# It's time to stop bitching about SCOTUS decisions that expand rights **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 17, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694 "2017-12-17T03:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/61 "2017-12-18T11:16:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But only with broad consensus. We can’t just pass a law limiting free speech, or taking away guns, or abolishing jury trial. Britain can. To do any of those things in the US requires two thirds of both chambers of Congress and 3/4ths of the states. You mean with the broad consensus of five of the nine Supreme Court justices, don’t you? We can’t just pass a law limiting free speech? Like, say, anti-pornography obscenity laws? Laws limiting free speech didn’t require a Constitutional amendment, but simply required a case, most famously _Miller v. California_, that let the SCotUS to rule that _this_ speech doesn’t rise to First Amendment protection. There’s nothing in the CotUS about obscenity. Obscenity laws are not a violation of the First Amendment because two thirds of both chambers of Congress and 3/4ths of the states did something. Wanna show me the amendment that takes First Amendment protection away from obscenity and puts the Miller test into the Constitution? I can show you the case law that did do that. We don’t amend the Constitution\*, we read the Case Law! \*Except in cases where the CotUS actually requires an amendment to get to wanted result, e.g. _Dred Scott v Sandford_ demanded the Thirteenth Amendment. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/62 "2017-12-18T11:18:46Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > You’re forgetting something: homosexuals **ALWAYS** lie about how much they want from government and from society. > > Back in the early days, they claimed that all they wanted was for official persecution to stop. Then during the time of Lawrence v. Texas, they claimed that all they wanted was to be left alone in the bedroom. A few years later, they claimed that all they wanted was for the government to officially recognize their status in **some** way, whether by civil unions or some other form of recognition. Then in Oberfefell v. Hodges, they claimed that all they wanted was the right to marry. Now they’re claiming that all they want is the right to force everybody in the wedding industry to support them. > > Sooner or later, (probably sooner) they’re going to start clamoring for the “right” to force any member of the clergy to participate in gay weddings, regardless of the minister’s stance on the issue. Anybody who feels that this is an absurd claim has not been paying attention to history. And the award for “shittiest post this month” goes to… …Well, probably **Steophan** or that racist troll from a while back with a boner for the New Observer, but this is a _strong_ contender. Jesus christ, I thought we were past the point where this kind of out-and-proud demonization was considered okay, even in the pit. Hey fucko, are you aware that there’s a decade and a half between Lawrence v. Texas - the fact that you’re apparently upset that gay people are no longer persecuted simply for having consensual sex with their partners speaks _volumes_ to your character, you fucking failure of a human being - that the plaintiffs are completely unrelated, and that gay people are not some fucking monolith! What the fuck is wrong with you? Oh, and this: > [@Flyer pings the bigot radar.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flyer-pings-the-bigot-radar/804725/32): > > Awwww – my very first Pitting. You really do care about me! 🙂 > > * * * > > On a serious note, I do not appreciate the fact that you are deliberately lying, by claiming that I “hate fags.” > > God loves every human on earth. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). > > God made all men brothers. “[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26a). > > Hatred of anybody is a sin. “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (II Timothy 2:19b). > > God loves everybody, and I love everybody. I so dearly, DEARLY wish that you would repent of your sin before it’s too late. I wish I could plead with you in person. Oh my friend, I beg of you–do not wind up in Hell. I have already prayed for you while writing this, and will continue to do so. This doesn’t fucking help, you disgusting sack of skunk shit. ---
**Author:** ![SaneBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SaneBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SaneBill)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/63 "2017-12-18T11:25:06Z")
What I don’t understand is that if the baker does not recognize it a REAL wedding and a REAL marriage, then how it is a REAL wedding cake. From his point of view isn’t it just A CAKE. Can he legally refuse to sell a cake with fantasy decorations ? If some kid wants a Jedi cake, shouldn’t the baker say his religion does not recognize Jedis so no cakes for you ? Can he legally pick and choose when he refuses ? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/64 "2017-12-18T11:39:34Z")
The Colorado commission already ruled that a baker could refuse to decorate a cake that Christians wanted. So we have indeed established that bakers can refuse customers. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/65 "2017-12-18T12:10:56Z")
