Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 12241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #50 on: June 04, 2018, 11:41:13 AM »
Yet another example of why Conservatives can't get their shit together.   

Finally a Supreme Court decision comes down which pushes back the leftist agenda, even just a tiny bit.

And we have folks saying its not important, not a big deal.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #51 on: June 04, 2018, 11:43:07 AM »
The other thing to note is that the Court several times referred to the fact that in 2012, at the time of the original incident, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Colorado.  The Court specifically stated that this fact provided some justification to the baker’s refusal.   Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Colorado (and elsewhere), that justification is no longer there, and that one change may be sufficient to permit enforcement against a baker now, on the ground that the refusal is no longer justified. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #52 on: June 04, 2018, 11:43:48 AM »
Yet another example of why Conservatives can't get their shit together.   

Finally a Supreme Court decision comes down which pushes back the leftist agenda, even just a tiny bit.

And we have folks saying its not important, not a big deal.

Because you either haven’t read it, or haven’t appreciated it’s narrowness and limited nature of the relief. 

Online musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,989
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #53 on: June 04, 2018, 11:46:33 AM »
FANTASTIC!!  Praise the LORD!!

7 to 2 is decisive!
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2018, 11:47:18 AM »
FANTASTIC!!  Praise the LORD!!

7 to 2 is decisive!

The question is: of what is it decisive?

Online musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,989
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2018, 11:48:28 AM »
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.

What a ridiculous thing to say.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with not 'liking' homosexuals.  (Some are the nicest people on earth and very likable).

If you can't grasp the difference between moral principles and emotions, then you have some more thinking to do, and less emoting.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,508
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
    • The Conservative Fist
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #56 on: June 04, 2018, 11:49:00 AM »
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.

Sure they can play that game, but they now need to provide solid legal justification rather than just arbitrary and bias dismissal. Those justifications can then be scrutinized to see if they are indeed fair and impartial.
The Conservative Fist: https://twitter.com/arguedpolitics - follow me and I'll follow you.

Online musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,989
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #57 on: June 04, 2018, 11:50:24 AM »
The question is: of what is it decisive?

Even if it's just that states can't willy nilly prosecute people they don't like, it's good for now.

That's what this is all about according to you, right?  People who don't like other people?

Well, the people who don't like people with principles lost.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2018, 11:51:42 AM »
Because you either haven’t read it, or haven’t appreciated it’s narrowness and limited nature of the relief.

@Oceander
Doesn't matter.  Its a win against the leftist agenda that hates Christians.  First one in a long time from the Supreme Court.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,042
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #59 on: June 04, 2018, 12:05:42 PM »
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.

^^^^^^THIS!
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

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2018, 12:08:38 PM »
@Oceander
Doesn't matter.  Its a win against the leftist agenda that hates Christians.  First one in a long time from the Supreme Court.

It’s a win for the baker alone, and that only because the Court probably felt sorry for him and wanted to relieve him of the underlying decision without creating any new legal precedent.  It doesn’t establish one iota of the constitutional claims he made; it certainly doesn’t establish that religious belief trumps an otherwise neutral public accommodations law.  And, in point of fact, it could be easily limited to its facts in a subsequent case given that the Court emphasized the fact that, at the time, same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado.  That is no longer the case, and therefore this opinion could be limited on that basis alone.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #61 on: June 04, 2018, 12:11:30 PM »
Even if it's just that states can't willy nilly prosecute people they don't like, it's good for now.

That's what this is all about according to you, right?  People who don't like other people?

Well, the people who don't like people with principles lost.

No.  The people who can’t keep their fat gaps closed and their biases to themselves when they decide cases lost; nobody else lost.  In fact, if they hadn’t voiced their dislike of religion, it’s entirely possible that the case would have come out differently. 

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 281,209
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #62 on: June 04, 2018, 12:16:46 PM »
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.

IOW the baker's rights were violated by the commissioners and the SCOTUS corrected that?
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #63 on: June 04, 2018, 12:26:55 PM »
IOW the baker's rights were violated by the commissioners and the SCOTUS corrected that?

All they held was that his right to have his religious beliefs taken into consideration by a dispassionate, neutral decision-maker was violated.   It didn’t address at all the underlying issue of whether he had the right to refuse to make the cake in First Amendment grounds. 

Online Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,027
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #64 on: June 04, 2018, 12:30:53 PM »
The other thing to note is that the Court several times referred to the fact that in 2012, at the time of the original incident, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Colorado.  The Court specifically stated that this fact provided some justification to the baker’s refusal.   Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Colorado (and elsewhere), that justification is no longer there, and that one change may be sufficient to permit enforcement against a baker now, on the ground that the refusal is no longer justified.

That was exactly the thought that occurred to me.  When I get a chance to read the case,  I will be looking for any clue whether the Court has made any substantive pronouncement whatsoever on a storeowner's ability to refuse advertised wedding-related services now that civil marriage is available to same sex couples nationwide. 

Why, pray tell, does the SCOTUS take cases like this if it doesn't intend to rule on the Constitutional issues?   The future value of this opinion may well lie in what is said in the concurring and dissenting opinions.  But at initial glance, this case appears to be a nothingburger.   
"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 #65 on: June 04, 2018, 12:32:05 PM »
What a ridiculous thing to say.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with not 'liking' homosexuals.  (Some are the nicest people on earth and very likable).

If you can't grasp the difference between moral principles and emotions, then you have some more thinking to do, and less emoting.

Whatever.  The baker’s alleged moral principles are just as subject to being overridden today as they were yesterday; this decision doesn’t change that one iota. 

It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,899
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2018, 12:34:11 PM »
Whatever.  The baker’s alleged moral principles are just as subject to being overridden today as they were yesterday; this decision doesn’t change that one iota. 

It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.

As the cake bakers should as well. A simple "Sorry but I'm all booked up" will suffice!

Online musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,989
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #67 on: June 04, 2018, 12:36:10 PM »
No.  The people who can’t keep their fat gaps closed and their biases to themselves when they decide cases lost; nobody else lost.  In fact, if they hadn’t voiced their dislike of religion, it’s entirely possible that the case would have come out differently.

You just can't admit that this is a victory over the bias against Christianity, can you?

This IS a good thing in the defense of religious liberty and against those who would keep us from defending it.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Online musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,989
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2018, 12:40:26 PM »
Whatever.  The baker’s alleged moral principles are just as subject to being overridden today as they were yesterday; this decision doesn’t change that one iota. 

It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.

You ignored the main point.  That you erroneously blamed the baker for "not liking" homosexuals, when this issue has nothing to do with liking or not liking, and everything to do with the right of a Christian to not support something he/she believes is morally wrong.

It is the 'marriage' that is not being condoned, and not the people.

Your bias came through in your original post about people they 'don't like,' so it would be great if you would admit how your emotions overcame the facts of the issue when you presented your argument.

"Whatever" is a cop out.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline XenaLee

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,574
  • Pray for peace but train for war.
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #69 on: June 04, 2018, 12:42:20 PM »
As the cake bakers should as well. A simple "Sorry but I'm all booked up" will suffice!

Yeah... but.... first....  you ask when the wedding is scheduled to occur.  Then.... you give the bad news that you're totally booked up until after that date.   :smokin:
Time for unity in America! (better late than never)


Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2018, 12:47:50 PM »
That was exactly the thought that occurred to me.  When I get a chance to read the case,  I will be looking for any clue whether the Court has made any substantive pronouncement whatsoever on a storeowner's ability to refuse advertised wedding-related services now that civil marriage is available to same sex couples nationwide. 

Why, pray tell, does the SCOTUS take cases like this if it doesn't intend to rule on the Constitutional issues?   The future value of this opinion may well lie in what is said in the concurring and dissenting opinions.  But at initial glance, this case appears to be a nothingburger.   

Remember, it only takes four to grant cert.  my guess is that the four who granted were not willing to leave the underlying order standing, but could not muster enough votes for an explanation for why this would be acceptable on a First Amendment basis, but why religion-based race discrimination would not. 

So they horse-traded and got seven votes for the position that the commission was simply too nasty and obviously prejudiced. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2018, 12:50:36 PM »
You ignored the main point.  That you erroneously blamed the baker for "not liking" homosexuals, when this issue has nothing to do with liking or not liking, and everything to do with the right of a Christian to not support something he/she believes is morally wrong.

It is the 'marriage' that is not being condoned, and not the people.

Your bias came through in your original post about people they 'don't like,' so it would be great if you would admit how your emotions overcame the facts of the issue when you presented your argument.

"Whatever" is a cop out.

Why are you so fixated on the irrelevant?  It doesn’t matter how you cast the baker’s views on bleep and catamounts (there, does that make you feel better), it doesnt change the fact that this case doesn’t stand for anything other than that decision-makers should avoid the appearance of prejudice or bias. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #72 on: June 04, 2018, 12:52:40 PM »
You just can't admit that this is a victory over the bias against Christianity, can you?

This IS a good thing in the defense of religious liberty and against those who would keep us from defending it.

I can’t because it’s not. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #73 on: June 04, 2018, 12:54:52 PM »
As the cake bakers should as well. A simple "Sorry but I'm all booked up" will suffice!

 Bingo!!!!

Keep in mind, they need to vary the excuse a little, because otherwise they will establish a pattern of disparate treatment that will itself be actionable, but as they say, brevity is indeed the soul of wit (and of self-preservation). 

Online txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,303
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #74 on: June 04, 2018, 01:00:54 PM »
@Oceander
Doesn't matter.  Its a win against the leftist agenda that hates Christians.  First one in a long time from the Supreme Court.

Exactly.
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!


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf