Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 21125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #125 on: June 04, 2018, 07:20:22 pm »
Uh, no.  A heterosexual customer also requested a cake for a same-sex wedding.  The request of that heterosexual customer was refused.

Also, the baker offered to sell the plaintiffs any other baked good in his store.  So no, he did not discriminate at all.

There are some products he sells.  And there are some products he doesn't sell.  And these rules apply regardless of the sexual preference of the customer.

Uh, no.  He refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple without even discussing the design with them. For all he knew, they may have wanted no text on it at all, nothing that would identify them as a same-sex couple. 

Read the facts as set forth in the Courts opinion.  Unless you think the Court is lying about the facts. 

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,821
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #126 on: June 04, 2018, 07:22:10 pm »
I think it was a pyrrhic victory at best.

Nonsense.  Liberal fascists were caught red-handed violating the very equal protection that they claim to champion, and they were called to the carpet for it.

This is a victory for liberty, period.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,365
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #127 on: June 04, 2018, 07:24:46 pm »
Major Bill wrote:
"It looks to me like the Justices deliberately chose a fairly narrow ground on which to rule so as to avoid the controversy."

In other words, they "kicked the can down the road" a bit as best they could until the next "cake case" arises.

Still in all, this seems to be a "foundational" decision. It sets precedent for that next case to come before them (stare decisis). And lower courts will be somewhat "bound" by the Colorado cake decision.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,821
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #128 on: June 04, 2018, 07:26:59 pm »
Uh, no.  He refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple without even discussing the design with them.

The baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, not a same-sex couple.  Get your facts right, @Oceander
The Colorado court records clearly show that a heterosexual woman also requested a cake for a same-sex wedding.  She was also refused on the exact same grounds - the baker does not make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.


For all he knew, they may have wanted no text on it at all, nothing that would identify them as a same-sex couple.

Totally irrelevant.  Writing on a cake does not change the fact of what the cake was for.


Read the facts as set forth in the Courts opinion.  Unless you think the Court is lying about the facts.

I did read the facts.  And it is clear that you did not.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #129 on: June 04, 2018, 07:32:28 pm »
Major Bill wrote:
"It looks to me like the Justices deliberately chose a fairly narrow ground on which to rule so as to avoid the controversy."

In other words, they "kicked the can down the road" a bit as best they could until the next "cake case" arises.

A disturbing tendency on the Roberts court.  Take a look at this from the other case decided today, about whether an illegal immigrant minor in immigrant custody can obtain an abortion.

Quote
In the unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices threw out the lower court decision on the grounds that the dispute became moot once the teenager had the abortion.

...

The justices on Monday declined to take up the administration’s request for disciplinary action against the ACLU lawyers. The administration had accused them of misleading the Justice Department over when she would have the abortion.


The ACLU helped her get the abortion while the case was on appeal, so the Court dismissed it as moot, then denied the motion to sanction the ACLU for interfering with the case.  All in the name of avoiding making any precedent.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 07:33:19 pm by Cyber Liberty »
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #130 on: June 04, 2018, 07:32:51 pm »
The baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, not a same-sex couple.  Get your facts right, @Oceander
The Colorado court records clearly show that a heterosexual woman also requested a cake for a same-sex wedding.  She was also refused on the exact same grounds - the baker does not make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.


Totally irrelevant.  Writing on a cake does not change the fact of what the cake was for.


I did read the facts.  And it is clear that you did not.

No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight. 

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,365
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #131 on: June 04, 2018, 07:33:02 pm »
Sir Links wrote:
"Hopefully, Ginsburg will be gone in a few... but we'll have Sotomayor to deal with for a LOOONG time."

The wise Latina has significant health problems.
If Trump gets re-elected, he might even get to appoint her replacement.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,928
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #132 on: June 04, 2018, 07:34:32 pm »
Nonsense.  Liberal fascists were caught red-handed violating the very equal protection that they claim to champion, and they were called to the carpet for it.

This is a victory for liberty, period.
"This is a victory for liberty, period."

 :beer: :patriot:
Yes, and triple that.   Many people fail to understand the implications of this decision. If it had went the other way, any person with a business could be coerced into making something they didn't want to make.
Whether the cake baker didn't want to bake the cake because he's an artist or because of his religion is irrelevant.
You should not be forced to create/make/manufacture something you don't want to.
The people who would coerce the baker into making the cake are petty fascists. Yeah, I said it.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,821
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #133 on: June 04, 2018, 07:43:05 pm »
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

He also refused to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual woman, specifically because she requested one for a same-sex wedding.  The baker informed the HETEROSEXUAL woman that he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings.

