Missouri loves companies right to discriminate

[Chinook]

Businesses should have a right to refuse service, but not a right to insult/offend people they don't like. Gay people aren't the ones making these situations difficult, religious nuts are.

Again is, "I don't agree with the ceremony, so I am declining your business" an insult? I feel like the honesty is better than the lie in almost all cases, and this is one of them. I don't think anyone should legally condone intentional misleading, as it can be challenged pretty easily. If a baker starts spamming slurs and quoting Leviticus, I can totally see what you're saying. But I think people need to re-calibrate what can reasonably be considered offensive if it includes directly stating your opposition in a respectful manner.

[Blake]

That's where the racial and behavioral difference comes in to play. That photographer isn't avoiding going to a wedding with gay people. They are avoiding going to a wedding where two people of the same sex are being married, something that goes against his/her religion.

If the photographer is smart, they will just say they are booked for the weekend. But as far as I know, there's no law requiring businesses of any kind to appear in any place they choose not to appear to provide a service.

"Court: Photographer who wouldn’t work a gay wedding violated anti-discrimination lawBy Molly McDonoughAug 22, 2013, 09:05 pm CDT

A Christian photographer who refused to photograph the wedding of a gay couple violated state anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography, refused to photograph the commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple because she believes marriage is a union between one man and one woman. In May 2012, a*New Mexico appeals court said the refusal violated*the state’s law and Thursday’s decision upholds that finding.

“We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the [New Mexico Human Rights Act] and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,”*the court opined(PDF).

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling.

“When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs,” Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. “The Cons ution guarantees religious freedom in this country, but we are not en led to use our beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against other people.”

In Thursday’s ruling, the New Mexico court said the state’s anti-discrimination law doesn’t violate free speech guarantees in this case because the law doesn’t compel “Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another.” Indeed, the court noted that Elane Photography could advertise that its owners are personally opposed to same-sex marriage.........


http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/art...idiscriminati/

[Blake]

......Like if Walmart today banned black people from entering the store, I wouldn't want Uncle Sam stopping them.

Rofl....holy , it took 100k words for it to finally come out that you condone racial bigotry. No wonder we weren't getting anywhere. I was under a faulty assumption. My bad.

Lololololoooooooool

[Shastafarian]

Like that's not a better example. A better example would be a seafood restaurant that doesn't serve s fish or a barbecue joint that doesn't have pork. The idea that those places need to accommodate non-kosher diets lest they be bigoted doesn't sit well with people. That's why this is a two-sided issue. Is a person that works for themselves free to use their services in ways they seem fit? Or are they bound to render those services for anyone who's willing to pay?

Your analogy is much worse. In mine, a NEW service isn't being requested. In your analogy, you are asking someone to provide a service they normally wouldn't provide (i.e. handling and cooking treif food items) that in actuality is infringing on their actual religious beliefs. My analogy supposes only that a person is being required to offer their NORMAL services. Holy you're terrible at analogies.

When can someone refuse service? Like can a bakery refuse to make a -shaped cake for a frat party?

Again, that's protected because 1) it's vulgar, and 2) you're asking them to provide a service they don't normally provide (making NOVELTY cakes).

Does a vegan photographer have to photograph a hog-killing party (and yes, that's actually a thing)? You take an awful lot of freedom away from people when you argue the government should force them to work without discrimination. In a world with social media and the pressure it brings, it seems like government intervention is unnecessary and unwise.

That's not discrimination because it involves FORCING someone to watch the killing of animals. How are you so obtuse you don't understand the difference in these analogies?

Again is, "I don't agree with the ceremony, so I am declining your business" an insult?

ABSOLUTELY it is. Telling someone either you think they're going to or you don't think they should be allowed to get married (most likely both) is 100% an insult. Saying it nicely doesn't make it less so.

I feel like the honesty is better than the lie in almost all cases, and this is one of them. I don't think anyone should legally condone intentional misleading, as it can be challenged pretty easily. If a baker starts spamming slurs and quoting Leviticus, I can totally see what you're saying. But I think people need to re-calibrate what can reasonably be considered offensive if it includes directly stating your opposition in a respectful manner.

