who don't vote because of rain don't care that much. 

Wisconsin famously made it very difficult to vote, requiring the kind of ID that low income people are unlikely to have.

Of course there are all kinds of other ways to discourage voting - from giving out disinformation about polling dates/places, to closing polls earlier in blue districts, to bumping people off the voter roles.

 

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A good overview of the facts on Voter ID effects was done by the Washington Post in the spring. A big problem with most figures quoted by the left is that it's rather weak on causation. There's an effect of course. But to what degree it's an illegitimate effect seems debatable at best. Again I oppose such laws unless they make it easy to obtain the relevant ID. But I think the logic thrown around is questionable at best.

 

It actually doesn't take that much voter suppression to change the course of an election. Votes were suppressed in the 2016 election with seemingly surgical precision. Only a few tens of thousands of votes secured Trump his electoral victory. I'm sure more details will emerge at the conclusion of the Russia investigation.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Regarding what? 

Regarding your attempt to refute my evidence.

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Don’t be obtuse. By this line of reasoning there would be no such thing as art. After all, a work of art is merely something that an artist uses his labor to produce. Oh, that’s not artwork. It’s just a canvas with oil on it – nothing different about it than any other product. 

Great, then my computer is a work of art. As is the water bottle I'm drinking from. Someone created this unique design.

You're confusing art with craftsmanship.

[Amulek]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

When the question of First Amendment Rights has come up against discrimination in a commercial space, the first amendment rights have always taken a back seat. Always. If you provide goods/services to the public in a commercial space, you don't get to exclude certain groups.

So are you saying that an artist who specializes in figure paintings for a living has to accept commissions from anyone? He can't chose to, say, only accept works that involve the female form? I highly doubt that's true.

 

Quote

Songwriters and filmmakers don't usually work in a public commercial space. If they do, then discrimination wouldn't be allowed. (not working for one church, while working for another wouldn't actually meet the requirements for discrimination - not producing the work for someone because they were black would meet that requirement).

You mean a public commercial space like a studio? I don't see why having a lease with a landlord makes you any more of a public actor than a freelance songwriter working (for the public) out of his own private studio. Once you don the corporate form, you're a commercial actor. So yes, a songwriter who refuses to create hymns for one church over another, based on their denomination, is in fact discriminating. They just aren't unlawfully discriminating. 

 

Quote

If you think this is the case, then I recommend that you go back and actually read through the case documentation.

Good idea. I hadn't thought of that before.

 

Quote

If this was all it was, the Supreme Court would never have even taken the case. This has been settled for quite some time by the courts (most similarly in the case over the photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex couples wedding).

Just to be clear, by "settled for quite some time" as in the photography case, which I assume you mean is the Elane Photography case, you mean within the last five years. 

 

Quote

What makes this interesting for the courts is the religious entanglement. The baker is claiming that in making this cake, he is being forced to "say" that he approves of same-sex marriages. And he claims that being forced to say this violates his right to free exercise. So the expression (the speech) isn't simply some sort of artistic creation, rather it is the expression of approval over the wedding itself. This is why I worded my earlier comments the way that I did (my language was very deliberate).

I'm not certain what makes it especially interesting for the court. It has been relisted a near record number of times, including - what - eight more times after Gorsuch was seated. We can speculate about why that is the case, but I can't say with any certainty that the free expression component is what was really the determining factor - that was a component in the photography case as well, and the court took a complete pass on it.

 

Quote

This is why I expect the courts to say that the baking of a custom wedding cake isn't protected by the First Amendment at all (either the speech aspect of it, or the free exercise aspect of it).

I think a good argument can be made that cake making doesn't trigger first amendment protections. And, as I mentioned in the other thread on the bakery case, my tentative thought is that the baker will lose. But I think the baker has a colorable argument as well, and it will be interesting to see how things turn out. 

 

Quote

It does bring into question whether it is actually speech though. This isn't about simple expression. This is about communicating a specific message, and whose message that is. And this is important because the claim is that the specific message interferes with a persons ability to practice their religion. That is the issue here. It isn't just a simple question of protecting speech.

I don't think you have to reach the religious expression point at all. I suspect that the court will decide the case purely on the free speech issue.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Great, then my computer is a work of art. As is the water bottle I'm drinking from. Someone created this unique design.

You're confusing art with craftsmanship.

Then perhaps you can help with my confusion. Which of the following activities should be considered art vs craftsmanship:

1. Creating a flower out of oil on a canvas
2. Creating a flower out of chalk on a sidewalk
3. Creating a flower out of ink on a person's shoulder
4. Creating a flower out of dye on a piece of fondant
5. Creating a flower out of code in a video game
6. Creating a flower out of chemicals in a charge (as in a firework)
7. Creating a flower out of a piece of clay or marble
8. Creating a flower out of a block of ice
9. Creating a flower out of a Polaroid photo
10. Creating a flower out of stickers from a sticker book

 

The question, you see, isn't that there isn't a difference between art and craftsmanship. The question is where you draw the line, and I think reasonable minds can differ on where that line ought to be drawn.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

The USSR has *never* had freedom. Nothing like you or I would recognize. 

Which is why I used it for a comparison with the alleged freedom of slavery.