Shall I repost the court decision for you again?  It's been posted three times already, but I have no problem doing it again.

Here's the bottom line.  This baker does not recognize same-sex 'marriage' celebrations as 'weddings' as defined by his religious beliefs.  Thus, he does not make wedding cakes celebrating such events.  Nowhere in any of this does a person's sexual preference come into play.  If a homosexual man was to marry a homosexual woman, then he would accept their wedding cake order.  Conversely, if a heterosexual man was to marry a heterosexual man, he would not accept their wedding cake order.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #134 on: June 04, 2018, 07:44:09 pm »
He refused to make for a same-sex couple exactly the same cake he was willing to make for a hetero-sex couple.  He discriminated.

It's not "the same cake."

If you're going to argue vociferously against religious freedom, at least get your facts straight.

Otherwise you just look like any old liberal arguing against liberty.

And you're not.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #135 on: June 04, 2018, 07:45:01 pm »
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight.

Didn't the baker also refuse to bake a cake for a Homosexual marriage for a Hetero person, too?  And isn't it true he offered to sell them any other thing from the bakery?
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,326
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #136 on: June 04, 2018, 07:46:23 pm »
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight.
Which should be his right. If he is an obedient Christian, he is told to "not even eat with / the sexual sinners of this world (...) the adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals." (1 Corinthians 5 and 6, and yes, I deliberately chose the New Testament, even though the commands against it can be traced back as far as Sodom and Gomorrah.) Such commands were already in place when the First Amendment was codified.

To specifically order him to serve a homosexual when it is explicitly against his faith not only violates his free exercise, but his right not to be forced into involuntary servitude (the 13th Amendment).
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 07:47:53 pm by jmyrlefuller »
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,682
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #137 on: June 04, 2018, 07:46:53 pm »
No, he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  He discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to provide them any sort of a wedding cake, without regard to what the actual design might be, because it was for their wedding. 

Get your facts straight.

And again, if a heterosexual customer wanted a cake for a homosexual "marriage," it would have been refused.

THOSE are the facts, like it or not.

It is not discrimination to refuse to make a product that you don't ever make in your place of business.

There was no discrimination here.......... until the state of Colorado discriminated against this Christian.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

I wear a mask as an exercise in liberty and love for others.  To see it as an infringement of liberty is to entirely miss the point.  Be kind.

"Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if we would call a moratorium on activity for about six weeks and just wait on God to see what He is waiting to do for us. That's what they did before Pentecost."   - A. W. Tozer

Use the time God is giving us to seek His will and feel His presence.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,821
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #138 on: June 04, 2018, 07:50:34 pm »
Which should be his right. If he is an obedient Christian, he is told to "not even eat with / the sexual sinners of this world (...) the adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals." (1 Corinthians 5 and 6, and yes, I deliberately chose the New Testament, even though the commands against it can be traced back as far as Sodom and Gomorrah.)

To specifically order him to serve a homosexual when it is explicitly against his faith not only violates his free exercise, but his right not to be forced into involuntary servitude (the 13th Amendment).

To put it more into context, consider the ministry of Jesus.  All four gospels give numerous accounts of Jesus preaching in the marketplace.  His parables centered on real marketplace issues - farming, stewardship, day laboring, land owner, accounting, etc.  The defendant in this case was simply taking Christ's lessons to heart and being that marketplace servant by dedicating his works to the Lord.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #139 on: June 04, 2018, 07:52:12 pm »
Did you read Justice Thomas' opinion?  He nails it.

Yes, he did indeed.

Keep in mind, this wasn't a Baker that took his religion lightly and used it for an excuse on a gay couple.  This Baker refused to make anything Halloween decorated because of his view of his religion.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #140 on: June 04, 2018, 08:01:09 pm »
I just saw an interesting little nugget in the discussion of this case over on Volokh Conspiracy; to wit: does the emphasis on the prejudiced remarks by the Colorado commissioners foreshadow a possible result in the case regarding Trump’s travel ban?  That is, if the subjective, but voiced, prejudices of the commissioners in this case were enough to render their decision unconstitutional discrimination, does that imply that the Supreme Court will also find that Trump’s prejudiced anti-Muslim statements render his travel ban unconstitutional discrimination?

If that’s true, then this case was an incredibly expensive horse-trade.

