Posted on 04/07/2014 6:49:39 AM PDT by markomalley
What does it say about the Hobby Lobby case that the justices wouldn’t take this case?
First, it says they think the lower courts got it right, I suppose. Otherwise, this case would be constrained by whatever they rule on Hobby Lobby. By not telling the lower courts to at least relook this, they are assuming their position on Hobby Lobby won’t affect this case.
So, since Hobby Lobby is about a business being permitted to have a set of principles by which their business is guided, this doesn’t sound promising to me regarding Hobby Lobby.
The concept died when the government reclassified basically every business as a "place of public accommodation".
“If MSNBC can refuse a prolife ad then a photographer, baker etc should be able to refuse to provide service for a gay wedding.”
You’re absolutely right, but it’s time to jettison the idea that the left, who controls the media, courts, schools, governments, both political parties, and entertainment, wants fairness. We need to put away the idea that fairness and reason is an argument we can win, or that we can win any argument. Then we can go from there: figure out how to regain our liberty.
Good point, but if SCOTUS was about to go in the opposite direction, issuing a broad ruling protecting the religious rights of business owners to run their businesses according to their moral beliefs, wouldn’t that make sense in chucking the case as well?
I mean, the Justices certainly know how the HobbyLobby case will go. I don’t think they’d remand a case back to the lower courts based on a ruling that hasn’t been issued yet ... They’d just drop the case completely (as they have apparantly done) and let any future action by the plaintiff or defendent wait for the ruling.
BTTT!
No. Why would they do that? They’d say the photographer in that case had the right to refuse. The left, who own every institution, is not trying to emancipate gun owners. They’re trying to marginalize, criminalize, then exterminate us.
Spot on. This is bad case law.
Now, try to think of a politically feasible way to undo the VRA.
It’s interesting how the FoxNews website shut down the comments section of their website for this article. This ruling and the fact that the SC won’t take it is just further evidence that the tide has turned against decent law abiding Americans. The Homosexual Gestapo will get us.
Wouldn’t it be cool if the court was “highly protective” of the Constitution as well?
All part of the deconstruction of our once cherished Republic.
Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone else at any time. The tricky part is when you tell the person WHY you are refusing to do business with them. That is what gives them the opportunity to claim “discrimination”.
Just don’t tell them why, and you can do whatever you want.
How many justices are likely closet homos? What’s the count these days? Clambake Roberts, Kagan, and I bet some Ginsburg, and isn’t one of the others suspect too?
Apparently, the last ruling was from the New Mexico state Supreme Court. I don’t know the process and how they went immediately to the US Supreme Court.
Perhaps Scotus reason was that it hadn’t gone through the process of appeal. The article didn’t list any reason from the Scotus other than that they declined the case.
That is the “excuse” the court gave. But they had the ability to accept it, especially since it is harming people right now. Same with the NSA domestic spying case.
They avoid doing their job where it counts most.
Actually, I’d argue that one of the BIG problems we’ve faced in recent years is different institutions surrendering their jurisdictions and perrogatives. Case in point being that Harry Reid’s Senate is now functioning as a wholey owned subsidiary of the Obama White House.
So I’m not going to be all that critical of SCOTUS if they do things like remand cases for lack of standing, or otherwise dispose of them on technical procedure grounds.
If forced to perform such a task, I would have a difficult choice: dress appropriately for work as a slave and produce a level of quality consistent with involuntary servitude, swallow a bottle of ipecac at the start of the ceremony and go home for medical reasons after it took effect, or go to prison rather than pay a fine over an evil and unconstitutional demand from a court that lost its presumption of legitimacy when it issued an illegal order.
As for avoiding such situations, I think those in service occupations have to agree to accept such contracts and only later cancel due to unforeseen conflicts. The gay mafia does not deserve the respect of honest responses to their demands - when they crossed the line into evil litigation, they forfeited the right to be treated with integrity.
I’ll state my simple and elegant solution to this sort of thing:
Take the pictures. Bake the cake. Do it to your usual standards (this avoiding further lawsuits)
By state clearly and upfront that all profits from the work will be donated to a Christian organization that offers gay conversion therapy.
And watch as the legal threat to your business suddenly vanishes.
Everyone should be able to decline work for any reason or with no reason at all. Sadly, that freedom has faded as FedGov has expanded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.