Posted on 06/04/2018 7:26:16 AM PDT by hercuroc
And too many lawyers
[[There was never any Constitutional protection of marriage, period. The government inserted itself into a religious concept when it never should have.]]
The funny (or not so funny actually) was that government felt it was their ‘right’ to do so for the purposes of rewarding heterosexual unions for the purpose of creating new generations of taxpayers who would support the government financially- that was the whole purpose of the government taking over marriage- Gay marriage however is obviously not conducive to creating new taxpaying citizens
[[we all know there was never any Constitutional basis for recognition of same-sex marriage]]
Exactly- I think they ruled on it under the false guise of ‘civil rights’- They ADDED deviant lifestyle choices to genetic based issue of race
No, I think that in the context presented here, a Christian being asked to facilitate an event which violates long held and established religious beliefs, the court held that civil rights commissions must accept that free exercise is implicated and that these implications must be addressed. This is something the commission refused to do. Why? Because if they do apply free exercise rights then the baker wins - IN these situations involving gay weddings.
That's because the conservatives follow the law to write the narrowest opinions, while the liberals flout the law and the Constitution.
do you know what the court’s response to ‘what if they were black, or muslim’ was? Curious as to what the answer was-
[[but rather the commission mandating or imposing on them to actually perform forced labor. Hence the reference to slavery.]]
Very interesting defense- Hadn’t thought of that angle before- That sounds very logical- one can not force someone to work against their will. The products that were already created (the cakes) and on display were not done under duress- but forcing someone to create a special cake would be paramount to forcing them into slave labor against their will-
[[A victory is a victory. Period.
Close only counts in horseshoes (and hand grenades).
And dancing...]]
AND farts
[[So shamefully, yes they can pick out muslim, jews et al.]]
There are prohibitions against discrimination based on ethnicity- however, being muslim or jew is not based on ethnicity- But I’m sure there must be a prohibition against religious discrimination- However, what if their religion includes practicing abhorrent lifestyle?
This is a tough ruling- how do you allow a business to refuse service to some, based on moral objection or ‘forced labor’ for just certain groups- but not all? Lots of thigns to consider-
For instance, what if a muslim comes in and demands I make a cake special for their celebration of say ramadan and I object? Will they be able to go to court and claim religious discrimination? Or will the recent ruling allow me to refuse based on ‘forced labor’?
I think this is going to be fought for awhile-
Oh...but the evil leftists/Marxists know that if they control Words/Language—they can control the minds and perceptions, esp. of little children growing up embedding the term in their subconscious.
It is not an accident that they took the symbol of the rainbow to destroy its meaning and connection with the Covenant of God to make the word-—literally into a vulgar, degrading sexual act to be jammed into the subconscious of little children to warp them for life and destroy logic/reason and debase/corrupt them, the innocent children, who loved drawing rainbows for centuries now embedding the dehumanizing behaviors of satanists (abused/neglected children who are incapable of virtue). Children are taught that degrading behaviors and evil desires are actually “Love” when it is nothing but evil and satanic worldview.
The homosexuals have gone into US school curricula by 1970s to normalize their degrading, dehumanizing behaviors to destroy the innocence of children which is needed for normal sexual identity formation (innocence). They have created an irrational, evil environment exactly like the boy harems in Afghanistan which corrupts all the little boys and girls who grow up in such irrational, vile culture.
Promotion of the evil, irrational behaviors of homosexuality is antithetical to Christianity, to Natural Law (the US Constitution), to Right Reason (just law) and to Science. Judges who try to rationalize and promote such evil behaviors in our “Justice” system, need to be tarred and feathered or removed from office.
Narrow decision???? Yea, I’m repeating it! The media just has to put the slant on everything!
:"At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
And so it begins ...
[[The decision DOES NOT SAY “Christian bakers can refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals”. It does not say this.]]
Maybe I’m misinterpreting it, but according to some comments here- the comments seems to say that noone can force a baker to do work they don’t wish to do- can’t coerce someone to work against their will- That businesses have the right to refuse to do special work (ie make specialized cakes for any group)- this is much different than saying ‘Christians can refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals’ because it includes the right to refuse for aNY group based on ‘forced labor’ ruling- not based on religious objection
But again- i haven’t’ read the ruling- maybe this isn’t what the case decided- but if it is- it’s huge for everyone, not just Christian businesses as it is based on ‘forced labor’ rather than religious objections (although people should have the right to object to abhorrent lifestyle choices based on religious objections- they should not be forced to violate their moral conscience by being forced to make products depicting objectionable issues ie pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc- There must be religious protections against this kind of coercion to participate)
[7-2 is narrow?]
They have to lie about everything. They don’t know anything but lies anymore. It’s amazing.
I agree with you, wholeheartedly.
I finished reading all of them, except Ginsburg’s. I got a couple pages into hers, and found myself reading it in the voice of Roseanne Roseannadanna. That’s when I said “never mind.”
My opinion was reflected best by Thomas. I thought the court should recognize the distinction between the customer and the product. Refusing to use your talents to make a statement in support of a protected class is not the same as discriminating against them. Thomas expressed my views on that better than I can.
I’m glad the majority recognized the State was violating the Constitution by not giving serious, unbiased consideration to Phillips’ religious beliefs. That’s a big win. I just wish they had gone a step further, and made a distinction between selling just any product to a person whose lifestyle you disagree with, and engaging in an activity to support that lifestyle.
Yeah, apparently so.
Thank you. That was a wonderful post.
It said nothing of the sort. The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had been hostile toward Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs and reversed their ruling on that basis. They said nothing as to whether a person could refuse service to a customer on the basis of religious freedom.
The description of the ruling as “narrow” referred to the scope of it, not the vote margin. Numbers in themselves don’t mean much.
Exactly.
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.