What if Kim Davis said to the couple who came in for a marriage license: "Sorry, I don't believe that same-sex marriage is a good thing, because of my religious beliefs. But I would be happy to file any other license applications you might have!"
I know, she is a government employee, and therefore is required to issue the license.
But if she wasn't, then that attitude is perfectly acceptable?
Has there ever been cases like this cake thing over bigot customers?
Yes! I can't find it, but it was in the NYT article linked on this several pages ago. Client wanted some anti-gay bible verses on a bible cake, she offered to make a blank bible and provide them an icing bag to write whatever they wanted. No hiding behind religion, and no one was discriminated against and denied service on a protected basis; she just declined a specific message she found offensive not the clients religion.
Similarily, Masterpiece could have objected to putting two erect phalluses as cake toppers, but rejected their entire sexuality instead before the detail might have even come up.
What if Kim Davis said to the couple who came in for a marriage license: "Sorry, I don't believe that same-sex marriage is a good thing, because of my religious beliefs. But I would be happy to file any other license applications you might have!"
I know, she is a government employee, and therefore is required to issue the license.
But if she wasn't, then that attitude is perfectly acceptable?
Her signature is an artistic expression, you can't compell her to apply it to those licenses!
What if Kim Davis said to the couple who came in for a marriage license: "Sorry, I don't believe that same-sex marriage is a good thing, because of my religious beliefs. But I would be happy to file any other license applications you might have!"
I know, she is a government employee, and therefore is required to issue the license.
But if she wasn't, then that attitude is perfectly acceptable?
Is this in response to me? Because, thats not what I said. The Kim Davis in my example would explicitly say (if she wished to be truthful)
"I am willing to file your marriage license if you wish, but you should know I do not support gay marriage. Do you really want someone who doesn't believe in what your doing to file your marriage license?"
To which most people would respond, "I don't give a goose, file that paperwork you bigot!"
Now, for her, it's still illegal, because she isn't representing herself and her own beliefs. She's representing the government, and the government works for everyone.
In addition, even if she didn't work for the government, she still works for her employer and must follow the codes of conduct laid down for her by them. And those codes of conduct must themselves be legal, and thus cannot include the line (for now at least) "we do not serve gay people here" OR the line "This business does not approve of gay marriage", since either of those lines would be violations of equal employment law.
So the law already works just fine, and will continue to do, since I cannot imagine a situation where 1 person would totally control some kind of critical service and be the only employee there and that service would also be the sort of service where you would care about what the person doing it thought about you and your lifestyle.
What if Kim Davis said to the couple who came in for a marriage license: "Sorry, I don't believe that same-sex marriage is a good thing, because of my religious beliefs. But I would be happy to file any other license applications you might have!"
I know, she is a government employee, and therefore is required to issue the license.
But if she wasn't, then that attitude is perfectly acceptable?
Is this in response to me? Because, thats not what I said. The Kim Davis in my example would explicitly say (if she wished to be truthful)
"I am willing to file your marriage license if you wish, but you should know I do not support gay marriage. Do you really want someone who doesn't believe in what your doing to file your marriage license?"
To which most people would respond, "I don't give a goose, file that paperwork you bigot!"
Now, for her, it's still illegal, because she isn't representing herself and her own beliefs. She's representing the government, and the government works for everyone.
In addition, even if she didn't work for the government, she still works for her employer and must follow the codes of conduct laid down for her by them. And those codes of conduct must themselves be legal, and thus cannot include the line (for now at least) "we do not serve gay people here" OR the line "This business does not approve of gay marriage", since either of those lines would be violations of equal employment law.
So the law already works just fine, and will continue to do, since I cannot imagine a situation where 1 person would totally control some kind of critical service and be the only employee there and that service would also be the sort of service where you would care about what the person doing it thought about you and your lifestyle.
