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.
LOL - good one!
Yes, they followed an incorrect process and that was overturned. They did not rule on the constitutionality of baking the cakes.
They cannot be forced to perform personal service is how I read it. So shamefully, yes they can pick out muslim, jews et al.
If a black couple came to me and required me to perform my service in skid-row or downtown Harlem is it my obligation to do so?
Guess they didn’t have the b@lls to tell all of those Muslim bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan that they had to start making gay wedding cakes.
But, I thing the ruling that free exercise of religion means more than freedom or worship or freedom of belief is a major victory. The left has argued for years for the very narrow reading of the free exercise clause.
The liberal Monolithic Media Cartel calls this 7-2 decisions “narrow”. But had it gone the other way by 5-4, they would call it a LANDSLIDE RULING!
The liberal Monolithic Media Cartel calls this 7-2 decisions “narrow”. But had it gone the other way by 5-4, they would call it a LANDSLIDE RULING!
If you want news, DO NOT go to the News Misleadia.
I’m not so sure. If you can prove ANYONE showed a hostility to you based on the questions they asked, you have a chance to win in court now. That liberal clerk, who calls Christians “homophobes” could now throw the case in your direction.
Narrow in scope, not vote.
America clearly has too much time on its hands.
Even the term’ homophobe “ could be a type of hate speech now -
Most people are misreading this decision. It specifically says that the court sided with him because at the time he refused to bake the cake same-sex “marriage” had not been legalized by the Supreme Court. The decision applies to him and no one else. Any Christian baker that refused to bake a cake since the decision came down is out of luck. Bake it or be ran out of business.
“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.”
Typical chicken shit half-assed cop out by these devils in robes. What a farce.
Current products of the film and entertainment industry support your theory...
Changing subjects, did you take a vacation? Didn't see you posting for a few weeks? And for some reason I thought your home page flew the CA flag but now I see a GA flag (my birth state). Just curious. Cheers.
That's not true at all. The court noted this in commenting on the good faith nature of the bakers position but did NOT rest the case on it. The court approvingly cited other cases since the Obergfel decision which when FOR the baker in these situations. This case is much broader than the left is admitting. The claims of "narrow" are claims by the left in that they are trying to limit its application. Don't buy into it.
I refuse to surrender “progressive” to the liberal hidiots. They are regressing all the way back to satan worshiping Babylon and I’ll continue to so label them. REgressive fits them. Progressive emphatically does not. It is tyrannical globalism mind-control idiocy.
Well, the difference is that Scalia has died, and Gorsuch is his replacement.
So I should have said, 8 of the 9 justices on the court now are the same as the ones who rendered the opinion for homosexual marriage.
I was also thinking Scalia would have voted the same direction as did Gorsuch...
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.