You are so clueless it's laughable.

[Chinook]

Rofl....holy , it took 100k words for it to finally come out that you condone racial bigotry. No wonder we weren't getting anywhere. I was under a faulty assumption. My bad.

Lololololoooooooool

I don't condone it. But I don't condone the government intruding in the right of people to make poor choices. It's sad for you that you want the government to impress your morals onto everyone else. It really seems like you're the close-minded bigot here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't condone it. But I don't condone the government intruding in the right of people to make poor choices. It's sad for you that you want the government to impress your morals onto everyone else. It really seems like you're the close-minded bigot here.

You're ignoring the initial discrimination and whining about the backlash.

You're the one that likes to peddle first cause nonsense. This concept should be easy for you.

Bottom line is that SCOTUS has given LGBT equal protection. You've already lost and now that Scalia is dead unless Cruz gets the nomination you have no hope at all.

[Chinook]

Your analogy is much worse. In mine, a NEW service isn't being requested. In your analogy, you are asking someone to provide a service they normally wouldn't provide (i.e. handling and cooking treif food items) that in actuality is infringing on their actual religious beliefs. My analogy supposes only that a person is being required to offer their NORMAL services. Holy you're terrible at analogies.

This has already been addressed. I agree that it doesn't violate the baker's right if someone wants to buy a generic cake. I was under the impression that these cakes were at least somewhat customized. If that's the case, it's not simply a normal service.

Again, that's protected because 1) it's vulgar, and 2) you're asking them to provide a service they don't normally provide (making NOVELTY cakes).

1) Vulgarity is totally in eyes of the beholder. That's why this is even being discussed.

2) How do you know they don't provide this? This was my scenario, and as I had already explained, I was looking at this from a custom cake perspective. I've repeated said that I see this as a rights clash between the state and artisans. I wouldn't consider generic manufacturers to be in the latter group.

That's not discrimination because it involves FORCING someone to watch the killing of animals. How are you so obtuse you don't understand the difference in these analogies?

I think you're the one who doesn't understand analogies. Or in the very least, you have no idea how subjective your perspective is. You act like killing animals isn't something that happens millions of times a day with the only reason why we aren't all intimately acquainted with it is because we live in a modern society. This isn't human sacrifices to an ancient god we're talking about here. There are plenty of people who see these events as normal and necessary. That you and the photographer find it horrifying is your problem.

ABSOLUTELY it is. Telling someone either you think they're going to or you don't think they shouldn't be allowed to get married (most likely both) is 100% an insult. Saying it nicely doesn't make it less so.

I don't think you'll find a lot of support out there that telling someone you disagree with them is an insult. If you get all bible-thumpy and bellicose, that's one thing. You have a right to have your own opinion, and if you only give it to them when solicited, it's really hard for me to see how being honest should be discouraged.

You are so clueless it's laughable.

So are you advocating that they lie to their prospective customers? I think that's stupid for many reasons, the biggest being that it's easy to call out.

A: My partner and I would like you to come take pictures of our wedding on May 7.
B: I can't I'm...booked that day.
A: Well what openings do you have in your schedule? We are really big fans of your work, so we'd really love for you to be the one who captures the ceremony.

There goes any way of B had of getting out of this without it becoming awkward or convoluted. That you think I'm clueless for arguing that doing this is wrong is silly.

[Shastafarian]

This has already been addressed. I agree that it doesn't violate the baker's right if someone wants to buy a generic cake. I was under the impression that these cakes were at least somewhat customized. If that's the case, it's not simply a normal service.

The only way your argument holds water is if the customization is offensive. And if the baker feels it is offensive, and not simply that it goes against their religious beliefs, then they can let the courts decide whether it truly is offensive.

1) Vulgarity is totally in eyes of the beholder. That's why this is even being discussed.

The beholder being the court system if the person truly believes it is or isn't vulgar.

2) How do you know they don't provide this? This was my scenario, and as I had already explained, I was looking at this from a custom cake perspective. I've repeated said that I see this as a rights clash between the state and artisans. I wouldn't consider generic manufacturers to be in the latter group.

