DAMMIT!
It's my constitutional right to not wear shoes!!
Last I heard, was that the constitution enjoined our government from violating our rights. Liberty demands we have the ability to associate and choose for ourselves.
I’d close my shop and sell cakes on the black market before I’d bake a cake for a gay marriage.Its against my religion
to work for gays on a Sunday, and every day is a Sunday IMHO.
Besides, you must understand that the branding of “hate speech” is the method to silence 1st amendment speech.Soon you will not be able to speak “meanly,” that is to say comment on political race and sex issues in public.
We are in for a kinder and gentler ( totalitarian) America, unless things change.
The court is establishing a ground for censoring speech deemed to be “mean”. Bad news.
Closet is the proper queer depository
If Kennedy could have found a way to rule against Jack Phillips he would have. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was too blatant with their open disdain for Phillips’ religious beliefs. The message has been sent to any future litigants: If you want Kennedy’s help supplanting religious rights with homosexual rights you need to meet him halfway and not be so damned obvious about it.
If a prospective buyer came in asking for a custom cake design and there was something about that person that made me uncomfortable, I’d show him some subtly-unattractive, amateurish designs that he would be almost certain to reject. And quote an equally unattractive price.
Of course, the Supreme Court likely ruled on narrow grounds in order to achieve a 7-2 majority including liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. But the ruling bodes ill for the future: It doesn’t protect religious Americans, nor does it protect freedom of speech.
...
Yep. That’s John Robert’s style.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued this limited ruling because the justices know damn well that most “public accommodation” laws are unconstitutional from top to bottom.
What happened to live and let live. Just spend your money else where after a while an overly discriminating business will go out of existence and die.
The media always frame their failure as limited and itrelevant.
Your 1st Amendment rights can not and will never TRUMP mine. What you ‘want’ from me is irrelevant.
No one has the right to take away from me what my morals tell me is righteous in my life.
If you think you do, YOU ARE WRONG. Then I also choose to exercise my right of free assembly with whomever I choose, and I specifically choose not to associate with you.
GO AWAY from my private property or the Castle Doctrine will be enforced by me and my 2nd Amendment right.
Did I mention that what ever you ‘want’ from me is totally irrelevant.
This, exactly this. The upshot is that the State does indeed have a compelling interest to trample your First Amendment Rights in order to protect the alphabet deviants. Not just from neutral acts such as selling them a cupcake. But from being left out of acts which require personal time, talent, and close personal involvement.
It is not enough if saying no thank you does not create a hardship. It is not enough if you believe your involvement will be viewed as endorsing their behavior. It is not enough if you have had a good working relationship in the past. You must act to show you approve. Silence is not acceptable.
Well if the State can compel speech on the grounds silence is not acceptable in light of compelling interest, then it can certainly stop speech in that same interest. It’s coming.
That is exactly the same takeaway I had after reading through the decision and all the various concurrences and dissent. The supreme court told us that Christians can be discriminated against as long as you don’t publicly, and on the record make your bias known.
It's my constitutional right to not wear shoes!!
It’s really worse than that. It’s not that the commission was mean. It’s that they weren’t consistent. They let bakers refuse to put anti-gay messages on cake because of their secular values. But forced a Christian to bake a cake for a gay marriage in violation of his religious values.
Had the commission said bakers have to put whatever the customer wants, and applied it consistently. I’m not sure that SCOTUS would have overturned this. Or at the very least they would have had to take up the First amendment issue.