Posted on 06/04/2018 7:17:18 AM PDT by CFW
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."
link to decision
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Ahhhh...the wise Latina!
It's much more than that. The is actually a fairly new and broad case in respect to the narrow issue presented. The media wants to make people that the holding is much narrower than it is. It's actually a major advance in "free exercise" jurisprudence.
BUMP
This was the legally narrow decision - narrow in it’s legal meaning and importance - that was highly expected, in considering the questions and comments of the justices during oral argument of the case. Time will tell just how important it is. There is still wiggle room on both sides.
If SCOTUS ruled against the bakery, the ruling would not only expose other Christian businesses to litigation, but also muslin businesses who have uniformly refused service to homosexuals.
>>The statement is quite true, the decision was 7-2 and the opinion was decidedly narrow.<<
A headline is meant to be taken prima facie. Perhaps if the “journalists” of today were to learn English they would know the obvious interpretation of the headline is that the decision was on a narrow vote (denotative) and not a narrow legal basis (connotative).
My reaction is not sui genre — if you read the comments in the the article quite a few others came to the same conclusion as I.
Unlike you, many of us do not have time to read a 56 page ruling. I am willing to bet you do not have the legal background to actually understand it and I am certain most people who read it do not.
You may retract your wagging finger in support of lazy journalism, lest it get bitten off.
While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages per- formed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.
(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the re- quested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.
(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decision making body.” Id., at 540. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause.
The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.
And what about the bakers in Oregon? Will this apply in any way?
Eric Citron
Sometimes, the Court's HOLDING is what really matters -- i.e., what happens in this case (think Obamacare). Sometimes, the case itself really isn't a huge deal, and what matters in the OPINION -- that is, the rule the Court lays down. In the latter cases, the mass media inevitably overreacts to the vote count on the holding, and misses the nuances of why the Justices voted for the outcome that they did. This is distinctly the latter kind of case.
The SC walked a fine line that was very smart. Ruled primarily on the hostility that the civil rights commission displayed towards their Christian beliefs. In the bigger picture, I think this means that in Red States you don’t have to worry because you won’t be attacked in the first place. In the Blue States you can plead a hostile environment towards your Christian beliefs. It also does not open Pandora’s box with regard to Islam. That is why they wrote the way they did.
This opens the door for discrimination against people of faith.
Poofters take one goin’ in dry....
I get the feeling Kennedy is about to retire.
No pun?
“Now known as the Anti-Religious Leftists.”
Better to refer to them as:
religious bigots?
USA today headline...
“A Divided Supreme Court decision...”
It is I believe a net loss. The baker was severely damaged. Who will pay the damages and restore the baker’s good name?
Does the baker now try to get justice in a local civil court? It will not happen.
The baker’s finincial loss is to the queers vindictive winning
Not sure. That's why so many people are calling this a "narrow" decision. I'll post the analysis from the folks at scotus blog once they have posted it.
WINNING!!!!
This was a cop out decision by the SCOTUS. They just kicked the can down the road - Kennedy himself said as much saying that other cases might have different outcomes. The SCOTUS slapped the hands of the Colorado commission for their bullying ways against Mr. Phillips.
I think Kennedy or Ginsburg has to go before this issue really becomes decided.
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.