So if they already provide it, what is their reason for saying no? Because they hate fraternities?

I think you're the one who doesn't understand analogies.

anyone reading through this knows which one of us has a better handle on analogous situations.

Or in the very least, you have no idea how subjective your perspective is. You act like killing animals isn't something that happens millions of times a day with the only reason why we aren't all intimately acquainted with it is because we live in a modern society. This isn't human sacrifices to an ancient god we're talking about here. There are plenty of people who see these events as normal and necessary. That you and the photographer find it horrifying is your problem.

And again you don't understand analogous situations. You're equating killing living things to marrying a person of the same gender. Those two situations are not analogous. The fact that some people are fine watching animals be slaughtered doesn't mean anyone should be forced to watch it. If you're seriously going to claim that equates to forcing someone to watch two men get married...

I don't think you'll find a lot of support out there that telling someone you disagree with them is an insult.

I guess it's not just analogies you don't understand. Being gay isn't an OPINION. These people aren't disagreeing with gay people. They are saying gay people are going to burn in or shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as non-gay people. That is insulting. Just like it's insulting to deny an interracial couple the right to get married.

If you get all bible-thumpy and bellicose, that's one thing. You have a right to have your own opinion, and if you only give it to them when solicited, it's really hard for me to see how being honest should be discouraged.

Everyone has the right to an opinion. Everyone does not have a right to discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. How do you not understand this?

So are you advocating that they lie to their prospective customers? I think that's stupid for many reasons, the biggest being that it's easy to call out.

Don't care. If they feel like lying in order to deny services then they have to face the consequences of losing business.

A: My partner and I would like you to come take pictures of our wedding on May 7.
B: I can't I'm...booked that day.
A: Well what openings do you have in your schedule? We are really big fans of your work, so we'd really love for you to be the one who captures the ceremony.

There goes any way of B had of getting out of this without it becoming awkward or convoluted. That you think I'm clueless for arguing that doing this is wrong is silly.

I think you're clueless because you've shown you have no empathy for gay people (or other minorities for that matter). You don't understand their argument and you clearly don't understand situations that would be analogous to their plight.

[Blake]

I don't condone it. But I don't condone the government intruding in the right of people to make poor choices. It's sad for you that you want the government to impress your morals onto everyone else. It really seems like you're the close-minded bigot here.

You're absolutely condoning the right to discrimination based on skin color.

Let darky build his own Walmart!

and lmao you trying the rubber/glue I know you're a bigot but what am I tactic.

[Chinook]

The only way your argument holds water is if the customization is offensive. And if the baker feels it is offensive, and not simply that it goes against their religious beliefs, then they can let the courts decide whether it truly is offensive.

The beholder being the court system if the person truly believes it is or isn't vulgar.

\

Just as with Blake I find myself flabbergasted at how progressives are trying to play the government card right now. The whole point of progressivism is to push for rights that the government isn't currently protecting. Just seem surreal to use this as a basis for an argument. Again, though, this thread is about Mizzou trying to make a law to protect this type of discrimination, so the government angle doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I do think this will end up going to the SCOTUS if the Oregon case doesn't do it first. But in the world we live in at the moment where this is still up to states to decide, basing morals on laws and precedents seems silly.

So if they already provide it, what is their reason for saying no? Because they hate fraternities?

Are we talking about custom cakes or -shaped cakes here? Obviously, if this was a store that sells penis-shaped cakes on the regular, then it would be absurd of them to deny a frat's money. But if this was a custom cake shop and they denied the request because of their morals, then yeah, it's a murkier issue than you're making it out to be.

anyone reading through this knows which one of us has a better handle on analogous situations.

Pointless statement.

And again you don't understand analogous situations. You're equating killing living things to marrying a person of the same gender.

So you've demonstrated that you struggle to understand what an analogy is supposed to be used for. I'm not arguing that killing animals is the same as getting married to someone of the same sex. I am arguing that objecting to photographing the killing of animals due to moral reasons is analogous to objecting to photographing a same-sex ceremony for moral reasons. Your argument against that so far has been pretty much, "Come on, killing animals is way worse." And that's silly. Hog killing parties are people killing animals for food. You can think it's gross all you want, but slaughtering livestock is a fundamental part of human life, and unless you're a perfect vegan, you owe much of your existence to people who are willing to do it. That you try to brand the act as somehow unfit for normal people is pretty prejudiced.