It raises an interesting question though. Can employers suppress employees free speech rights? Say the owner of the bake shop was totally fine with gay marriage, but a particular baker was not. The couple asks for a rainbow cake that specifically says gay marriage is the best thing ever. If the baker was self employed they could refuse to make that specific cake on first amendment grounds, but can an employer force them to anyway (with the threat of firing for refusal)?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
What if Kim Davis said to the couple who came in for a marriage license: "Sorry, I don't believe that same-sex marriage is a good thing, because of my religious beliefs. But I would be happy to file any other license applications you might have!"
I know, she is a government employee, and therefore is required to issue the license.
But if she wasn't, then that attitude is perfectly acceptable?
Is this in response to me? Because, thats not what I said. The Kim Davis in my example would explicitly say (if she wished to be truthful)
"I am willing to file your marriage license if you wish, but you should know I do not support gay marriage. Do you really want someone who doesn't believe in what your doing to file your marriage license?"
To which most people would respond, "I don't give a goose, file that paperwork you bigot!"
Now, for her, it's still illegal, because she isn't representing herself and her own beliefs. She's representing the government, and the government works for everyone.
In addition, even if she didn't work for the government, she still works for her employer and must follow the codes of conduct laid down for her by them. And those codes of conduct must themselves be legal, and thus cannot include the line (for now at least) "we do not serve gay people here" OR the line "This business does not approve of gay marriage", since either of those lines would be violations of equal employment law.
So the law already works just fine, and will continue to do, since I cannot imagine a situation where 1 person would totally control some kind of critical service and be the only employee there and that service would also be the sort of service where you would care about what the person doing it thought about you and your lifestyle.
It raises an interesting question though. Can employers suppress employees free speech rights? Say the owner of the bake shop was totally fine with gay marriage, but a particular baker was not. The couple asks for a rainbow cake that specifically says gay marriage is the best thing ever. If the baker was self employed they could refuse to make that specific cake on first amendment grounds, but can an employer force them to anyway (with the threat of firing for refusal)?
Depending on the State, either absolutely or probably.
In dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the majority’s reasoning was perplexing.
“Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, and did not raise the knife in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, adding that only one officer had opened fire.
“Kisela alone resorted to deadly force in this case,” she wrote. “Confronted with the same circumstances as Kisela, neither of his fellow officers took that drastic measure.”
Justice Sotomayor said a jury should have been allowed to decide the case.
“Because Kisela plainly lacked any legitimate interest justifying the use of deadly force against a woman who posed no objective threat of harm to officers or others, had committed no crime, and appeared calm and collected during the police encounter,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “he was not entitled to qualified immunity.”
Justice Sotomayor said the court’s decision in the case, Kisela v. Hughes, No. 17-467, was part of a disturbing trend of “unflinching willingness” to protect police officers accused of using excessive force.
The court’s decisions concerning qualified immunity, she wrote, “transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.”
“Because there is nothing right or just under the law about this,” she wrote, “I respectfully dissent.”
I can't recall what the prior case was regarding this (something about "clearly established rights", which meant "a court has already ruled it's bad before"), but it's not like this wasn't the obvious next step from that. They're just not trying to hide it anymore.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.
The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
As expected after the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the more liberal justices for the first time since joining the court to produce a 5-4 majority invalidating the federal statute. In doing so, Gorsuch was continuing the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who also sided with liberals when it came to the vagueness of statutes used to convict criminal defendants.
That last sentence is not quite right, I think. Gorsuch agreed that the immigration statute, when defining a category of crimes a person couod be convicted of that would be grounds for deportation, was unconstitutionally vague.
The immigration statute is considered a civil statute.
This was the "the law regarding criminal acts pertaining to immigration law is too vague to be used to expel" case?
Given that it was along otherwise partisan lines, I assume that means the SCOTUS agreed that those laws need to be better defined to apply?
Yea, it was something about "violent crimes" being the trigger but that term not being defined in anyway. That's from months ago memory though so take with some salt.
This was the "the law regarding criminal acts pertaining to immigration law is too vague to be used to expel" case?
Given that it was along otherwise partisan lines, I assume that means the SCOTUS agreed that those laws need to be better defined to apply?
Yeah. There was an identical clause in, iirc, the armed career criminal act that was already struck down dor tge same reason, so it would have been odd if this one had stood.
This was the "the law regarding criminal acts pertaining to immigration law is too vague to be used to expel" case?
Given that it was along otherwise partisan lines, I assume that means the SCOTUS agreed that those laws need to be better defined to apply?
Yeah. There was an identical clause in, iirc, the armed career criminal act that was already struck down dor tge same reason, so it would have been odd if this one had stood.
Because of the precedent this was not a tough case imo
This was the "the law regarding criminal acts pertaining to immigration law is too vague to be used to expel" case?
Given that it was along otherwise partisan lines, I assume that means the SCOTUS agreed that those laws need to be better defined to apply?
Yeah. There was an identical clause in, iirc, the armed career criminal act that was already struck down dor tge same reason, so it would have been odd if this one had stood.
Because of the precedent this was not a tough case imo
i know the immigration thread is on a break, but Dimaya is really good for immigrants. immigrants can be deported for committing an "aggravated felony", but how Ag Fels are defined has been wishy washy as hell. immigration judges could basically stretch it far enough to decide to deport persons even with minor criminal convictions. ending the "crime of violence" part at least narrows this wishy washiness down.
i'm genuinely surprised Gorsuch decided in this way.
and i'm gleeful as fuck that this is an L to Sessions.
This was the "the law regarding criminal acts pertaining to immigration law is too vague to be used to expel" case?
Given that it was along otherwise partisan lines, I assume that means the SCOTUS agreed that those laws need to be better defined to apply?
Yeah. There was an identical clause in, iirc, the armed career criminal act that was already struck down dor tge same reason, so it would have been odd if this one had stood.
Because of the precedent this was not a tough case imo
Lots of immigration law is super vague, though. So I wonder if this opens a door to challenge lots of immigration provisions.
This was the "the law regarding criminal acts pertaining to immigration law is too vague to be used to expel" case?
Given that it was along otherwise partisan lines, I assume that means the SCOTUS agreed that those laws need to be better defined to apply?
Yeah. There was an identical clause in, iirc, the armed career criminal act that was already struck down dor tge same reason, so it would have been odd if this one had stood.
Because of the precedent this was not a tough case imo
Lots of immigration law is super vague, though. So I wonder if this opens a door to challenge lots of immigration provisions.
Could be tough still. As noted, this particular wording had precedent as being bad and was still a 5-4 decision.
Even though NK and Venezuela still definitely seem like non-muslims window dressing, I find the argument that its not a first amendment issue more compelling with version 3.
It bans a subset of muslim-majority nations (Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia), and two non-muslim nations (NK, Venezuela) all of whom we have threatened with or perpetrated violence upon pretty recently, so I think it's technically correct to say this list is more accurately described as: "a fairly complete list of semi-failed/hostile states that wouldn't or couldn't meet X vetting criteria" than it is "a fairly complete list of Muslim nations"
The argument I find most interesting now is that bit about POTUS only having temporary authority until Congress acts, and that they have.
Edit: Moved my question to the shiny new Immigration thread!
Legal and policy director of the ADC. (Fights discrimination against Arab-Americans)
So... that’s a bad lawyer, right? Is it fair to say the Trump Administration has terrible lawyers and that will help stymie their agenda?
Two ways that could go - either they genuinely don't know/care and sat down with smug satisfaction
Or their brain got ahead of their mouth and they sat down with the growing dread of someone who just let off a vile, silent fart in the elevator and hopes to get out of there before faces start wrinkling in disgust.
It was the end of him saying that the President has said things about how Muslims are great American citizens, how much he loves Muslim countries, stuff like that.
Y'know, like the extremely very few times he says those things, unconvincingly, somehow negates the incredibly large number of times he says what he actually believes.
Reading the scotusblog review of the oral arguments and I agree the travel band will likely stand, and I think it probably should. The problem is you can’t prove intent, at this point.
