Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Supreme Court could hear another gay wedding cake case
If the Supreme Court finally grants review in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor, I expect it to overrule Oregon v. Smith in 2020 and reinstate the pre-1990 strength of constitutionally mandated religious exemptions from generally applicable neutral rules
Link to tweet
Democracy in America
More cake?
The Supreme Court could hear another gay wedding cake case
The justices are considering whether to hear the case of a Christian baker who refused to bake for the wedding of a lesbian couple
May 17th 2019 by S.M. | NEW YORK
IN RECENT years, the Supreme Court has made a habit of waving a gavel and turning blockbuster cases into duds. In the last year, two great reckonings—a pair of challenges to partisan gerrymandering and a tiff over a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding—were both defused with narrow rulings that steered around the heart of the disputes. The strategy of avoidance has its virtues: contentious questions continue to be asked, discussions advance. But as Brett Kavanaugh noted in another context during his Senate confirmation hearing last autumn, “what comes around goes around”. The questions often end up back in the justices’ laps.
That seems to be the case with gay-wedding cakes. Last June, the Supreme Court flicked away Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission with an artful dodge. Rather than address the fundamental conflict—anti-discrimination protections for gay people rubbing up against business owners’ First Amendment claims to run their shops in line with their conscience—seven justices found an escape route. The trouble with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission wasn’t its decision to enforce the state’s public-accommodations law against the Christian baker who had turned away two men. The constitutional violation lay in hostility vocalised by two of the civil-rights commissioners against the baker during their deliberations. The Christian cake artist was deprived of a commission that was “neutral” and “tolerant” of his faith, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
....
[Register to read this article in full]
More cake?
The Supreme Court could hear another gay wedding cake case
The justices are considering whether to hear the case of a Christian baker who refused to bake for the wedding of a lesbian couple
May 17th 2019 by S.M. | NEW YORK
IN RECENT years, the Supreme Court has made a habit of waving a gavel and turning blockbuster cases into duds. In the last year, two great reckonings—a pair of challenges to partisan gerrymandering and a tiff over a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding—were both defused with narrow rulings that steered around the heart of the disputes. The strategy of avoidance has its virtues: contentious questions continue to be asked, discussions advance. But as Brett Kavanaugh noted in another context during his Senate confirmation hearing last autumn, “what comes around goes around”. The questions often end up back in the justices’ laps.
That seems to be the case with gay-wedding cakes. Last June, the Supreme Court flicked away Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission with an artful dodge. Rather than address the fundamental conflict—anti-discrimination protections for gay people rubbing up against business owners’ First Amendment claims to run their shops in line with their conscience—seven justices found an escape route. The trouble with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission wasn’t its decision to enforce the state’s public-accommodations law against the Christian baker who had turned away two men. The constitutional violation lay in hostility vocalised by two of the civil-rights commissioners against the baker during their deliberations. The Christian cake artist was deprived of a commission that was “neutral” and “tolerant” of his faith, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
....
[Register to read this article in full]
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
