Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

Cnbc.com

[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.

[JimSp]

Right. And they are still deliberately lying with their headline.

[thingumbob]

I forgot to ping you to post 199...please, accept my apologies.

[Rusty0604]

Same thing goes for words describing anything from mental and physical disabilities to crimes and actions.
When someone says “pro-choice” I will say, “oh you mean pro-abortion”, and that will anger a liberal. Also correcting “undocumented” with “illegal”.

[Hyman Roth]

If it was 7-2 other way....MSM would say it was a decisive decision.

[Bob434]

[[ Anyone can go to any cake shop and buy any cake.

However, they can’t force the owner to make the cake exactly how they want. ]]

Exactly- pedophiles, necrophilia practitioners, bestiality supporters etc can not go to a cake factory and order them to make a cake that supports those abhorrent practices, and gay people can not force religious bakers to create a cake that violates their religious beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination

[circlecity]

Thanks for the heads up and good post.

[TBP]

It’s disturbing that there are two Justices of the Supreme Court who thought it was OK to violate this baker’s freedom of religion.

[Kickass Conservative]

Civil Rights Commission = A cross between a Kangaroo Court and a Star Chamber.

[TBP]

Were the arguments in the case pre-Gorsuch?

[Rusty0604]

And now what they are doing to the pronouns for gender. Even changing birth certificate forms. California threatening jail time for health care worker for referring to a patient by their biological gender.

[Kickass Conservative]

I wonder of the two Dissenters would have Ruled the same way if a Nazi walked in to a Jewish Bakery and ordered a celebratory Birthday Cake to honor Adolf Hitler?

[Bob434]

[[ The decision suggests that if the state can find a way to enforce their “anti-discrimination” laws without showing overt animus, they can enforce it. ]]

Yup- exactly- The left will find a way around this narrow ruling- you watch- The case i believe should have been decided also on the fact that people can not be forced to create something, or even participate in (such as photographers) ceremonies or celebrations which celebrate practices that violate their moral conscience

Noone in the right mind believes that people who commit pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc should be able to force bakers to make cakes celebrating those horrible abominations- it’s no different with homosexuality- that practices is STILL an abomination in the sight of the Lord- no matter how ‘accepted it is’ in society

You can not compel someone to violate their moral conscience when the issue isn’t due to genetics (ie religions can’t discriminate against black people or asians, or hindhus etc- but they hsoudl be able to say no to people who make abominable lifestyle choices like homosexuality or bestiality etc-)

I was hoping the courts would have included that issue in with the first amendment issue

[thingumbob]

Thanks FRiend.

umbob

[TBP]

Suppose two Klansmen walked into a black-owned bakery and demanded a cake for their Klan group’s anniversary, for example. How do you think the dissenters would rule on that?

[halfright]

Math has always been my weak spot. Made it as far as Geometry. Even so, I know 7-2 in not a narrow decision. 5-4 is a narrow decision. This was a

[Amendment10]

With all due respect to Colorado FReepers, if Colorado parents were making sure that their children were being taught about constitutionally enumerated protections, then school children would probably be able to argue the following about those protections.

Although Congress has the 14th Amendment power to make punitive laws to discourage state actors from abridging rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect, please consider the following.

• "14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

• "14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The problem is that we’re still stuck with a corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress left over from the lawless Obama Administration that will predictably do minimal election year dog-and-pony show saber-rattling at best, to resolve unconstitutional state abridgment of constitutionally enumerated protections.

The remedy for this anti-religious expression Congress …

Since the states have never given themselves the express constitutional authority to impeach and remove bad-apple federal lawmakers from office, the states needing to seriously consider such powers, the only remedy for this situation is for patriots to finish the job that they started when they elected Trump president.

More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting, state sovereignty-respecting patriots on the 2018 primary ballots, candidates who will be willing to make punitive laws to discourage state abridgment of constitutionally enumerated protections, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.

And until the states wise up and repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of the outcome of Alabama's and Pennsylvania's special elections, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for the following concerns.

• Keep Democrats from impeaching Trump.

  Democratic Rep. Al Green says he will force House impeachment vote

• Young, misguided, newly registered pro-gun control voters who are likely clueless about the fed's constitutionally limited powers,

  Young People Keep Marching After Parkland, This Time to Register to Vote

• Possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics,

• Interference from people like Soros.

• Hacking Democracy - The Hack

[Bob434]

[[It’s a shame that an American citizen has to go all the way up to the supreme court to enjoy the tenents of our Constitution: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Worse yet, encounter public harassment, legal hurdles and the mental stress of trying to pursue those freedoms while perverts and those who have such contorted mindsets so as to imagine they are not the sex they were born as, cause such hardships on those LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who dare to exercise their rights under our Constitution. The wholesome (Norman Rockwell) America died in the latter 60’s and became a zoo for all types of freaks and radicals.]]

Well put- The reality is that the people trying to stir up trouble should be the ones who try to get their case before the supreme court (and subsequently, rightfully ruled against because what they are attempting is a clear violation of constitutional rights) It should just be taken for granted that people can not force others to violate their moral consciences- and if a group wishes to force someone to do so THEY should be the ones to have to try to convince the SC they should be allowed to (which of course an objective court will not find i n their favor based on constitutional protections

[1Old Pro]

America clearly has too much time on its hands.

[Jack Hammer]

“Narrowly” my ass.

CNBC, defending the indefensible, throws up imaginary atheist roadblocks.

[Bob434]

[[This goes beyond that.]]

What do you mean? Do you think the SC ruled that people should not be compelled to violate their moral conscience when it comes to opposition of immoral behaviors in this ruling? (Which is something i had hoped would be the result of the ruling)