Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 13898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,926
  • Gender: Female
  • Pray for peace but train for war.
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2018, 10:49:17 AM »
Excellent.

My guess is this will change the complexion of some of the discussions around here.

No it won't.  But...

nice dream.   :laugh:
Time for unity in America! (better late than never)


Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,505
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2018, 10:49:37 AM »
7-2 is pretty definitive...no wiggle room for anyone to say it was a "partisian" decision.


ETA:  @thackney Just noticed the Reuters link calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"  smh

Just scanned it so far, but it actually is a fairly narrow, technical decision.  The Court did not recognize a general right for a baker to refuse to put a gay message on a cake.  Rather, they went after aspects of the Colorado decision that showed a hostility towards religious beliefs in general.  It is still possible that a different case in which a baker is held liable for refusing to put such a message on a cake could have a different result.

It looks to me like the Justices deliberately chose a fairly narrow ground on which to rule so as to avoid the controversy.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,505
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2018, 10:50:02 AM »
I think "narrow" may apply to the reason for the decision.  Reading the decision makes it clear SCOTUS viewed the Colorado Commission treated Phillips differently than they treated similar cases.  This is the reason they give for overturning the decisions.

Exactly.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2018, 10:52:50 AM »
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,212
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2018, 10:55:16 AM »
Gay cakes are illegal now?

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2018, 10:55:56 AM »
Gay cakes are illegal now?

What cakes do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not anybodies business.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,426
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2018, 10:55:57 AM »
Um....... hey @Jazzhead !   Any comments?    :whistle:

:2popcorn:
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 40,515
  • Gender: Male
  • All deserve a trial if accused
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2018, 10:57:26 AM »
Right, narrow in the sense of this applying to a narrow set of circumstances perhaps. Not in the yes/nay votes.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,426
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2018, 10:58:21 AM »
I think "narrow" may apply to the reason for the decision. Reading the decision makes it clear SCOTUS viewed the Colorado Commission treated Phillips differently than they treated similar cases.  This is the reason they give for overturning the decisions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

That can be said of any of the cases where the baker was intentionally targeted though.  Some of these states rights commissions are gonna have to be a little more inclusive in who has and doesn't have to do things for people based on this I would think.

Certainly it builds legal precedent for future cases of this nature.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,212
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2018, 10:59:18 AM »
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2018, 11:02:57 AM »
It's good SCOTUS ruled correctly on this issue, but apparently for a completely different reason than the crux of the issue itself.  Ultimately it would not have mattered if it ruled the other way either.

When everything regarding the usurpation and diminishment of our liberties hangs on what 9 people in black robes have to say is a total bastardization of what the Founders intended for us.  So when the courts begin to make law by judicial fiat as they have on countless issues (i.e.: carbon dioxide is a declared pollutant) - they have nullified their legitimacy.  I find it unfortunate that the key and fundamental issue of whether or not someone can be compelled by force and punishment to violate their conscience to create and serve behaviors they find evil, was ignored to make this ruling based on the the technical dynamics of the Colorado Commission's bias.

From a Christian and orthodox position, once the institutions of government contravene the laws of God that govern a people beholden to them, then those institutions and that government no longer have any legitimate authority.  The maxim of 'better to obey God than men' is our directive from scripture itself.

None of us should live life by the leave of government permission and license, but that is where we are arriving.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,660
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2018, 11:03:07 AM »
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

Stop with the niggling details and negative waves.  A win is a win.   :smokin:
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2018, 11:06:49 AM »
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

@Frank Cannon

As I read the ruling they are affirming the bakers religious liberty under the 1st amendment.  Saying the rights of gays do no supersede the rights of other individuals.  I'd say thats pretty huge
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,212
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2018, 11:09:36 AM »
@Frank Cannon

As I read the ruling they are affirming the bakers religious liberty under the 1st amendment.  Saying the rights of gays do no supersede the rights of other individuals.  I'd say thats pretty huge

It sounds to me like this is about whether a Pastor has to be forced to make a cake and not talking about everyone.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,519
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
    • The Conservative Fist
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2018, 11:10:19 AM »
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

No, but it rights the ship a bit, in that these 'Civil Commissions' can't just dismiss religious claims without balancing their rights with others such as gays.
The Conservative Fist: https://twitter.com/arguedpolitics - follow me and I'll follow you.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,505
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #40 on: June 04, 2018, 11:11:12 AM »
That can be said of any of the cases where the baker was intentionally targeted though. 