“My religious beliefs state that my right to swing my fist ends three inches into your face. Stop persecuting me by not letting me punch you!” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/66 "2017-12-18T12:24:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Colorado commission already ruled that a baker could refuse to decorate a cake that Christians wanted. So we have indeed established that bakers can refuse customers. No. We’ve established a baker can refuse to put a specific design on a cake. This baker under question didn’t onext to a specific design or decoration. He wouldn’t sell the gay couple a wedding cake at all. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/67 "2017-12-18T12:29:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > We can’t just pass a law limiting free speech, . Give yourself more credit, sure you can. Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/68 "2017-12-18T13:32:04Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > And when is the government going to say, “We are now passing and unjust law”? Your statement would abolish freedom of religion altogether. If we have a gov’t that is passing unjust laws, freedom of religion can alternately become the least or the worst of society’s problems. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/69 "2017-12-18T13:57:10Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > Personally I believe that we should thank the right wing for gay marriage being legal in the the United States. During every inch of the journey you captured above, the right wing fought as hard as they could and would not give an inch. Definitely. It’s amusing to see the religious right wailing “why couldn’t they just be satisfied with civil unions?” when at least half if not more of the anti-SSM bills passed by the states preemptively disallowed civil unions. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/70 "2017-12-18T14:36:22Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Never. Religious freedoms must never supersede laws of a just society. isn’t religious freedom is part of what makes a society just. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/71 "2017-12-18T15:18:57Z")
It’s really a shame that all these prospective laws protecting the right to discriminate for religious reasons keep get blocked and shut down by Democrat-dominated state and federal legislators. Total misuse of their overreaching political power. Wait, that’s not what happens, because Republicans dominate state and federal legislative bodies. Democrats are sadly lacking in overreaching political power. What happens is that every time there is an attempt to legislate a return to discrimination, the invisible hand of the free market bitch slaps the right wing into submission. Because apparently corporate America, as an entity, is as socially liberal as a Berkeley freshman. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/72 "2017-12-18T16:57:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > isn’t religious freedom is part of what makes a society just. Only if freedom _of_ religion is balanced with freedom _from_ religion. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/73 "2017-12-18T19:45:40Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Only if freedom _of_ religion is balanced with freedom _from_ religion. Yes. Freedom of religion for ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION (or one particular wing of several religions, which is what this is about) is the opposite of real religious freedom or a just society. There are plenty of Christian, Jewish and Muslim (and other) communities in the US who are fine with gay rights, including making cakes. Conservative branches of those religions need to get over themselves and this attitude that they are the reason for society to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/74 "2017-12-19T07:33:53Z")
Nobody is saying that people don’t have religious freedom - they do. The baker has the right to believe what he wants and practice that religion. What people don’t have is the right for their religious beliefs to take precedent over other rules of modern society. Kim Davis can believe all the hateful shit she wants, but she can’t use it to refuse to do her job. An Amish person can believe that technology is sinful but he can’t then get a job in IT support and insist that he can’t use telephones or computers. And the baker can believe what he or she likes but can’t actively discriminate against certain customers. The frisson isn’t between the baker and other people with conflicting beliefs; it’s between the baker’s religious beliefs and the requirements of his or her chosen profession. If the job conflicts with the beliefs, one of those will have to change. You can’t have your cake and refuse to let gay people eat it too. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/75 "2017-12-19T09:46:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If all this liberty upsets you, there are 200 other places on Earth where things are doine more to your liking. Wow, it’s been awhile since I’ve heard “America: love it or leave it.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/76 "2017-12-19T10:01:57Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > No. We’ve established a baker can refuse to put a specific design on a cake. This baker under question didn’t onext to a specific design or decoration. He wouldn’t sell the gay couple a wedding cake at all. If the decision SCOTUS makes says that a) public accomodations can’t discriminate, but b) they can choose not to make products that seem to endorse a certain viewpoint, then I’ll be quite satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/77 "2017-12-19T10:05:05Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Nobody is saying that people don’t have religious freedom - they do. The baker has the right to believe what he wants and practice that religion. What people don’t have is the right for their religious beliefs to take precedent over other rules of modern society. Kim Davis can believe all the hateful shit she wants, but she can’t use it to refuse to do her job. An Amish person can believe that technology is sinful but he can’t then get a job in IT support and insist that he can’t use telephones or computers. And the baker can believe what he or she likes but can’t actively discriminate against certain customers. > > The frisson isn’t between the baker and other people with conflicting beliefs; it’s between the baker’s religious beliefs and the requirements of his or her chosen profession. If the job conflicts with the beliefs, one of those will have to change. You can’t have your cake and refuse to let gay people eat it too. That’s like saying, “Of course we have freedom of speech! Just keep it to yourself if it offends me.” Religious freedom has no meaning if you can’t bring it into the public square with you. Now I agree that “generally applicable laws”, in other words laws that apply to ALL, trump religious freedom. However, most laws include exceptions and if there are exceptions for some, there is room for exceptions for a few more. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/78 "2017-12-19T12:13:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s like saying, “Of course we have freedom of speech! Just keep it to yourself if it offends me.” Firstly - no it isn’t, as the Kim Davis example demonstrates. If your religious beliefs prevent you from doing your job properly and the two cannot be reconciled, the onus is on you to decide whether you want to adhere to your religious principles or continue doing your job, not on others to accommodate you under any circumstance. You remain free to believe and practice your religion; that you may have to change jobs in order to do so is a choice you make based on how you’ve chosen to practice your religion. “Religious freedom” is not a “Get out of personal responsibility” card; your freedom to worship does not impose a requirement on the rest of the world to give you special rights and privileges over other people. Consider the more value-neutral proposition of civil disobedience. A law may be unjust and you may sincerely believe that the law is unjust, yet neither of those facts inherently form a valid defense against being arrested for violating that law (despite what some more naïve activists appear to think). Your sincerely-held views do not give you the right to be treated differently. Secondly - you are misrepresenting the fundamental issue here. A somewhat closer analogy would be “Of course we have freedom of speech! Just keep it to yourself if it HARMS me.” Which of course is exactly how our freedom of speech laws work. This would be more evident if you would stop persisting in reducing discrimination to mere ‘hurt feelings’. Your argument is more akin to saying “We have freedom of speech, therefore if you don’t give me airtime on PBS you are persecuting me.” You are asserting extra rights that do not exist. > [@](#): > > Religious freedom has no meaning if you can’t bring it into the public square with you. You can bring it into the public square with you. What you can’t do is then declare that your religious freedom means that other people aren’t allowed to be in the same square while you’re there. > [@](#): > > Now I agree that “generally applicable laws”, in other words laws that apply to ALL, trump religious freedom. However, most laws include exceptions and if there are exceptions for some, there is room for exceptions for a few more. The bits of this that aren’t tautological are nonsensical. Yes, there are often “exceptions” to laws in the sense that court decisions interpret the extent to which laws apply. It doesn’t follow that because exceptions exist all proposed exceptions are equally valid. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/79 "2017-12-19T14:36:19Z")
True, but as a general rule, if you allow people to opt out of a law or regulation for secular reasons, you also have to allow it for religious reasons. Either cakemakers can refuse to make custom cakes for certain types of customers or they cannot. If they can, then religion is a valid reason to do it. If they can’t, then religion is not an excuse. Since the Colorado commission ruled that bakers actually can refuse to make custom cakes with messages they disagree with, then bakers can refuse to make cakes endorsing gay marriage as well. Now of course the baker could lose the case based on the fact that they never got around to discussing design, but I do think SCOTUS will establish that he could in effect refuse to make them any cake theyd want by simply nixing any design that seemed “gay”. They’d end up just going elsewhere or buying a pre-made cake, which he did offer to them. So even if he lost it wouldn’t really change his business practice at all. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/80 "2017-12-19T15:34:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > True, but as a general rule, if you allow people to opt out of a law or regulation for secular reasons, you also have to allow it for religious reasons. Either cakemakers can refuse to make custom cakes for certain types of customers or they cannot. If they can, then religion is a valid reason to do it. If they can’t, then religion is not an excuse. Since the Colorado commission ruled that bakers actually can refuse to make custom cakes with messages they disagree with, then bakers can refuse to make cakes endorsing gay marriage as well. > > Now of course the baker could lose the case based on the fact that they never got around to discussing design, but I do think SCOTUS will establish that he could in effect refuse to make them any cake theyd want by simply nixing any design that seemed “gay”. They’d end up just going elsewhere or buying a pre-made cake, which he did offer to them. So even if he lost it wouldn’t really change his business practice at all. Are you saying that Its a fair assumption that every single custom cake this customer would’ve accepted would have some sort of “gay” design element? Because I think that a reach. Would they still have refused to make the cake if one of the grooms had come into the shop with his sister to order the cake? Would the design have seemed too gay to bake then? Has Masterpiece Cakes EVER refused to make a cake for a straight couple because the design they chose was “too gay”? If Masterpiece Cakes wins I hope they are deluged by straight couples ordering cakes for the SSM weddings of their friends and family. And I hope every one of those SSM couples prominently features the cake on social media. And I hope they credit the bakery. Because once the cake and money exchange hands the owner of the cake can do what they want with it. Actually I’d love to see a viral social media campaign where scores of gay men video themselves pulling an “American Pie” stunt using Masterpiece Bakery cakes. It would bring a new perspective to the sentiment “Fuck Masterpiece Bakery and their cakes”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694.md?page=5)