Posted on 06/04/2018 7:17:18 AM PDT by CFW
you just said the same exact thing I said- He was discriminated against because of bias against His religious beliefs- the lower court’s decisions denied him a fair trial
[[The SC ruled today that the baker’s religious rights were violated- that it was he who was discriminate against because of a bias against religion]]
That is what i said- which is exactly what you said- He was discriminated against by a biased court- That is why the lower court’s ruling was overturned
I fear this ruling was too narrow. I would love to see a ruling that made plain that a person cannot be compelled to enter into a contract, no reason or defense needed. As you pointed out that is akin to “forced labor”. That would give the broadest protection to the greatest number.
To me it is a no brainer that forcing a person to use his artistic talents contrary to his beliefs violates his First Amendment rights. I see no compelling State interest to place protection of gays from discrimination ahead of those rights. But that is what will be argued, I bet. “Tolerance Hell. Lick Our Boots.”
I also hope it will be shown that gay couples have not suffered any harm from the actions of the florists and bakers and the rest. That is perhaps the most spurious finding of various rulings against them. Such findings are a clear attempt to bankrupt these businesses by crippling them financially. They also act to keep other businesses in line.
It will be a long slog. We both know the ultimate goal is to silence (in the public square) Christians who uphold Biblical teachings on morality. If refusing speech is harmful to gays how much more harmful is speech itself?
Agreed- it’s going to be a long drawn out fight- tooth and nail fight- The left are so full of hate that they are never going to give religious folks any rest-
Christians and Christian business owners have a right Not to be discriminated against for their beliefs- our constitution protects us against that- The SC decision showed that the lower court violated that right to not be discriminated against, which resulted in denying the baker a fair trial.
a follow-up to my last post- this is from the decision:
“State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specificmessages they considered offensive.”
In otherwords- they had a right to exercise their religious belief and refuse to make the cakes based on personal religious belief- or even any belief- religious or not- as you will see i nthe following:
“the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declin-ing 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.”
His right to object to making the cake, based on his religious freedom, was violated because the lower court refused to consider the case neutrally
“(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.”
Further making it clear that his right to religious beliefs was violated
“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,”
“(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 be-liefs 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.
So yes- The SC court Did rule that his religious rights had been violated by the lower court- resulting in a trial in which there was no neutrality
yep we finally get a victory , and a victory for common sense, and the Constitution.
You both deserve a thoughtful reply to your posts. Regretfully, I’m not able to take more time for this. So let me be brief. You’re both right. Thanks for the stimulating coversation. Have a blessed day, and cherish every moment.
The following statement by the majority makes it clear that this wasn’t a solid win for Christians- it states that the state ‘could have presented their side without bias’ and intimated that the state could have probably prevailed-
“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.”
That makes it sound like Phillips very well could have lost had the state just not been poopie heads about their position and bias-
like you said- this aint over by a long shot- but it doesn’t look good for future cases- not impossible, but not as strong as we’d like unfortunately
No worries. I quite understand about time constraints. One thing that is plain - the SCOTUS needs a shake up.
Yes a victory for something that should never have been a problem. Remember, the no shirt, no shoes, no service? But let a sane person stand up to a couple of butt rimming sex offenders, and it goes all the way to the SC. Keep the faith Bro.
Now he should sue.
This might be all moot however, because there’s no way these folks can do it EXCEPT by being poopie heads. That’s the nature of the “gay” beast.
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.