The argument is basically that even if trump wants a Muslim ban, there is no way to prove that in this instance there wasn’t a very real security threat. Because it’s national security, the courts don’t have the authority to demand proof, and thus the court has to accept the possibility that the right thing to do just happened to be what the racist wanted to do anyway.
There is still hope though because they also discussed what authority the president has and what the utility of the ban is. So they could rule that in principle such bans are legal, but restrict the length/prohibit repeat temporary bans as a loophole to actual law changes. Or they could require proof that something else was being done other than just temporarily stopping immigration and then starting again (which would not accomplish anything in terms of security and would thus be more likely to be implemented for racist reasons).
As a long shot they maybe could rule that current vetting is sufficient and therefore the ban is illegal. But I’m betting the uphold with some provisions. Which probably means more shitty/arbitrary restrictions on visa granting and less immigration, but such is life when you elect nationalists to every branch.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Or they could do the right thing, overturn Korematsu, and state plainly that the president cannot use "national defense" as an excuse to violate equal protection.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Or they could do the right thing, overturn Korematsu, and state plainly that the president cannot use "national defense" as an excuse to violate equal protection.
Or they could do the right thing, overturn Korematsu, and state plainly that the president cannot use "national defense" as an excuse to violate equal protection.
With this court?
I'm not saying it's likely, but they could, in theory!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"What's the statute of limitations on [the president being a virulent racist who expressly stated that the reason behind this policy was the satisfaction of his desire to harm people he sees as subhuman]?"
What is the answer to the argument that if the intent was to ban Muslims, the travel ban as it stands is woefully inadequate? So much so that it can't barely be seen as a Muslim ban?
What is the answer to the argument that if the intent was to ban Muslims, the travel ban as it stands is woefully inadequate? So much so that it can't barely be seen as a Muslim ban?
Being a bad attempt doesn't make something constitutional.
If his argument is that his attempt was to prevent terrorism, the ban is vastly worse at that than messing with Muslims.
Posts
I know, she is a government employee, and therefore is required to issue the license.
But if she wasn't, then that attitude is perfectly acceptable?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes! I can't find it, but it was in the NYT article linked on this several pages ago. Client wanted some anti-gay bible verses on a bible cake, she offered to make a blank bible and provide them an icing bag to write whatever they wanted. No hiding behind religion, and no one was discriminated against and denied service on a protected basis; she just declined a specific message she found offensive not the clients religion.
Similarily, Masterpiece could have objected to putting two erect phalluses as cake toppers, but rejected their entire sexuality instead before the detail might have even come up.
Her signature is an artistic expression, you can't compell her to apply it to those licenses!
Is this in response to me? Because, thats not what I said. The Kim Davis in my example would explicitly say (if she wished to be truthful)
"I am willing to file your marriage license if you wish, but you should know I do not support gay marriage. Do you really want someone who doesn't believe in what your doing to file your marriage license?"
To which most people would respond, "I don't give a goose, file that paperwork you bigot!"
Now, for her, it's still illegal, because she isn't representing herself and her own beliefs. She's representing the government, and the government works for everyone.
In addition, even if she didn't work for the government, she still works for her employer and must follow the codes of conduct laid down for her by them. And those codes of conduct must themselves be legal, and thus cannot include the line (for now at least) "we do not serve gay people here" OR the line "This business does not approve of gay marriage", since either of those lines would be violations of equal employment law.
So the law already works just fine, and will continue to do, since I cannot imagine a situation where 1 person would totally control some kind of critical service and be the only employee there and that service would also be the sort of service where you would care about what the person doing it thought about you and your lifestyle.
It raises an interesting question though. Can employers suppress employees free speech rights? Say the owner of the bake shop was totally fine with gay marriage, but a particular baker was not. The couple asks for a rainbow cake that specifically says gay marriage is the best thing ever. If the baker was self employed they could refuse to make that specific cake on first amendment grounds, but can an employer force them to anyway (with the threat of firing for refusal)?
Depending on the State, either absolutely or probably.
