# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/81 "2017-12-19T15:54:04Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > … > > 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”. And someone would start a GoFundMe page for the bakery, and they’d raise a million dollars like that pizza shop did. Never underestimate the ability of bigots to back bigots. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/82 "2017-12-19T16:16:50Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Here’s the issue, and it’s one that makes me glad I’m not on SCOTUS and have to decide this. > > The Constitution very clearly states this in the 1st Amendment: > > The court pretty much has to come down on the baker’s side. It just can’t get around the 1st Amendment. If it doesn’t, then it will, effectively, have overturned the 1st Amendment and that is completely unacceptable. [Employment Division v. Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith) suggests otherwise. In that case, the plaintiff was punished by the state for _taking part in an actual religious ritual_. > [@Supreme Court](#): > > It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]…to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended… To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is “compelling”–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, “to become a law unto himself,”–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true “compelling interest” requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/83 "2017-12-19T16:49:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …Well, probably **Steophan** At least I don’t rape underage retards. You’ve no place to judge anybody, fucko. ---
**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 19, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/84 "2017-12-19T17:00:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > At least I don’t rape underage retards. You’ve no place to judge anybody, fucko. That is quite a high standard you’ve set. We shall all endeavor to live up to it. ---
**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 19, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/85 "2017-12-19T17:03:09Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > isn’t religious freedom is part of what makes a society just. Sure. But not the most important part by far, imo. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/86 "2017-12-19T17:23:41Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > And someone would start a GoFundMe page for the bakery, and they’d raise a million dollars like that pizza shop did. Never underestimate the ability of bigots to back bigots. Personally, I’d be happy with that so long as they had a big sign at the door saying, “No faggots allowed!” (or niggers, jew-boys or whatever else their stunted little hearts can’t abide) Then I could avoid putting any money into their pockets. The only problem arises is if they are the _only_ bakery, barbershop, or whatever for miles around or, as in Kim Davis’ case, it is a government service being denied. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/87 "2017-12-19T23:13:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > At least I don’t rape underage retards. You’ve no place to judge anybody, fucko. Shut up, hypocrite. By your logic you couldn’t judge anyone, either. But here you are. While also using a slur against the mentally handicapped, showing how little you actually care about them. They are not a prop for you to use to attack other people. Also, because you’re besmirching his name: **He was 18 and she was actually 16,. He also never actually had sex with her, as her mom warned him off by telling him she had mental issues.** So neither rape nor underage. No, I didn’t know that off the top of my head. But there’s this thing called Google that can make it fucking easy to get your facts straight. It’s the least you can do if you’re going to reference shit from 5 years ago. Instead, it’s just more **Lying Steophan**. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/88 "2017-12-20T04:43:32Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Shut up, hypocrite. By your logic you couldn’t judge anyone, either. But here you are. While also using a slur against the mentally handicapped, showing how little you actually care about them. They are not a prop for you to use to attack other people. > > Also, because you’re besmirching his name: **He was 18 and she was actually 16,. He also never actually had sex with her, as her mom warned him off by telling him she had mental issues.** So neither rape nor underage. > > No, I didn’t know that off the top of my head. But there’s this thing called Google that can make it fucking easy to get your facts straight. It’s the least you can do if you’re going to reference shit from 5 years ago. > > Instead, it’s just more **Lying Steophan**. Why don’t you fuck off and white knight for Roy Moore or whoever as well? But yeah, if you want to believe that she wasn’t underage, or that he didn’t take advantage of her, because he changed his story after he was called out on it, that’s up to you. But you’d be a hypocrite to do so, given your habit of considering people guilty of crimes just because you don’t like them, regardless of the evidence. Tl;Dr fuck off, **BigTard** ---
**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 20, 2017, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/89 "2017-12-20T09:37:51Z")
Yay! It’s the **Steophan** show! Seriously, people, unless he or one of you were attempting to buy a wedding cake, why the fuck are you squabbling about it here? Also, I \*really \*don’t want a viral campaign involving videos people having sex with cakes. ---
**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 20, 2017, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/90 "2017-12-20T09:49:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 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. > [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > 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”? More to the point, I doubt SCOTUS would make a ruling with such an obvious loophole in it. Allowing the baker to discriminate by dismissing \*\*every \*\*cake as “too gay” would make a mockery of the law. The onus would be on the baker to demonstrate that he would not make that design for anyone. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/91 "2017-12-20T13:45:13Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > [Employment Division v. Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith) suggests otherwise. > > . And in that case, the most liberal justices ruled for freedom of religion, and Congress passed the RFRA to make sure that strict scrutiny was applied to religious freedom cases. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/92 "2017-12-20T13:46:14Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > More to the point, I doubt SCOTUS would make a ruling with such an obvious loophole in it. Allowing the baker to discriminate by dismissing \*\*every \*\*cake as “too gay” would make a mockery of the law. The onus would be on the baker to demonstrate that he would not make that design for anyone. Well, I would hope that the baker meant what he said when he said he would sell them a premade cake. He could simply “custom” make them a cake that he always made anyway. ---
**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 20, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/93 "2017-12-20T14:11:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, I would hope that the baker meant what he said when he said he would sell them a premade cake. He could simply “custom” make them a cake that he always made anyway. He could. But he refused to do even that, for reasons that had nothing to do with the cake itself. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/94 "2017-12-21T14:00:35Z")
It’s a fair OP, but both sides believe in statism and Libertarianism, as long as it matches their values. So I don’t know if it’ll ever happen. Conservatives aren’t going to celebrate killing babies anymore than liberals will celebrate plutocracy and mistreating minorities. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/95 "2017-12-21T19:43:10Z")
I don’t really have an issue with Roe, so long as the court remains pro-liberty and doesn’t start undoing everything BUT Roe, which I get the impression many liberal judges would like to do. Of course, liberals also like to make it really hard to convict criminals, so at least it will be easier to get away with exercising your liberties against the will of the state anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/96 "2017-12-21T20:36:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t really have an issue with Roe, so long as the court remains pro-liberty and doesn’t start undoing everything BUT Roe, which I get the impression many liberal judges would like to do. Besides gun control, what do you consider “everything BUT Roe”? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/97 "2017-12-21T21:28:26Z")
I want to make a quikc observation here, regarding freedom of religion and cakes and shit. You can believe anything you want. You can pray to Zeus, Satan, or Cthulhu if you like. You can have an altar to Eric Cartman if that’s your thing. But when you start imposing it on other people, a line has been crossed. When you do that, you are imposing on their freedom of religion (which may not be your religion) and /or their simple freedom FROM YOUR religion. Believe what you want, but don’t impose or enforce it on anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/98 "2017-12-21T22:23:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t really have an issue with Roe, so long as the court remains pro-liberty and doesn’t start undoing everything BUT Roe, which I get the impression many liberal judges would like to do. > > Of course, liberals also like to make it really hard to convict criminals, so at least it will be easier to get away with exercising your liberties against the will of the state anyway. I think liberals believe in law and order, we just believe in societal causes and individual reform. Removing lead from gasoline and paint supposedly led to a 70% reduction in violent crime. Easy abortion access supposedly reduces crime. Access to middle class jobs reduces crime, as does reducing discrimination so minorities can more easily integrate into society. It is now coming out that head injuries are a major issue among people in prison (a far higher % of people in prison have a history of head injuries compared to control groups), I’m sure some liberals will push for societal reforms to reduce the # of head injuries among people. Safer sports, safer jobs, etc. When someone does break the law, liberals more promote the Swedish model, which attempts to build the life skills an offender needs to reintegrate into society. So I don’t think liberals are anti-law and order, we just have a different attitude on how to approach it. ---
**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 21, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/99 "2017-12-21T23:06:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Of course, liberals also like to make it really hard to convict criminals, so at least it will be easier to get away with exercising your liberties against the will of the state anyway. I’ve found that very few right-wingers who complain about liberals “making it harder to convict criminals” voice that complaint when it’s THEM wrongfully in the dock. Liberals at least have the foresight to think “What if it’s me up there someday?” ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694/100 "2017-12-26T03:40:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And in that case, the most liberal justices ruled for freedom of religion, and Congress passed the RFRA to make sure that strict scrutiny was applied to religious freedom cases. Does that matter for that case or this one? Has anyone successfully avoided prosecution under drug statutes due to the drug’s use in a religious ceremony? If drug laws can pass strict scrutiny, then can’t public accommodation laws? These are sincere questions, not rhetorical ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-stop-bitching-about-scotus-decisions-that-expand-rights/804694.md?page=6)