No.  They actually pointed out how other cases involving bakers and messages on cakes were treated differently by the Commission.  It was the fact that his objection was religious, and not just speech-based that led them to be so biased against him.  They quoted statements made by members of the commission that showed a bias.  What the Court basically said was that the commission viewed his complaint differently because it was based in Christianity, and that's illegal.  It tainted the process.  They did not say that his religious objection itself was a valid reason not to bake the cake.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,505
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2018, 11:13:46 AM »
This ruling doesn't do what people here are cheering about. It's so narrow that is really doesn't change anything.

Right.  There is a concurring opinion by Thomas and Gorsuch that does take the broader view, but that's only 2 out of 7 in the majority.

This reeks of a Roberts move to me -- trying to rule on the narrowest grounds possible.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 11:19:56 AM by Maj. Bill Martin »

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #42 on: June 04, 2018, 11:16:39 AM »
It sounds to me like this is about whether a Pastor has to be forced to make a cake and not talking about everyone.

OK Debbie downer, please explain that.   Because as I read the decision I do not see that.   I see statements that being forced with "hosility" to make a wedding cake which sent a message contrary to the bakers sincerely held religious beliefs was infringing on his rights.  Further the Commissions efforts to suppress religion by " public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, " was a factor.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2018, 11:17:29 AM »
Right.  There is a concussing opinion by Thomas and Gorsuch that does take the broader view, but that's only 2 out of 7 in the majority.

This reeks of a Roberts move to me -- trying to rule on the narrowest grounds possible.


I concur, this ruling comes off exactly as you analyzed.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 37,445
  • Gender: Male
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2018, 11:33:10 AM »
7-2 is pretty definitive...no wiggle room for anyone to say it was a "partisian" decision.


ETA:  @thackney Just noticed the Reuters link calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"  smh

In a world where 5 to 4 rulings has become the norm 7/2 is only  "narrow" because THEY don't like it.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Marooned in springtime
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,684
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2018, 11:36:22 AM »
:2popcorn:

I haven't read the case yet;  I've got to split for a dentist's appointment but will try to read the opinion on the train.   Based on a very quick read, it sounds like the Court felt the Colorado Commission disrespected Mr. Phillips and treated his claims with disdain.   The opinion appears to duck the Constitutional issues and instead finds fault with the Commission for acting like politically motivated jerks.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2018, 11:36:31 AM »
Supreme Court punts.


Basically, the Court punted on this one.  They reversed because the original decision was tainted by the anti-religious bias of the commissioners who first decided the case.

It’s basically an extremely narrow unconstitutional-as-applied decision based solely on the facts that the baker’s religious beliefs were actively disparaged by the commissioners in comments that were not disavowed by any of the lower courts.

As far as the underlying issue, though, the case doesn’t move the ball any further down the field - in either direction. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2018, 11:36:58 AM »
I haven't read the case yet;  I've got to split for a dentist's appointment but will try to read the opinion on the train.   Based on a very quick read, it sounds like the Court felt the Colorado Commission disrespected Mr. Phillips and treated his claims with disdain.   The opinion appears to duck the Constitutional issues and instead finds fault with the Commission for acting like politically motivated jerks.   

Bingo!!

Offline Jazzhead

  • Marooned in springtime
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,684
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2018, 11:38:32 AM »
In a world where 5 to 4 rulings has become the norm 7/2 is only  "narrow" because THEY don't like it.

I assume it's being called "narrow" because it ducks the larger issues and instead rules on grounds peculiar to Mr. Phillips (that is, his disrespect by the Commission).   

Like I said, though, I haven't read the case yet; only skimmed the headnote.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2018, 11:40:07 AM »
No, but it rights the ship a bit, in that these 'Civil Commissions' can't just dismiss religious claims without balancing their rights with others such as gays.

Not really. What it really means is that future commissioners should keep their personal religion opinions to themselves, pay lip service to neutral adjudication, and come up with some general platitudes for why bakers like this can be compelled to bake for people they dislike. 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf