Posted on 06/04/2018 7:26:16 AM PDT by hercuroc
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
I think "narrow" here refers to the scope of the decision and not the vote count. But it is confusing. Anyway, a win is a win.
“procedure”
That was only part of it. It also hinged on the fact that the baker was willing to sell a different cake to them.
From the decision:
“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.”
I went to school with his daughter.
Narrow but HUGE!!!! Look for Christians now to begin to become more visible!
A victory is a victory. Period.
Close only counts in horseshoes (and hand grenades).
And dancing...
No surprise on those two but WOW they shifted Kagan and Breyer to the majority....wish I was in the room to hear the discussion on how that happened.
He did, hence the Supreme Court ruling.
Apart from class warfare based on how the left has divided us all up then pitted each group against each other while offering to be the champion for each of those groups, the Constitution was established that INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is paramount over rights of groups, societal trends or any local, state or federal government.
Federal courts should have never accepted to hear ANY cases based on citizens 1st amendment rights being “violated” by another citizen. The Constitution is there to stop the GOVERNMENT from interjecting opinions, laws, or rulings against citizens. Not citizen v. citizen. Those cases are decided in civil courts.
In other news, the Supreme Court narrowly, barely, just-by-a-hair, cliffhanger, almost-not-the-same-result, squeaked-by, by a horse-hair, overturned the 9th Circuit Court in a very close, suspenseful 9-0 decision. < /CNN>
Don’t be so sure its all that narrow. I don’t know that the the court has every before held that “free exercise” extends to the religious beliefs of persons in their daily and commercial activities. The had long argued it doesn’t and this indicates that it does. That would be huge. Free exercise means more than freedom of worship.
Yabut it was an extremely close 7-2 decision!!!!11! If it was 9-0, it would have been even closer!111!!!
“Nobody in any business has to. This is not about “cakes” , If I make furniture and two homosexuals come in and I believe God’s Word ( Leviticus) that they are an abomination to God, I can deny service!!”
I don’t think the ruling says that.
If they wanted a normal table, you could not refuse them.
If they were demanding you make an engraving on the furniture celebrating their nuptials, you could refuse them.
If it was a muslim baker it would have been a 9-0 decision and the homosexual couple would have been thrown off a roof.
:) I put the news on and nobody is covering it.
The OPINION is narrow, not the VOTE.
The finding applies only to THIS baker and opens the door for every other baker to be sued.
Given what we now see the decision is based on, the oral arguments and questioning were just for show. But what if they were black? But what if they were Muslim? But what if he didn’t offer them a different cake? BS start to end. He was treated badly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and they knew that before anybody started talking. Not a single one of those “but what if” questions were anything more than time-wasters, and the transcript shows it.
“Not much, if the other posters comments are correct. No decision was made on whether the state can force someone to bake a cake. Only how the process by which such coercion may be ordered.”
After reading further it seems the decision was based on free exercise grounds which was clearly emphasised, so those arguments may not be correct, there may be hope.
It wasn’t necessarily based on commercial retail sales, but rather the commission mandating or imposing on them to actually perform forced labor. Hence the reference to slavery. IMHO
The Oregon case should be better because the petitioner is claiming his works are the work of art and he shouldn’t be forced for the same reason, but a more specific form of it.
According to the film, yes, Cary Grant was gay and the guys roommate in those early days.
They will try anyway, but this time they can’t lay the total blame at Trump’s feet because many of the others upheld the ruling. Gorsuch would not have mattered here in this case. I’m genuinely surprised that Kagan, Breyer, and Kennedy went the way they did.
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.