Oh, why hello Gorsuch!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Quote from the New York Times article follows.
As a Washington Post reporter put it:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Cool. Cool cool-
Barf
Gorsuch was just the 5th vote in a 5-4 ruling in an opinion written by Kagan.
Think that means he has already beaten Alito's record for "breaking ranks".
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
And for anyone wanting an overview of that case, that's not in the legalese of the opinion:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/supreme-court-federal-law-deportation-immigrants/index.html
The immigration statute is considered a civil statute.
This was the "the law regarding criminal acts pertaining to immigration law is too vague to be used to expel" case?
Given that it was along otherwise partisan lines, I assume that means the SCOTUS agreed that those laws need to be better defined to apply?
Yea, it was something about "violent crimes" being the trigger but that term not being defined in anyway. That's from months ago memory though so take with some salt.
Yeah. There was an identical clause in, iirc, the armed career criminal act that was already struck down dor tge same reason, so it would have been odd if this one had stood.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Because of the precedent this was not a tough case imo
And who said justice was blind?
i'm genuinely surprised Gorsuch decided in this way.
and i'm gleeful as fuck that this is an L to Sessions.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Dude hates vagueness and overbroad statutes. This should be a signal to the Legislative to tighten up their shit or face losses.
Lots of immigration law is super vague, though. So I wonder if this opens a door to challenge lots of immigration provisions.
Could be tough still. As noted, this particular wording had precedent as being bad and was still a 5-4 decision.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Legal and policy director of the ADC. (Fights discrimination against Arab-Americans)
So... that’s a bad lawyer, right? Is it fair to say the Trump Administration has terrible lawyers and that will help stymie their agenda?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Scotusblog analysis is a little pessimistic.
maybe such a good lawyer doesn’t know shit about shit
only knows the law
Even though NK and Venezuela still definitely seem like non-muslims window dressing, I find the argument that its not a first amendment issue more compelling with version 3.
It bans a subset of muslim-majority nations (Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia), and two non-muslim nations (NK, Venezuela) all of whom we have threatened with or perpetrated violence upon pretty recently, so I think it's technically correct to say this list is more accurately described as: "a fairly complete list of semi-failed/hostile states that wouldn't or couldn't meet X vetting criteria" than it is "a fairly complete list of Muslim nations"
The argument I find most interesting now is that bit about POTUS only having temporary authority until Congress acts, and that they have.
Edit: Moved my question to the shiny new Immigration thread!
Or their brain got ahead of their mouth and they sat down with the growing dread of someone who just let off a vile, silent fart in the elevator and hopes to get out of there before faces start wrinkling in disgust.
Y'know, like the extremely very few times he says those things, unconvincingly, somehow negates the incredibly large number of times he says what he actually believes.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The argument is basically that even if trump wants a Muslim ban, there is no way to prove that in this instance there wasn’t a very real security threat. Because it’s national security, the courts don’t have the authority to demand proof, and thus the court has to accept the possibility that the right thing to do just happened to be what the racist wanted to do anyway.
There is still hope though because they also discussed what authority the president has and what the utility of the ban is. So they could rule that in principle such bans are legal, but restrict the length/prohibit repeat temporary bans as a loophole to actual law changes. Or they could require proof that something else was being done other than just temporarily stopping immigration and then starting again (which would not accomplish anything in terms of security and would thus be more likely to be implemented for racist reasons).
As a long shot they maybe could rule that current vetting is sufficient and therefore the ban is illegal. But I’m betting the uphold with some provisions. Which probably means more shitty/arbitrary restrictions on visa granting and less immigration, but such is life when you elect nationalists to every branch.
With this court?
I'm not saying it's likely, but they could, in theory!
"What's the statute of limitations on [the president being a virulent racist who expressly stated that the reason behind this policy was the satisfaction of his desire to harm people he sees as subhuman]?"
This fucking court.
Being a bad attempt doesn't make something constitutional.
If his argument is that his attempt was to prevent terrorism, the ban is vastly worse at that than messing with Muslims.