Certainly an interesting thought, and perhaps there is something to that analysis.  Not having a legal education I'll refrain from attempting any detailed criticism of the idea, other than to argue that the travel ban applied to countries, not to any specific faith.  Even if one grants that Trump is personally prejudiced against Muslims, and revealed that bias through his statements, the travel ban would not apply to millions of Muslims in countries not included in the ban.
James 1:20

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #141 on: June 04, 2018, 08:02:11 pm »
And again, if a heterosexual customer wanted a cake for a homosexual "marriage," it would have been refused.

THOSE are the facts, like it or not.

It is not discrimination to refuse to make a product that you don't ever make in your place of business.

There was no discrimination here.......... until the state of Colorado discriminated against this Christian.

No, because he never discussed design, so there was no way of knowing whether the cake itself would bear any indication that it was for a same-sex wedding.  The design could have been completely abstract.  If a heterosexual-sex couple requested such an abstract cake, he would have made it for them - even if they were buying it for their gay friends - but because the customers were a gay couple, he refused.  He discriminated on the basis of who they were, not on the basis of the cake he would be called upon to design.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #142 on: June 04, 2018, 08:06:27 pm »
I just saw an interesting little nugget in the discussion of this case over on Volokh Conspiracy; to wit: does the emphasis on the prejudiced remarks by the Colorado commissioners foreshadow a possible result in the case regarding Trump’s travel ban?  That is, if the subjective, but voiced, prejudices of the commissioners in this case were enough to render their decision unconstitutional discrimination, does that imply that the Supreme Court will also find that Trump’s prejudiced anti-Muslim statements render his travel ban unconstitutional discrimination?

If that’s true, then this case was an incredibly expensive horse-trade.

That's funny, @Oceander ,  I was reading the case on the train this afternoon and beside one passage in the majority opinion I scribbled the word "Trump!"    That passage is as follows:

Quote
  Members of the Court have disagreed on the question whether statements made by lawmakers may properly be taken into account, in determining whether a law intentionally discriminates on the basis of religion.  [citation omitted]  In this case, however, the remarks were made in a very different context - by an adjudicatory body [the Colorado Commission] deciding a particular case.

That sure sounds like a signal regarding the Court's upcoming ruling on the Trump travel ban.   But here, of course, the requirement of neutrality is essential to due process and impartial justice.   The Colorado Commission's record including the statement of one of its members that religious belief has been used to justify slavery and even the Holocaust was simply outrageous,  and effectively tipped the scales of justice against  Mr. Phillips.

But is the case a nothingburger, as I suggested above?   I don't think so, although the language that will affect future cases will be mostly found in the concurring and dissenting opinions.   I'd recommend that anyone who favors the baker read Justice Kagan's opinion, and that anyone who favors the plaintiffs read Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, as well as Justice Thomas's opinion, who unlike the other Justices, takes seriously Mr. Phillip's claims regarding his free speech rights (as opposed to his right to freely exercise his religion.)    These are the competing arguments on the merits on which the Court punted, and for which resolution awaits another day.   Like Oceander said,  it was not possible to get five Justices to agree on anything other than Kennedy's absolutely correct conclusion that Phillips' claims were not treated fairly by the adjudicator.

But is the majority opinion valueless with respect to the Constitutional issues?   I don't think so.   Although addressed far more directly and substantively by the concurring and dissenting opinions,  the majority touched on the issue of disparate treatment in how the Commission upheld the conscience objections of three other bakers who refused to bake cakes with "offensive" anti-gay messages,  while consigning Mr. Phillip's conscience objections to the dustbin.

Quote
  Before the Colorado Court of Appeals, Philips protested that this disparity in treatment reflected hostility on the part of the Commission toward his beliefs.  He argued that the Commission had treated the other bakers' conscience-based objections as legitimate,  but treated his as illegitimate - thus sitting in judgement of his religious beliefs themselves.

. . .  A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government's own assessment of offensiveness.   Just as 'no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion', it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State to prescribe what shall be offensive.   The Colorado court's attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips' religious beliefs.   

