Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/25/2018 8:02:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

How nice. The Christians get punished with neverending legal costs while the USSC punts it.


2 posted on 06/25/2018 8:05:15 PM PDT by Seruzawa (TANSTAAFL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
First, Thomas was concurring, not dissenting, in Masterpiece Cakeshop. Second, the Supreme Court did nothing more than follow you standard procedure in Arlene's Flowers. It's called a GVR (Grant, Vacate, Remand). Basically, when it makes a decision any pending cases dealing with the same legal issue(s) have there lower court decision vacated (voided) and the case(s) are sent back to the lower court.

So Arlene's Flowers will go back to the court from which it originated so that court can review it in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Nothing unusual here.

3 posted on 06/25/2018 8:27:57 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Methinks SCOTUS is telling Washington court, “We’re watching you.”


4 posted on 06/25/2018 9:10:30 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

The problem with the “Masterpiece Cake” ruling is that it implies that if they hadn’t outright called him a Nazi, ordering him to make the cake or shut down would have been upheld.


6 posted on 06/25/2018 9:58:04 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

They could have just said the flower shop is covered by the baker decision. Why punt? It’s done!


10 posted on 06/26/2018 4:29:17 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
SCOTUS did the same thing in Caetano v Massachusetts,a 2nd Amendment case from 2016.They told the Massachusetts courts to reconsider their decision in light of Heller v District of Columbia.And the Massachusetts courts responded by striking down the legislation they had previously upheld,which denied Caetano her basic Constitutional rights.
13 posted on 06/26/2018 6:35:39 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (You Say "White Privilege"...I Say "Protestant Work Ethic")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
There is no such effing thing as "gay rights!"

What these SODOMITES want is special rights, that are set apart and above every other citizen.

If I, as a bartender and proprietor of a bar, have reserved to me the right to refuse service to anyone - and such right to this day stands unchallenged in the courts - ten the same legal reasoning applies to EVERY other business.

Under the Constitution, no private individual or government entity can force another individual to act against their will. You may only prohibit those actions that threaten public safety, peaceful order, or life and property.

14 posted on 06/26/2018 7:32:57 AM PDT by JME_FAN (uired to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

bump


17 posted on 06/26/2018 9:34:29 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (Trump is a real estate genius because he lives rent-free in so many heads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Definitely a Punt!
18 posted on 06/26/2018 12:11:26 PM PDT by itsahoot (Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

bump


20 posted on 06/27/2018 3:16:51 AM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson