Posted on 06/04/2018 7:26:16 AM PDT by hercuroc
Depressing if true - can you cite language ?
“.....you have a chance to win in court now.”
Maybe so. At least you now have some argument in your favor.
But the fact remains that this decision is so “narrow” in scope that the baker is still going to be forced to bake the cake in real life. He’s still going to be prosecuted by the state if he fails to do so. And all he’s gained here is the hope to win his case after lengthy and extremely expensive litigation. So he will very likely still lose his business one way or the other if he refuses.
The decision DOES NOT SAY “Christian bakers can refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals”. It does not say this.
Accordingly, while it is a win for the baker in this instance, it is an extremely narrow decision from the standpoint of its use as future precedent.
That Sotamayor should’ve never been put on the court.
IIRC, Mark Taylor predicts that 3 will go. I forget if it is 2 due to some sort of evil doings on their part and 1 by death or the other way around.
So exactly what were the Flintstones doing when they had a “gay old time”?
Good point. Gay is the politically correct word. The CORRECT word is homosexual. There is no such thing as politically incorrect. There is only politically correct(which is incorrect) and correct.
Take back the language.
The correct and historically accurate term is queer
“queer”
No. That word has a meaning that is useful outside of describing homosexuals.
The word “Narrow” was used in the sense that the opinion covered a very narrow facet of the case. The ruling ignored the major issue of religious freedom to refuse to work for homosexuals.
> I object to my government’s use of the word “gay” to describe homosexuals. <
I agree, and it’s just another example of how liberals are warping the language. Just like how “illegal aliens” are now “undocumented immigrants” or “dreamers”.
Oops, I’m not supposed to say “liberals” anymore. They are now “progressives”.
Progressives fka liberals fka progressives. Or as I call them the LEFT.
“IIRC, Mark Taylor predicts that 3 will go. I forget if it is 2 due to some sort of evil doings on their part and 1 by death or the other way around.”
Actually, my “wishlist” has Roberts on it as well. He cannot be trusted. He’s like Earl Warren except that I think someone or some group has something on him that makes him a “clear and present danger” to our Republic. His convoluted “ruling” on Obamacare should be the tipoff that he’s compromised in some way.
And I guess the other thing I find offensive is taking time to write a 59 page “opinion” here when a page or less would have more than adequately described the constitutional issue. It is nothing more than self-agrandizement that they write all this bull$hit to obfuscate the obvious.
You are correct. Read the story at Fox news. They a little better job.
“The ruling ignored the major issue of religious freedom to refuse to work for homosexuals.”
The SCOTUS is like an untrained person “picking at someone’s wound” but not really doing anything to stop the bleeding. The rules need to be changed so that the SCOTUS is GIVEN a list of stuff to consider and issue rulings on. They should not be able to duck their responsibility to provide the legal foundations sought in a timely fashion. I mean just how many decades do we have to wait for a definitive ruling on the Second Amendment?
From the decision: "His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed 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 (to refuse) lawful." The court also notes that, "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."
Basically the court is saying that under the laws in place at the time bakers like Phillips had some leeway in refusing to create cakes they found objectionable. The Court referenced three cases where the Commission upheld the decision by three bakeries not to make a cake with language that demeaned homosexuals. What the Court ruled is that Phillips was not accorded the same respect for his beliefs that the other bakers were, and that the Commission, demonstrated by the minutes of it's own hearings, exhibited obvious bias against his religious beliefs.
Absent that obvious bias it's uncertain how the court would have ruled. Colorado has also changed it's anti-discrimination laws since 2012 and the Supreme Court has ruled gay marriage is legal. Given that, if Phillips were to deny to provide services to a homosexual couple tomorrow then this decision may not protect him.
Decision only applies to Phillips.
LOL
Now, who is going to be held accountable to restore the baker’s livelihood and reputation?
Because left wing USA today said so? Don’t believe it. The issue was narrow, the holding was broad.
A lot of homosexuals openly supported the baker in this case. I suspect it was for one of two reasons: (1) they could see themselves in a position where they wouldn’t want a government agency meddling in their business, or (2) they were afraid the guy would win a monumental decision that would have broad ramifications for the “gay rights” agenda, so they supported a limited decision in his favor.
And nobody was ever even arguing for such a decision. Ultimately I think it does say that Christian bakers do not have to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
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.