Posted on 12/05/2017 1:27:55 PM PST by x1stcav
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said during oral arguments on Tuesday that Colorado did not appear to show religious tolerance when it used its public accommodations law to force baker Jack Phillips to create speech via a custom cake for a same-sex wedding that defies his religious beliefs.
The line of questioning garnered attention because Kennedy often serves as the divided high court's key swing vote, and a split vote could form again in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Kennedy pointedly criticized Colorado for not being "tolerant" of Phillips' religious beliefs. 00:21 / 01:00 Entrepreneur Elevator Pitch Ep10: ‘I Don’t Think We’re the Right Investors’ Watch Full Screen
"Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual," Kennedy said. "It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Decision for liberty looks promising.
Gee you mean Kennedy actual thinks that if the gays or citizens of Denver do not agree with the baker’s religious beliefs they can use another baker? Wow..what a concept.
Well, it was an oral argument. ..
The gays say it has nothing to do with a cake!
This case is so stupid to me. Why can’t any business refuse any customer for any reason?
If it were a vegan bakery and I asked for a milk chocolate cake with eggs, they’d have be arrested.
It’s not about the cake. It’s about forcing obscenity onto others, and telling them they have to like it.
I’m not a conservative religious person, but I believe in freedom of conscience not to mention First Amendment freedom of speech and religion for those who are.
I support Roy Moore for US Senate noting his fiercest LGBT and Leftist critics are showing intolerance themselves.
If we can replace him and ginsberg under Trump, I'll be very, very happy.
> Why can’t any business refuse any customer for any reason? <
I’m a hard-core conservative, as my many previous posts will attest. But I’m really torn on this one. For this country to survive, the motto “E Pluribus Unum” must have real meaning. Should a business - open to the public - be allowed to put a “No gays served” sign out front? How about “No blacks served”?
I think not. Because such signs would divide us, not unite us.
On the other hand, should a person be forced to go against his religious beliefs? Should an observant Jew, for example, be forced to work on the Sabbath?
This is all too tough a call for me. if I were on the Supreme Court, I’d skip this case and go fishing instead.
Yeah, “E Pluribus Unum” and the government will hammer you with “Unum” until you submit.
He wasn't refusing to serve anyone– he admits he would sell them donuts or anything in his business.
He was refusing to promote ideas he disagreed with.
Should he have to make a Nazi cake flag, if someone requests it? How about depicting bestiality, child porn, or nudity?
I say no...
“The gays say it has nothing to do with a cake!”
Agreed. It has nothing to do with simply *accepting* gay marriage, you must CELEBRATE it - else you’re a bigot.
I also wonder about the Muslims working at Target andWalmart who [reportedly] would have to call in another checker to check out items like bacon and pork products.
This means that Muslims religious beliefs would prevail.
Because Jim Crow
The baker told the “couple” that he would sell them anything in the shop - but he would not CREATE a cake clelbrating gay marriage.
FYI - he also refuses to make Halloween cakes.
Denying a pervert,or *anyone,*an ambulance is wrong.Denying a pervert,or *anyone*,a wedding cake isn’t.
> Should he have to make a Nazi cake flag, if someone requests it? How about depicting bestiality, child porn, or nudity? <
Good questions. I’d draw the line on a depiction of violence, or of an illegal activity. But others would differ. What a mess. That’s why I’d take the coward’s way out, and go fishing instead.
It also should be noted:
Three times the state has declined to force pro-gay bakers to provide a Christian patron with a cake they could not in conscience create given their own convictions on sexuality and marriage. Colorado was right to recognize their First Amendment right against compelled speech. It’s wrong to deny Jack Phillips that same right.
- A Baker’s First Amendment Rights
I’m very comfortable with where you draw your lines.
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.