SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Teallaura]

Yow - haven't had time to read the decision - I'm still hunting for the conclusion. But Ginsberg wrote the only dissent - I've found two concurrences thus far (Thomas and Gorsuch). I can see why DoJ is pleased - it does NOT look good for opposition on the broader issue at all. The limited decision is itself a bad sign - if religious views don't actually matter, then there's no reason for the Court to overturn the existing decisions out of Colorado - or for the Court to have taken the case. That they sent the message that it DOES matter is not a good sign for the rest.




Still gotta read it, of course...

[Tassman]

Waiting now for the left meltdown........

This ruling does not grant Christians a license to discriminate against homosexuals in future situations. It was specifically tailored to address the case that was in front of the court. In short, it's a one-off. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus against baker Jack Phillips instead of ruling impartially. That's what it's all about, not same sex marriage or wedding cakes per se.

[DesertBerean]

This ruling does not grant Christians a license to discriminate against homosexuals in future situations. It was specifically tailored to address the case that was in front of the court. In short, it's a one-off. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus against baker Jack Phillips instead of ruling impartially. That's what it's all about, not same sex marriage or wedding cakes per se.

If you had read at least one of the opinions of the justices, you should have seen their decision wasn't a one off. I'm perplexed at your reaction.

[Tassman]

If you had read at least one of the opinions of the justices, you should have seen their decision wasn't a one off. I'm perplexed at your reaction.

noted the limited frame of reference of the ruling.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018...ecision-latest

[rogue06]

The outcast has to fight for his share of justice.

Considering how he was treated I'd say a very strong case can be made that here the outcast was the baker.

[rogue06]

Yow - haven't had time to read the decision - I'm still hunting for the conclusion. But Ginsberg wrote the only dissent - I've found two concurrences thus far (Thomas and Gorsuch). I can see why DoJ is pleased - it does NOT look good for opposition on the broader issue at all. The limited decision is itself a bad sign - if religious views don't actually matter, then there's no reason for the Court to overturn the existing decisions out of Colorado - or for the Court to have taken the case. That they sent the message that it DOES matter is not a good sign for the rest.




Still gotta read it, of course...

SCOTUS will be deciding this week which cases they'll be taking up in the upcoming year so it'll be interesting to see if they pick any more like this one.

[rogue06]

This ruling does not grant Christians a license to discriminate against homosexuals in future situations. It was specifically tailored to address the case that was in front of the court. In short, it's a one-off. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus against baker Jack Phillips instead of ruling impartially. That's what it's all about, not same sex marriage or wedding cakes per se.

Nor was anyone arguing in favor of having a broad license to discriminate against gays.

[NorrinRadd]

noted the limited frame of reference of the ruling.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018...ecision-latest

Since anti-alphabetsoup extremists are roughly as common as six-legged winged unicorns, this is hardly meaningful.

Kennedy also explicitly noted that there might be legitimate First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment grounds -- both "speech" and "religious" -- allowing businesspeople to legitimately decline certain jobs. The Justices chose not to deal with those aspects in this case -- partly because some of the facts of the case (apparently involving what was said about the meaning of "create") were in dispute, and were unknowable. He also noted the disparate treatment given to Phillips compared to other similar cases; one could *infer* that he was suggesting that given the proper impartial and respectful treatment, the Commission would have, and should have, ruled differently.

[Tassman]

Nor was anyone arguing in favor of having a broad license to discriminate against gays.

[firstfloor]

You said you were ignoring me!

[Cow Poke]

My apologies - I think I get you confused with Starlight. You guys are like the neighborhood evil twins or something.

[oxmixmudd]

This ruling does not grant Christians a license to discriminate against homosexuals in future situations. It was specifically tailored to address the case that was in front of the court. In short, it's a one-off. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus against baker Jack Phillips instead of ruling impartially. That's what it's all about, not same sex marriage or wedding cakes per se.

What rogue said. My and the courts arguments were very specific on this issue, and the court saw it exactly as I do. You guys arguing against it are being very short sighted. The ruling referenced 3 (THREE) other cases of attempts to force a shop to put DEFAMATORY remarks against gays on (wedding?) cakes! You simply can't with prejudice allow those bakers to object and refuse to make those cakes while at the same time allow this suit against this bakery to succeed. This is the way free speach and freedom of religion works. As soon as you start trying to make exceptions you open the door to the elimination of the freedom in its entirety. This is why the ACLU exists. You must allow that which you don't like to be spoken in order to preserve your right to speak that which you believe in even if it is not popular or is contrary to the reigning political offices. This is what Trump and those who ally with him do not understand. And it turns out it is what carpedeum and tassman and the rest of you arguing to have this bakery slammed with a ruling against them also do not understand! We must have a free press. We must have the freedom of speach. We must have the freedom of religion if we are to remain a free nation. When people jump on the bandwagon of opportunistically restricting those freedoms in others we head down the road to tyranny against us all. All of these shops deserve the right not to participate in that which they do not believe in when it comes to specialized symbols promoting events, ideas, or beliefs, which is what these cakes are.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

You said you were ignoring me!

My apologies - I think I get you confused with Starlight. You guys are like the neighborhood evil twins or something.

Actually, it WAS you....

I assume you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

But, of course, maybe ducks where you come from allow the water to run off their back, then turn to address it.

[firstfloor]

Actually, it WAS you....



But, of course, maybe ducks where you come from allow the water to run off their back, then turn to address it.

Apart from the occasional slip I am like Robin to your Batman. Doing it to the baddies but being a bit bad ourselves.

[Cerebrum123]

Apart from the occasional slip I am like Robin to your Batman. Doing it to the baddies but being a bit bad ourselves.

If Cow Poke is Batman, then you are probably closer to Quiltman.