Talk:Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Link
https://www.aclu.org/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downsoc (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

False conclusion by a source
The Denver Post, one of the sources in the article, makes the following statement:


 * "The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Phillips had the legal right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his own religious objections to same-sex marriage."

That obviously is false. That specific issue was not decided by the Court one way or the other.

What the Court did was to throw out the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission -- because the Commission's decision-making process was impermissibly non-neutral regarding religion. The Court decided that "religious hostility on the part of the State itself" should not be a "factor" in the State's decision-making process. As currently written, the Wikipedia article does make that clear. The Denver Post would presumably be considered a reliable source, and since this incorrect conclusion by the Post does not appear in the Wikipedia article itself, I assume we're OK. Famspear (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, well. I see another editor removed the source anyway. Probably the safer route.... Famspear (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware it was editors' job to determine whether or not a source reports something as true or false. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In some general sense it is sometimes part of the editor's job to determine whether or not a source statement is true. That does not mean that editors evaluate each and every statement by every source to determine the truth or falsity of every statement. Further, Wikipedia itself does not generally take its own position as to whether a statement is true.


 * Wikipedia articles should include summaries of what reliable sources say. The sources -- even reliable sources -- sometimes disagree on what the truth is, and contradict one another. On a talk page (such as this one), it is sometimes appropriate to point out that a particular source has gotten something wrong. In a situation like that, Wikipedia editors might add information from other sources or, in some circumstances, delete the obviously incorrect information. Each situation can be different. Famspear (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In that case, the editing wouldn't be neutral, because it would be the editor judging based on their personal thoughts whether or not the source material is true or not. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolute neutrality does not and cannot exist; it is a beautiful fable only. The mere presence of a secondary source in an article citation itself reflects the judgment of an editor or editors regarding its suitability. Furthermore, assessments of a source’s relation to expert consensus views must typically be editors’ own (by logical necessity). You can see some such assessments play out in the following section below, which I have been quite surprised to see you ignore. Neutrality is a guiding principle, one that will of necessity always remain at least a bit out of reach. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

To be aware
In looking through sources, I think there's a lot of "bad" stories on this, presuming that the win for Masterpiece meant one can discriminate on religious basis, which is clearly not the case. (They may have simply assumed that when word got out that it was ruled in favor of Masterpiece, that this was necessarily the result). We should be very discriminating on any story that purports this was the result, since it clearly contradicts the slip opinion. --M asem (t) 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Or basically what was said in the prior section :) This is not a landmark case. --M asem  (t) 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Good points by editor Masem. Famspear (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Members of the news media (disclosure: I am a former broadcast news reporter) sometimes flub stories about court cases. Some non-lawyers, especially, tend to view court decisions as "the court sided with X" or "the court ruled against Y" without really understanding the holdings of the court. Famspear (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye, I can certainly understand that, given the lack of a legal education the news media receives, possible courses regarding defamation aside. All the same, however, I should hope that the major national news reporters (Adam Liptak at the NYT, et al.) noted this case correctly (given time for revision, etc.). &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 00:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Liptak definitely got it right (NYT is now included). The majority of good RSes got it right, I just want to caution like the Denver Post above got it wrong, and editor insist the version that claims this was a landmark case that ruled in favor of free exercise of religion backed by one of those poorer sources, we should point to the high-quality ones. --M asem (t) 00:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, Masem. It's strange: only the Denver Post (at least, when I checked around when that source was added) was trumpeting the decision as a landmark one... Anyway, yes, the high-quality reliable sources tend to be best, and their proliferation certainly wouldn't be the detriment of this article. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 00:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I made a minor adjustment to the terminology in the intro, changing from the word "finding" to the word "ruling." In court cases, the term "finding" is often limited to questions of fact, while terms such as "concluding", "ruling", "deciding" or "holding" relate to conclusions of law. Generally, both "findings of fact" and "conclusion of law" can occur at the trial court level, while the higher courts (such as the courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court) render only "conclusions of law".

However, even lawyers and judges don't always use these terms in this way consistently. Famspear (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion
Justice Ginsburg did not address that Phillips would also not create a cake for a homosexual wedding and then sell it to a heterosexual woman. Thus, his services offered were the same. Any couple can get a cake for a heterosexual wedding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C76D:8AC8:588E:CBD5:E308:A231 (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Paint me a masterpiece that defiles your God and makes me feel happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C76D:8AC8:588E:CBD5:E308:A231 (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Prognostication?
Currently, the “Opinion of the Court” section contains prognostication, sources’ speculation as to how the case may affect other undecided cases. I must admit I can’t recall coming upon such in other case articles. In any case, such material would be out of place in an opinion section, as such sections are supposed to explain what the court actually did/ruled. (In fact, the article would benefit from a more traditional case-article organization.) The material would better belong in an analysis section. However, even an analysis section tends to focus on a case’s effect on the state of the law generally. Prognosticating roles in or effects on other specific cases seems rather inappropriate and out of place. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I added some headings that might alleviate your concern. A dissenting opinion is not an opinion by "the Court". In a narrow technical sense, even a concurring opinion is not an opinion by "the Court." So, I added applicable headings. I also added a heading for the last part of the article, which does widen into a discussion of the aftermath, etc. Famspear (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m still wary of the prognosticating at the end of the “Impact” section, the “Some analysts believe …” part. I don’t believe we get into such blog fodder on Wikipedia, sourced or not. If the case ends up being cited substantively by these undecided cases, then we could certainly include them in the “Impact” section. We should adhere more strenuously to the facts actually before us. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a policy that deals with that, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. And that says It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. The paragraph you are referencing contains predictions by multiple recognized experts who are scholars in this field, so policy actually allows it. IMHO, it should be left in the article because it is something that has received significant coverage. Many articles contain predictions, like election articles containing polls and analysis by the Cook Report. Regards SoWhy 20:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This - expects in the field discussion a potential impact of a ruling (particularly when the landmark impact was not decided one) seems perfectly fair. I know the focus is on the Hawaii v Trump case, but I (as a totally non-legal expert) can also see this applying in the NIFLA v California case over CPCs. --M asem (t) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let’s try this. Show me other case articles on Wikipedia, ones rated GA or better would be most helpful, that do this. I am not aware of any. Perhaps we should start an RfC aimed at Law Project members on the matter. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? We have a policy and it says that it can be done. Whether other articles already do it is not relevant since "precedent" is not a valid argument for or against having certain information. As pointed out, this is in fact something multiple reliable sources are discussing (here is another one), so why shouldn't we include this when policy explicitly says it's okay as long as WP:UNDUE is not violated? Regards SoWhy 05:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There may be some guideline or common practice of the Law Project against such prognostication and speculation, in which case the material would eventually end up deleted anyway. It’s looking like an RfC is in our future. As someone with some legal training and familiarity with these case articles, I can tell you that the prognostication looks most unencyclopedic and unprofessional. It’s material much better suited for blogs and talking heads, not an encyclopedia. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for the US but here in Germany legal journals routinely include such analysis and speculation and it is not considered unprofessional to predict the outcome of future cases or how a court will rule in future based on their previous rulings. This is certainly not the only article in Wikipedia that contains such language (see for example Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n which is a GA and contains similar language). So I do disagree with the notion that this is "unencyclopedic". Regards SoWhy 07:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You don’t appear to understand what text I am objecting to. I am objecting to the end of the “Impact” section, from “Some analysts believe” onward. I am objecting to speculation regarding the effect of this case on specific undecided cases (mentioned by name), not on the state of the law more generally, hence my lack of objection to the rest of that final paragraph. I see no such speculation regarding actual undecided cases in the case article you cite, so you have failed to provide any counterexample to my claim. Furthermore, journal articles are not encyclopedias. Journal articles are frequently about speculation, front and center. Nothing new there. The kind of prognostication I’m actually discussing would seem to be quite new in Wikipedia case articles, certainly rather unusual, and quite unencyclopedic and unprofessional for an encyclopedia.
 * Let’s be frank. The material will eventually be removed — either because the speculation will have become a fact to be discussed in its own right, or because the speculation will have come to nothing. Why not hold off mentioning these other cases until and if there are facts to mention? Antinoos69 (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware, I added it (edited by others since then). I just don't agree with you that it's unprofessional because professionals do it and I don't agree that it's unencyclopedic because our policies, as pointed out, explicitly allow it. The article I mentioned as an example contains the sentence Just a week prior to the acceptance of the certiorari, in United States v. Stevens the Court overturned another law that sought restrictions on depictions of animal cruelty, which some analysts felt would reflect the Court's position to likely overturn the violent video game law. So yes, it does include speculation from journalists before the decision on how it will be decided based on a previous case. Precedent exists, if that was relevant. Ultimately, I doubt we can find consensus here though without further input by other editors, so asking some members of WPLAW or WPSCOTUS to weigh in might help. I'll leave a message at the relevant talk pages. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is reliably sourced speculation that this decision presages X, and X doesn't come about, then we can report that outcome when it happens. bd2412  T 10:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, if you’re suggesting we mention here that this case was speculated to lead to particular results in other cases but those speculated results never came to pass, which is what I understand you to be saying, well, you simply must be joking. The point here is this case, not ultimately fruitless speculations regarding it. The entire matter would obviously have to be removed, assuming it were allowed to remain. Imagine the utter mess Wikipedia would soon become if every fruitless speculation about the subjects of articles were heaped into those articles! Frankly, who could possibly care about such absurdities? If that’s not what you meant, apologies, but I don’t see how better to interpret you. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You’re doubly confused. First, the fact that you are responsible for the disputed passage is utterly irrelevant to whether you understand that is the passage to which I am referring. Second, the sentence you reference from your supposed counterexample fails to reflect the situation here. That sentence presents the situation of a prior and already decided decision being used to prognosticate the outcome in the case forming the subject of that other article. The disputed material here presents instead the situation of the case forming the subject of this article being used to prognosticate the outcome in another undecided case. So you have most emphatically failed to provide a counterexample. If we followed the example you provide, we would remove the disputed material from this article and at some point place the relevant portions of it in the articles of the as yet undecided cases mentioned therein. Clear? Again, though, why the bother over material that will surely end up being removed in the foreseeable future? Antinoos69 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with you does not make me confused. I provided an example of coverage of speculation (that the decision Stevens will lead to a similar discussion in Brown) that took place before Brown was decided and yet was and is still included in the article about the case. The only difference is that the sentence is in the article about the latter case and not the previous case. That though would not be an argument not to have such information at all but just not to have it in this article. You were arguing that no case articles contain speculation and I provided an example that does. But again, I think - backed by policy - that such information can and should be included in all relevant articles, i.e. both here and in Hawaii v. Trump. You disagree. That's perfectly fine. Now let's wait what other editors think so consensus can be established. If consensus finds that such information should not be included, I'm fine with that. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a few more sources that strength the argument to why Masterpiece will likely impact HvT. I agree we can revisit that after the HvT ruling is ordered and if it doesn't rest on Masterpiece, then we can cut out, but as long as we aren't saying it factually and attributing it to analysts/experts, we're not violating CRYSTAL or the like. Also, I found another area, sourced, that Masterpiece could be said to impact, that being medical conscience clauses, and added that. It's clear that most of the rest of the decision doesn't change the status quo, but the emphasis on the hostility of what public officials said is a novel aspect that experts believe will have reprocussions. --M asem (t) 14:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, your confusion persists. You don’t understand my argument or position, and you will naturally understand that you are in no position to explain to me what my own argument and position actually are. That is considered presumptuous and condescending, not to mention foolish and ridiculous. As my first post in this section states, and as my last post elaborated at some length, my argument concerns the instant case forming the subject of this article being used to prognosticate the outcome of other undecided cases not forming the subject of this article. If you didn’t understand that, and it seems that you didn’t, then you should have asked for clarification rather than ludicrously attempting to explain my own position to me. You still have provided no counterexample. So, to repeat from my last post, “If we followed the example you provide, we would remove the disputed material from this article and at some point place the relevant portions of it in the articles of the as yet undecided cases mentioned therein.” Was that not clear? Nothing you’ve since said changes the truth of that statement. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand it. I just don't agree with it. That's the difference. And while I contend that the example provided is a counterexample, I cannot force you to agree with that. However, that is not the point. Even if no other articles do it, I have pointed you to specific policy that explicitly allows such content. You have so far not explained why the inclusion of this paragraph would run against our policies and guidelines but merely claimed that it "looks most unencyclopedic and unprofessional" which is a subjective assessment imho. As much as I enjoy discussion, I think we both might benefit from taking a step back and letting others voice their opinions as well so we can establish consensus. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 08:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you certainly didn’t understand it, as your mischaracterization of it in your previous post made crystal clear. Or do you plan to continue your asinine attempt to tell me what my position is? Perhaps that’s considered socially acceptable in Germany. Furthermore, in admitting there in fact is a difference between your example and the situation here, one that happens to form part of the crux of my point, you effectively admit you have provided no counterexample, whether you like it or not. Period. You may choose doggedly to insist otherwise, but facts remain facts. Wisdom would require an admission. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think calling other people's comments "asinine" is socially acceptable anywhere. I merely quoted what you said verbatim and pointed out that you have not mentioned any policy or guideline to support your argument. If I'm incorrect, please point out where you did so and I'd be happy to apologize. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 11:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Foolishly trying to explain other people’s positions to them is certainly asinine, though perhaps not in Germany. And your attempt to change my subject has failed. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I was brought here from a post on WT:SCOTUS. I disagree with almost everything Antinoos said, but ultimately come to the same conclusion: we should not include reliably sourced predictions of the impact this will have on other cases (right yet). It hasn't even been a week since this decision was handed down so I sincerely doubt the sources we see represent particularly rigorous scholarship, rather, there is every incentive for a news organization to leverage the popularity of this case with a litany of hot takes. This is not to say they're wrong, but that given how close we are to the event, there is a clear bias to make connections that may be spurrious. Yes, per WP:CRYSTAL we have every ability to include things and then later take them out, but that doesn't mean we should. Why rush to include things we know may well be false when we can just wait for the dust to settle? We should give it a few weeks to see if and how these arguments develop. I don't want every contemporary SCOTUS article to become a dumping ground for the latest hot take. I genuinely believe it is too soon; it hasn't even been a week. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The opinion may be very recent, but the case itself has been coming down the pipeline for six years, and the underlying issues have been discussed for much longer in one form or another. We're not talking about a lightning strike or meteor out of the blue here. Regardless, your argument is at best a case for further development of the article as sources deepen over time, and the contemporary response will always remain relevant to the history of how the opinion was perceived and interpreted, even if later generations believe that response completely off base. postdlf (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this has been coming down the pipeline for 6 years and the implications for other cases are so robust, then we would expect to see discussion of it among legal scholars already and would not need to resort to op-eds published in newspapers that were only published in the few days following the release of the decision. The fact that it's been going through lower courts for so long without significant discussion among legal scholars about its affects just shows my point: this coverage is likely motivated by the recency of the event and is likely to be biased and WP:UNDUE. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick Google News search for "Masterpiece cakeshop" up to 2015 (eg the case has not been touched by SCOTUS) shows significant interest in it at a national level, both as news and as a legal conflict between anti-discrimination and religious freedoms. --M asem (t) 00:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware, my issue is not about the notability of the case as a whole or its impact on legal doctrine in general, but specifically prognostication about the impact the case will have on other cases currently under litigation. After reading through this thread it seemes like the discussion is not on the merits of the particular edit by SoWhy (which I actually support) but blanket claims about whether we can or can't include such things. It's obviously false that we can't include them, but it is also false that just because these predictions exist we should include them. When I say I don't want SCOTUS articles to become a dumping ground for the latest hot take, it's the second that I'm warning against. I think the sources SoWhy has tried to include are a net positive, that's why I disagree with pretty much everything Antinoos has said, but I also don't want this discussion to go down the path of "this news organization published this prediction about the case an hour after the decision was released so we have to include it" because that's a net negative. That's why I said I'm opposed to the inclusion right yet because I think the article would be better served by not trying to include every publication as it comes out, but waiting for the arguments to develop a bit more. Because the fact of the matter is that in 6 years of prior history legal scholars have generally passed on making predictions like these. Laycock (2018), in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy wrote extensively on the potential ramifications of this case (see section 3, e.g.) yet despite being written after the grant of certiorari didn't find it fit to prognosticate on how this case may affect other specific cases, rather, cases on this topic as a whole. Holick (2015) also wrote entirely on Masterpiece Cakeshop describing its implications for free speech cases, yet did not prognosticate on its impacts on specific cases. Velte (2016) in the Connecticut Law Review brought up Masterpiece to discuss its implications for how Hobby Lobby would be interpreted in the courts going forward, but not on any case that was currently pending. Even Price (2018), a BA thesis on predicting the outcome of this case based on oral arguments, amicus briefs, and voting patterns of the justices, didn't see it fit to make predictions about the impact of the decision (and it turned out the author's prediction was correct). Now, obviously these were all before the actual decision came out, but my point is that if it has received attention in law reviews already, it will in the future if these predictions have merit. I reject the false crisis of add it now and fix it later; there is no deadline and Hawaii v. Trump likely won't be decided before the next cylce of law review publications in the fall. That doesn't mean we have to wait eternally, obviously, but that we should keep in perspective the fact that we have months to let this simmer and there's no reason we have to do this the same week the decision came out. Genuinely, I believe including information that we admit can turn out to be false is a bad plan when compared to the fact that we could just wait a bit. Give the slightest bit of time for the public and scholarly discourse to develop and winow out the bad ones without much scholarly consensus, because, still, to this day, it hasn't even been a week. Once the body of discussion has grown (or hasn't) we'll be in a better position to actually evaluate the merits of these sources and relative weight of the arguments. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one could have predicted what cases the case would have affected until after the decision was made. It's the commentary after the fact of what has come from the rather different result that most were expecting that is the subject for discussion. I fully agree that some years from now, we'd want more legal expert's analysis over news commentary, but we're not going to get legal analysis for some time. But we do have news sources with knowledge about the legal process, which does include some lawyers, figuring where this case might come into play. That's fully appropriate for WP to include in the short term and replace out in the long-term; we're a living, working document, and this type of stuff is what I'd expect to find in a more general work rather than a legal study; we're putting a decision into context that readers will understand how it affects their world. And key is still making sure we're stating these as predictions of experts, not WP's voice predicting these. --M asem  (t) 23:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

in regards to this addition you are trying to add, WP articles on SCOTUS cases are not going to list out every single case that refers to the decision of the case, unless that case is a fundamental change or clarification from the previous one. For example, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, a past case, is presently the focus of a pending case of the Court, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. which may reverse that previous decision, so clearly on Quill the discussion of South Dakota is proper as a subsequent case; even if South Dakota is decided to retain Quill, that discussion still belongs because of the legal history of that case.

In the case from Arizona you're adding, all it is is a case that used Masterpiece to justify its decision. It certainly doesn't impact the Masterpiece decision. I agree we should mention the case as part of the impact/analysis that shows that Kennedy's affirmation that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional (not necessarily a novel principle but an affirmative statement by the court), but we don't need to call it out separately or in as much detail you are giving it. The only key elements to that case are: it was decided within a few days of Masterpiece, and cited Masterpiece extensively. What was cited, or the details of a state-level, yet-to-be-challenged-in-circuit-court decisions are far too much WP:WEIGHT on this article. --M asem (t) 12:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede
May I ask, from where are you getting this sentence: "The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality." ? Bodding (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See the first paragraph under (currently) Analysis. It's basically what Kennedy's opinion said: They could not rule any further on the issues, because the case effectively was tainted, and that they would look to wee other cases that would not be tainted by that to make its decision. --M asem (t) 01:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Justice Kennedy, and J. Elaine Kagan in her concurring opinion, actually did speak to those issues. Kennedy did affirm that Colorado's LGBT law can "protect gay persons . . . in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” In doing so, he wrote, the state could have "legitimate reasons to forgive bakers who refuse to bake anti-LGBT cakes and punish those who refuse to bake a wedding cake for same-sex couples." Justice Kennedy said that Court could not, in the future, rule expansively in favor of any baker’s religious claims, “lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”
 * While J. Kagan did say that "cake bakers can be required to bake the same sorts of cakes they make for all other couples but might not be required to bake special ones with specific messaging." That all sounds quite comprehensive to me. And I'm not judging, mind, but the bit about not ruling on a "broader intersection" seems quite misleading. Bodding (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Editor Masem is essentially correct. Editor Bodding, you are referring to statements in the text, not to rulings in the text.


 * Contrary to what many non-lawyers might think, many or even most statements found in many court opinions are not rulings -- not decisions or holdings -- by the court rendering the opinion. Most such statements about what the law is are what we call obiter dicta, or words said in passing. Such statements may be correct statements about the law, but they nevertheless are not legally binding -- at least not legally binding based on the particular case in question. It takes the study of literally thousands of texts of court cases to develop the ability to separate "holdings" from "dicta."


 * For non-lawyers, the matter might made more confusing by the multiple technical uses of the word "holding." For example, the first few paragraphs in the official prints of U.S. Supreme Court decisions often include summaries of what the Court says later in the actual opinion, and these summaries are labeled as holdings. The term usually has, however, a separate, narrower meaning when used by lawyers and judges. And, sometimes, the holding or holdings of the court in a case are not precisely stated in the published opinion, and lawyers and judges therefore have to distill the holding(s). This work is not for those not trained through years of study.


 * To make matters even more confusing for non-lawyers, lawyers and judges routinely quote from prior opinions in prior cases on particular points of law without bothering to note that the quoted material was dicta -- not part of the holding(s) of the prior court. Generally, lawyers and judges who quote dicta from prior cases know that other lawyers and judges are big boys and girls, and are expected to be able to go back and read and analyze the cited opinions.


 * In short, what a court "said" in a published opinion is not always what the court decided. Famspear (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Much of this requires reading the analysis of the decision. Most of the Justices did say that there was a valid complaint between the couple and the baker to be decided (and some in fact actually wrote what they thought should have been decided), but the hostility tainted the discussion in the judicial process, and so they had to nix any decision for that at this time. That's clear when you ready the majority as well as what most legal analysis came to. From Kennedy's opinion (Section III) "The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided. In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated." In layman's terms, they need to await a case (like Arlene's Flowers, perhaps) where there's no hostility on the part of decision makers applied, to review the intersection of anti-discrimination and free exercise. --M asem (t) 02:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * To make matters even more confusing for non-lawyers, lawyers often use the term "decision" to refer to the entire court opinion. Indeed, I myself did that at least once above. I do it all the time. Of course, in the narrow technical sense, the entire opinion consists of several categories of parts, and the description of the decision (or decisions) is only one category. Famspear (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some definitions that may help:

Precedent. "[ . . . ] A rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1059 (5th ed. 1979).

In the United States, which uses a common law system in its federal courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:


 * Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

--''United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne)'', 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996), at [58] (bolding added).

Holding. [noun] "The legal principle to be drawn from the opinion (decision) of the court. Opposite of dictum....." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 658 (5th ed. 1979).

[to] Hold. [verb] "To adjudge or decide, spoken of a court, particularly to declare the conclusion of law reached by the court as to the legal effect of the facts disclosed...." Black's Law Dictionary, pp. 657-658 (5th ed. 1979).

Decision [noun] "A determination arrived at after consideration of facts, and, in legal context, law. A popular rather than technical or legal word; a comprehensive term having no fixed, legal meaning .... A judgment or decree pronounced by a court in settlement of a controversy submitted to it and by way of authoritative answer to the questions raised before it.... The word may also included various rulings, as well as orders." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 366 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added).

Ruling [noun] "A judicial or administrative interpretation of a provision of a statute, order, regulation, or ordinance..." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1197 (5th ed. 1979).

obiter dictum (plural "obiter dicta"): "an observation or remark made by a judge [ . . . ] concerning some rule, principle, or application of law, or the solution of a question suggested by the case at bar, but not necessarily involved in the case or essential to its determination ...." Such statements " lack the force of an adjudication ...." Such statements are "opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and made without argument, or full consideration of the point...." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 409 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added). For more on how courts view dicta (non-precedential statements) in court opinions, see ''Central Virginia Comm. College v. Katz'', 546 U.S. 356 (2006) ("....we are not bound to follow our dicta in a prior case in which the point now at issue was not fully debated....."). Famspear (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for telling me what big boys and girls know. But if you go back and read what I wrote, I know well what an opinion is and the sum total of that opinion is what reversed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with a narrow ruling. And I'm not a "non-lawyer." The misleading bit from Adam Liptak at the NYTimes should not be in the lede if only for the benefit of all those 'non-lawyers' you speak of. Bodding (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like nearly all SCOTUS rulings, the only direct and immediate impact is that Commission's ruling against Phillips is reversed, because the Commission was hostile. It didn't touch CO's anti-discrimination law, it didn't touch the First Amendment. That's obvious.
 * We're talking about how that decision is going to be used by courts in the future, and the fact that it didn't address with any specificity how anti-discrimination and First Amendment free exercise should be resolved is the point most analysis, including Liptak, came to conclude. We're writing this article for non-lawyers, keep that in mind. --M asem (t) 03:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Good point. Next time I have a question I'll go to your talk page if you don't mind. Bodding (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Would you mind closing off Famspear's law lessons as they are condescending and not necessary. Thanks. Bodding (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Bodding: My law lessons are not condescending. Indeed, most people who read Wikipedia are not lawyers, just as most people who read Wikipedia are not brain surgeons. In a discussion on a talk page about the legal ramifications of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, it is appropriate for Wikipedians who are lawyers to explain technical points about law to assist most Wikipedia readers -- who are non-lawyers -- just as it would be appropriate for Wikipedians who are brain surgeons to explain technical points about brain surgery in the talk page for an article on that subject.


 * And, there is no restriction under the rules of Wikipedia that requires that an editor's comments on a talk page pass an imaginary test of "necessity." Famspear (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * they are boorish. Learn the difference. Bodding (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm a lawyer who went to a real brick and mortar law school. Not online law school like you did, apparently. Bodding (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, which that is. --M asem (t) 05:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Bodding: No, I don't need to "learn" what "boorish" means. I already know. Boorish means loutish or churlish. In the talk page for an article on a legal topic, my quoting from a court opinion and from Black's Law Dictionary in explaining the difference between a holding and obiter dicta is not an example of being "boorish". By contrast, engaging in a personal attack by making a false statement about a fellow editor having gone to an "online law school" instead of a "real brick and mortar law school" might be interpreted as an example of boorishness. Famspear (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Learn to indent like others do. Boorish is when an editor must have his words noticed so he doesn't indent for fear of having them lost deep in a thread rather than flush left where he can shine. Or so he believes. And now you've turned a simple inquiry into a boorish thread that I have to leap over and around to speak with Masem. Pity. Bodding (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Public Opinion
I'm not entirely sure how relevant this section is to either the facts of the case or results of the Court's decision. Moreover, I feel like this section implies that the plaintiff refused service to a homosexual couple based on their sexuality, rather than his refusing to bake the cake for its message, regardless of the sexual orientation of his potential customers. The ruling itself even specifically addresses this distinction. While I'm not suggesting we necessarily delete this section, I do question its merit and wonder if it should be rephrased to reflect the majority opinion's distinction. Since this would be a fairly substantive edit, I wanted to put this topic to the talk page before making any edits myself. For now, I'm simply adding a clarifying sentence at the end, but I'm open to discussion, rather than outright deletion or overhaul of this section. 165.225.39.69 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have lately found myself in an edit war over this section with a user who makes a point of keeping his(?) personal user and talk pages blank. (You can identify the user from the edit history but the username may be ironic, as the attitude expressed is typical of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"). Basically, the advocates of enforcing acceptance of same-sex coupling have a much broader definition of what constitutes "discrimination based on sexual orientation" than the opponents of that practice, and want the public-opinion question read as if all poll respondents agreed with their definition when answering the question. I believe NPOV requires making clear that only one side of this case regards that as the matter at issue. The other editor first deleted a statement to that effect as "original research", and when I reinstated it for NPOV reasons as the section as is assumes the one-sided reading of the poll to be correct, as "unsourced" original research; when I provided sources for each of the parties I cited in fact having the reading of the issue that I attributed to them, that got reverted as "synthesis".
 * Deleting the section would be better than letting a one-sided reading stand unchallenged. LE (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A public opinion should be related to the opinion about the decision or case otherwise, not tangentially related to the matter at hand. I think there was discussion about how the SCOTUS decision waffled on the matter due to the technicality of how the CO board reviewed the matter. That woudl be fine. --M asem (t) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

embarrassing errors in this article
I was starting to fix errors in this article when I realized that there are so many that it's hopeless: 1. Phillips (the main person in the article) is misspelled several times. 2. Oregon is misspelled at least once. 3. Phillips' male adversary in the later case is referred to as she and her despite gender being part of the case being adjudicated! Phillips' defense is that he is allowed to believe that the man has not become a woman by claiming to have become one. Pronouns should be omitted there (there are many ways to fix). 4. Ungrammatical use of their when such can be done grammatically. Plurals ARE a great way to avoid gender debates, but use plurals correctly! 5. "to follow" at end of a sentence is ambiguous (that was near the start of the article). And many other minor errors. Qc1okay (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wrong. MOS:GENDERID. WP Ludicer (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Why no mention of the three-tiered cake with "cheesecake icing" with Satan on top licking a working dildo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.182 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)