This, I think, is the victory Mr. Phillips gained.   He may not know whether he can, in the future, refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings, but if he refuses again it seems clear that his conscience-based objection -  grounded in religion - must be treated as seriously and presumptively genuine as a conscience-based objection based on secular belief.  It is Mr. Phillips who is the arbiter of what is offensive to his religious sensibilities, not the State.  The government cannot favor or disfavor religion,  and cannot place its thumb on the scale of justice by dismissing expression or conduct rooted in religious faith as inherently quaint or backward or destructive.   
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 08:18:06 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,928
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #143 on: June 04, 2018, 08:08:47 pm »
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.
"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"

Yes, I agree, but it's not just people with religious convictions. It's  all business persons who have the right to refuse to make/create/manufacture something they don't want to.
It's no different than a customer demanding a car manufacturer make a candy-striped vehicle with gold-colored wheels. The car maker has the right to refuse to make that kind of car on any grounds, religious or otherwise.
Nobody should be able to force a business person to make something they don't want to.
That is totally different from refusing to sell something that's already made and up for sale to someone.
The same would apply to homosexual bakers who only bake items with homosexual themes. A customer is free to purchase any item in their store.  But a  customer cannot demand the homosexual bakers bake a christian-themed bakery item.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,928
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #144 on: June 04, 2018, 08:13:35 pm »
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.
You and Jazzhead are both clueless. Nobody...let me repeat....nobody should be forced to make something they don't want to make.
It makes no difference it's for religious reasons or whatever reasons or no specified reason. No business person should be forced to make something they don't want to make.

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #145 on: June 04, 2018, 08:20:01 pm »
If he couldn’t get 5 votes to reverse on broader grounds, being more aggressive would have resulted in actual or implied affirmance.

 :thumbsup:

And for those who attack Roberts for limiting scope of decisions, aren't you some of the ones complaining about the "unelected black robes" making sweeping decisions?

There's a lot to be said for decisions that are narrowly limited to the point at hand.  Just because our Congress is no longer responsible, taking up the mantle and legislating clearly, doesn't mean we should be leaning on the SCOTUS to do our legislating.  Besides, it was the baker himself who argued for a narrower construction (see Page 10).

Quote
“[..]there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. ”

They conceded that they had to make cakes for gay weddings.  It was only the issue of artistic skills and expressive statement (1st Amendment) they fought:

Quote
Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented.  He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to
make an expressive statement [...]


For those who say this is a great victory,. I say it's more like catching an opponent moving a pawn illegally.  Sure, it stops their move in this case, but it's no great victory in the game itself.

The decision has verbiage like the following (page 9):
Quote
“[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

That's far from a rebuke of the general principle of public accommodations law and its ability to infringe (my word) on religious liberty.  And this language wasn't from a dissenter!

How about Page 12:

Quote
And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.

Again, this is in the majority opinion. 
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #146 on: June 04, 2018, 08:23:45 pm »
You and Jazzhead are both clueless. Nobody...let me repeat....nobody should be forced to make something they don't want to make.
It makes no difference it's for religious reasons or whatever reasons or no specified reason. No business person should be forced to make something they don't want to make.

 :amen:
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 goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,928
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #147 on: June 04, 2018, 08:26:01 pm »
He refused to make for a same-sex couple exactly the same cake he was willing to make for a hetero-sex couple.  He discriminated.
You're clueless. Unless the baker has previously made homosexual-themed cakes for heterosexuals,  he's perfectly within his rights. It's no different from any business/manufacturer  specifying what kind of product they make. Only they should determine what kind of product they make and how they make it.
The homosexuals in this case are only being discriminated against if the bakers refuses to sell him any of products, homosexual-themed, hetero-sexual themed, or no theme.
If a baker can be forced to create homosexual-themed cakes,  a painter of traditional religious themes can be forced to paint pictures of an anti-religious nature. Ditto for every business.
NOBODY!!!! should be able to tell a business person what he has to make and/or sell. How hard is that for you to understand?
Obviously, pretty hard.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #148 on: June 04, 2018, 08:27:18 pm »

It makes no difference it's for religious reasons or whatever reasons or no specified reason. No business person should be forced to make something they don't want to make.

It is not that simple.   Of course a baker should not be forced to make wedding cakes.  But here,  the baker advertised such cakes as his specialty.  He put himself out before the public as a baker of such cakes.   The question, unfortunately not answered today, is whether and when religious belief provides a basis to refuse service to one customer but not another.  The facts in this case were not easy, because Mr. Phillips had no discussion with his customer regarding the design or message of the cake.   As Justice Kagan pointed out,  this was not a case of refusing to provide a service that he had promised to no one else to provide.  If his customers had been straight, he would have baked the cake.  Because they were gay, he refused.   Is religious belief alone sufficient to permit him to disregard his legal obligation of fair and nondiscriminatory dealing?   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #149 on: June 04, 2018, 08:29:36 pm »
You and Jazzhead are both clueless. Nobody...let me repeat....nobody should be forced to make something they don't want to make.
It makes no difference it's for religious reasons or whatever reasons or no specified reason. No business person should be forced to make something they don't want to make.

Maybe so, and maybe that would be the wiser policy, but it’s not the law.