But I'm willing to entertain another argument if you have one.

I guess it's not just analogies you don't understand. Being gay isn't an OPINION.

Dude, I've stated that I don't believe it's an opinion too many times in this thread for you to not have seen it.

These people aren't disagreeing with gay people.

They aren't.

They are saying gay people are going to burn in or shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as non-gay people.

They're saying that when solicited, maybe. You make it sound like these folks are disrupting ceremonies to say gays are going to . They aren't. You won't ever be able to govern thoughts out of people's heads, so if your issue is the beliefs they have, you're gonna be SOL.

Everyone does not have a right to discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. How do you not understand this?

The issue is that hasn't been completely established. Certain laws and court cases have limited the ways in which people can be discriminated against, but there are still more. There's a reason why people like Rush and Robertson haven't been censored. And there's a reason why the government wouldn't be caught dead endorsing discrimination in their own ranks. Those are the two bookends on the continuum of how involved the government is in deterring discrimination. Issues like what happened in Oregon and what's going on in Missouri are the current frontier in the fight to see where on that continuum our society sits right now. Even over this specific point, it's going to be a long battle.

Don't care. If they feel like lying in order to deny services then they have to face the consequences of losing business.

Or they could be honest and also face those consequences. That's been shown to be extremely effective, so why is there a need to litigate this?

I think you're clueless because you've shown you have no empathy for gay people (or other minorities for that matter).

Do you not understand there are multiple minorities in this situation? There are gay people who are the minorities in the general populace. And there are the bigots, who are also the minority, as the majority of people in this country (us being included) don't agree with their beliefs. Both groups need to have their rights respected. You're only looking at this from the perspective of the group you support, but it's more complicated that than. Even when it sucks, the country has to stick to it's principles. The same thing is true when guilty people go free because our court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't go around squashing dissenting opinions. It will turn out badly for everyone in the end.

You don't understand their argument and you clearly don't understand situations that would be analogous to their plight.

It seems like you're one of those people who tries to tell minorities how they feel and just ignore their opinions. You know nothing about me, so you don't know what type of discrimination I've had to deal with. The argument that the only way I can disagree with you is if I am callous to gay people is silly. If you only put yourself in one person's shoes, you'll end up making extremely biased decisions. That's why you don't see deontological systems based on such reasoning.

[Chinook]

You're absolutely condoning the right to discrimination based on skin color..

I don't condone guilty people going free. But I also don't condone making a legal system that makes acquittals virtually impossible. I believe some bad things have to be allowed to happen to protect the good things. I don't care if you want to live in a world where everything you hate is eliminated. It's not realistic.

Let darky build his own Walmart!

I specifically didn't say that.

and lmao you trying the rubber/glue I know you're a bigot but what am I tactic.

Calling out a tactic isn't refuting it. You want the government to force your beliefs onto everyone else. You've suggested that time and time again. Googling the word 'bigot' returns a definition of "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." That describes you in this case. Me saying that I disagree with discrimination but don't want the government to eliminate it more than necessary is pretty much the definition of tolerance (first Google definition being "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."). Just keeps underscoring that you are a pseudo-intellectual trying desperately to act like you're being rational.

[Blake]

I specifically didn't say that.

Well if the black man isn't allowed in Walmart, where does he go?

[Chinook]

Well if the black man isn't allowed in Walmart, where does he go?

Like if Walmart today banned black people from entering the store, I wouldn't want Uncle Sam stopping them. There are other non-governmental controls that will take care of them, and I'd go to Target until those worked their magic. I feel like that's even more true for small businesses, and the Oregon example showed what happens when social pressure starts to work. That business was sunk long before they lost the court case.

Only time I think it's critical for the government to force a business' hand is when there isn't an alternative within a reasonable difference. So like it wouldn't be okay to wait for the only Walmart in town to reintegrate.

The second paragraph isn't as clear as I'd like. But I said that if I were banned from going to Walmart because of my race, I'd go to Target or K-Mart until social pressure forced the store to reintegrate. The only time I'd feel the government should interfere is if there's no reasonable way to work around that business discriminating. Like if Walmart was the only store in town and didn't let black people shop there, then the government should step in to guarantee that people have access to basic supplies.

[Blake]

The second paragraph isn't as clear as I'd like. But I said that if I were banned from going to Walmart because of my race, I'd go to Target or K-Mart until social pressure forced the store to reintegrate. The only time I'd feel the government should interfere is if there's no reasonable way to work around that business discriminating. Like if Walmart was the only store in town and didn't let black people shop there, then the government should step in to guarantee that people have access to basic supplies.

So you want government when you want it.

If Target and Kmart deny black people, where do these government supplies come from for the blacks?

[ElNono]

The second paragraph isn't as clear as I'd like. But I said that if I were banned from going to Walmart because of my race, I'd go to Target or K-Mart until social pressure forced the store to reintegrate. The only time I'd feel the government should interfere is if there's no reasonable way to work around that business discriminating. Like if Walmart was the only store in town and didn't let black people shop there, then the government should step in to guarantee that people have access to basic supplies.

It doesn't work like that though. Government intervention, likely through the judiciary or otherwise, will happen and that's because we have laws in the books (cons ution and local level) about equal protection and discrimination.

The clash here is really only about two competing interests, religion freedom vs equal protection of classes.Again, because it involves rights or privileges granted by law, there's no removing the government from it. The only question is which way the government will resolve the question.

[SpursforSix]

If Kmart deny black people,

LOL. What alternate universe is this?

[Chinook]

So you want government when you want it.

Not only is that a tautology, but it's also true. I think the government has an obligation to make sure people can meet their basic needs. And services like Welfare and Medicaid are examples of that.

If Target and Kmart deny black people, where do these government supplies come from for the blacks?

Pretty sure the government isn't going to Target or K-Mart for its supplies now.

[Chinook]

It doesn't work like that though. Government intervention, likely through the judiciary or otherwise, will happen and that's because we have laws in the books (cons ution and local level) about equal protection and discrimination.

I don't disagree with that.

The clash here is really only about two competing interests, religion freedom vs equal protection of classes.Again, because it involves rights or privileges granted by law, there's no removing the government from it. The only question is which way the government will resolve the question.

The interests aren't equal now, though. This is pretty much the marriage equality question in reverse. It doesn't interfere with religious freedom of some people for other people to get married. No one has a right to stop other people from getting hitched. The SCOTUS pretty much recognized that inequality in ground and sided with the group who had a legitimate case. In this case, it's hard to argue that you have a right to get a cake from a specific store (in my opinion), whereas it seems at least open to question whether businesses have a right to deny service. I mean, they can reject you if you don't have a shirt or shoes, so there's definitely room for debate.

I agree that the SCOTUS will have to decide in favor of one side, but one side keeps the status quo and the other changes it.

[SpursforSix]

Not only is that a tautology, but it's also true. I think the government has an obligation to make sure people can meet their basic needs. And services like Welfare and Medicaid are examples of that.

Why should the government be required to take care of people that won't begin to lift a finger to take care of themselves?
Not to say that this is the case for everyone receiving benefits. But why dilute the goods to those that really need it? Or take away form those that are actually busting their ass to support their families?

[Chinook]

Why should the government be required to take care of people that won't begin to lift a finger to take care of themselves?

Because that's what it means to have a social contract. Now I do think en lement programs need to be reformed, and I'm not against a cut-off for people milking the system. But you can't go into the situation assuming that the system is getting gamed all the time.

[SpursforSix]

Because that's what it means to have a social contract. Now I do think en lement programs need to be reformed, and I'm not against a cut-off for people milking the system. But you can't go into the situation assuming that the system is getting gamed all the time.

Fair enough.

[ElNono]

The interests aren't equal now, though. This is pretty much the marriage equality question in reverse. It doesn't interfere with religious freedom of some people for other people to get married. No one has a right to stop other people from getting hitched. The SCOTUS pretty much recognized that inequality in ground and sided with the group who had a legitimate case. In this case, it's hard to argue that you have a right to get a cake from a specific store (in my opinion), whereas it seems at least open to question whether businesses have a right to deny service. I mean, they can reject you if you don't have a shirt or shoes, so there's definitely room for debate.

I agree that the SCOTUS will have to decide in favor of one side, but one side keeps the status quo and the other changes it.

What I wanted to point out is that there's no such thing as keeping the government non-involved. It's likely not even a choice (would be really unlikely somebody doesn't sue)

Now, what the government decides, like most things, will include winners and losers, and it will be debatable, much like Roe vs Wade was (which personally I thought was a sound, Solomonic decision, but plenty of people disagree) which was another case of competing interests.

[Chinook]

What I wanted to point out is that there's no such thing as keeping the government non-involved. It's likely not even a choice (would be really unlikely somebody doesn't sue)

Now, what the government decides, like most things, will include winners and losers, and it will be debatable, much like Roe vs Wade was (which personally I thought was a sound, Solomonic decision, but plenty of people disagree) which was another case of competing interests.

I guess I'm looking at it as the SCOTUS either deciding that it's cons utional for Mizzou to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people or not. It's not like them siding against whoever sues Mizzou means they endorse discrimination. It would just be them saying they aren't going to step in themselves. It's similar but different if Oregon gets brought to the SCOTUS (which I think will actually happen). The court would be ruling that governments in general can't weigh in on this issue. It wouldn't be the courts saying who's right between gays and religious folk; it would be the court either accepting or rejecting government involvement on either side.

[ElNono]

I guess I'm looking at it as the SCOTUS either deciding that it's cons utional for Mizzou to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people or not. It's not like them siding against whoever sues Mizzou means they endorse discrimination. It would just be them saying they aren't going to step in themselves. It's similar but different if Oregon gets brought to the SCOTUS (which I think will actually happen). The court would be ruling that governments in general can't weigh in on this issue. It wouldn't be the courts saying who's right between gays and religious folk; it would be the court either accepting or rejecting government involvement on either side.

I think the discussion will be framed a different way, simply because the SCOTUS has now set a precedent that sexual orientation is a protected class (back in 2013) under the 5th and potentially the 14th amendment. That puts the conversation squarely on a clash of equal protection vs religious freedom. How they decide is anyone's guess, and largely will probably depend on the merits of each case, but when it comes to cons utional questions, they're very unlikely to pass (even more so if there's different decisions from lower courts, which I don't know if it's the case here, but one would suspect it will be over time unless there's guidance from the higher court). I can see it getting delayed until there's a full SCOTUS, but I would expect them to tackle it head on.

At any rate, even a lower court tackling this is per se government intervention.

[Chinook]

I think the discussion will be framed a different way, simply because the SCOTUS has now set a precedent that sexual orientation is a protected class (back in 2013) under the 5th and potentially the 14th amendment. That puts the conversation squarely on a clash of equal protection vs religious freedom. How they decide is anyone's guess, and largely will probably depend on the merits of each case, but when it comes to cons utional questions, they're very unlikely to pass (even more so if there's different decisions from lower courts, which I don't know if it's the case here, but one would suspect it will be over time unless there's guidance from the higher court). I can see it getting delayed until there's a full SCOTUS, but I would expect them to tackle it head on.

At any rate, even a lower court tackling this is per se government intervention.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't see the court ruling against a plaintiff as supporting the defendant (if those are the appropriate terms). The SCOTUS decides whether the government is cons utionally allowed to do something (at least in cases like we're likely to see about this topic). For example, if Oregon sued and wins in the Supreme Court, I don't think it would mean that Missouri's proposed law would be deemed uncons utional. Rather, the SCOTUS would uphold Oregon's right to make a state law addressing this issue. However, if the Court rule against Oregon, then it WOULD set a national precedent that states can't prohibit this type of discrimination. The inverse is true if Missouri is sued. While one side will win and the other will lose, I don't think that the Court siding with the state (whichever that is) is any more them intervening in this debate than a person who declines to give a homeless person money is intervening in the homeless person's economic situation.