There's an awesome write up on the Masterpiece Cake debacle at the Volokh Conspiracy:
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/...-equality-of-r
Yhea it's long, but it's a good read!
O2
Printable View
There's an awesome write up on the Masterpiece Cake debacle at the Volokh Conspiracy:
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/...-equality-of-r
Yhea it's long, but it's a good read!
O2
Masterpiece (Phillips) wins USSC case!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supr...s-reasons.html
CNBC tries to lie and say it was narrow. But it was 7-2!!!!!
Quote:
The Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The butthurt is going to be strong on this one. It isn't going to be so much about the poor repressed gays as it is the Constitution still meaning what it plainly says.
I hope Phillips also wins a significant civil case against the state.
Indeed, the fact that Kennedy, Breyer, and Kagan voted to uphold the Constitution is big. As expected, Ginsberg and Sotomayor were doctrinaire liberals, forget their oaths or the actual words of the Constitution or English language.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ns/1052989001/
Go figure, USA Today also lied and said the ruling is on narrow grounds -- the First Amendment and right to genuine religious convictions is NOT a narrow ground.
Hooray for rights! Only cost the guy an unknown amount of money in lost revenue and who knows how much in legal fees, pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc.
Good.
This will make the snowflakes melt a bit[Muaha]
Let then eat cake......NOT!
Surprising verdict. Glad it went that way.
I still believe this was never about the cake. I think These two guys picked that shop based on the knowledge Jack wouldn’t make them a cake.
I’m incredibly surprised but pleased. If I was still back in CO I’d hit up his shop and buy something today.
Good, if they don't make cakes for gays don't buy from them and STFU, simple as that.
Thank you all. This group is the place that alerts me to things otherwise lost in the MSM. I watched the new this weekend, saw the FBI video on channel. Didn't hear anything of this.
Good for him winning.
There's hope yet...
if y'all want a less biased write up on the decision (or just don't want to give hits to the leftist media websites)
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...-rights-commn/
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
I haven't read the whole majority opinion. Many seem to think this is not an affirmation of freedom of religion or association but a rebuke of Phillips' being denied due process in a proceeding that was openly hostile to his religion.
That’s how i’m reading msm articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
WOW...I guess freedom isn't completely dead yet!
Yup! You are correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Bingo. From what I'm reading, it was NOT a ruling that religious freedom trumped the protection for gays, but more a finding of disparate treatment. Gorsuch cited that this was a case where a religious baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was found to have discriminated. Meanwhile, separately, a religious man went to 3 bakers and asked them to put an anti-gay statement on a cake, and they refused, but were found NOT to have discriminated. Essentially, the exact same case, just with the roles reversed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
This, the court said, was discriminatory, particularly combined with the public (and never rebuked) statement by the commission of how religion was evil, led to the holocaust, etc.
THAT's what the finding was. That's why it's narrow.
http://pics.me.me/heres-the-cake-the...at-5471925.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
You're right, but the headline was written for the vast majority of folks who read only headlines. This is by design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
O2
Do you think the enemy will try again under a different disguise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Just wait till the Muslims start using this ruling to their advantage to discriminate and deny services/goods to Christians and other groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by MED
The religious right will then be crying foul to high heaven.
Be careful what you wish for...sometimes you just might get it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
I think an intelligent Christian or Jewish family would understand why an Islamic bakery would not be interested in baking a cake for their specific religious function. If they throw a hissy fit, then they are just as "special" as the two dudes in this case.
Think outside a bakery. This could apply to a gas station, an emergency room, a hospital, a tow service, mechanic shop, etc. This ruling isn't inclusive to only a bakery.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
This absurd ruling is an open license to discriminate against people simply because they don't believe a certain way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you're thinking on this is bassackwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
Uhhhh, that's what happens on this website, and every other politically driven website every single day. That's what every boycott is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
What’s wrong with discrimination, really?
I’d be happy to be discriminated against so we could once again have a healthy distrust. And it would save me the trouble of giving money to those who’d rather not take it.
Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is just as important as being able to refuse the service of anyone.
pretty sure it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
The only difference is, you and I don't get paid to post on here and you don't give me a good or service in return for said payment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not even inclusive to bakeries in general. It's even more limited than a "bakery". This SCOTUS rulling ONLY applies to this specific bakery.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
Is too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
Just wanted to get in on the fun.
Not sure selling gasoline to non-muslims is a freedom of religion argument. Gas is gas. There's not much effort on the creative side so that anyone's values come into play.
YES! THIS! What I've never understood is why people WANT to give their money to someone who doesn't like them. I can understand that early Civil Rights actions were a necessary "evil" because there actually WAS a lack of opportunity, but now that you can basically get anything anywhere at any time, and people have never been more accepting, why do we still have these sorts of things?Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
If someone says they don't like a thing I like (*cough* Dicks *cough*), why on Earth would I WANT to spend my money there?
In short, let people discriminate away! It's just another business opportunity for someone else down the street!
it's not the product that matters really, it's the fact that a business is open to provide a service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Until today's abomination of a ruling, the right to refuse service only applied to no shoes, no shirt no service/lack of proper attire, customers who got unruly/disorderly/violent, customers who disrupted the normal flow of business (i.e. were extremely filthy, contagious or smelling foul).
Anything else was considered discrimination.
This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.
Now if his business had been a membership only business, he could pick and choose who he wants to serve. SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a difference between this case and the other 3 bakers. The difference being in the other 3 cases the bakers asked what the gays wanted put on the cake and in this most recent case the baker never asked what the gays wanted put on the cake. Doesn't seem like much of a difference, but it is the primary difference between the cases.Quote:
Bingo. From what I'm reading, it was NOT a ruling that religious freedom trumped the protection for gays, but more a finding of disparate treatment. Gorsuch cited that this was a case where a religious baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was found to have discriminated. Meanwhile, separately, a religious man went to 3 bakers and asked them to put an anti-gay statement on a cake, and they refused, but were found NOT to have discriminated. Essentially, the exact same case, just with the roles reversed.
Already being discussed on Twitter... The belief is that had the Colorado Civil RightsQuote:
Originally Posted by roberth
CommissionCommissars simply been less openly bigoted they could have gotten a narrower (SWIDT?) decision. Many are estimating 4-5/5-4. It would drive the issue directly back to 1A and make it less about due process while forcing the Court to resolve the conflict created between "civil rights" and freedom of religion.
The conflict that exists now that civil rights means forced acceptance of and with a behavior.
---
For the other conversation... Like I said pages ago, the unique aspect of this case was that Phillips was forced to endorse the behavior he personally found immoral. He was forced by the state (government). Yes, the state of Colorado actually tried to be arbiter of personal ethics and create a precedent, absent the legislative process, that would force Coloradans to violate their conscious if found unpopular by the politically appointed CCRC.
That's Fascism. And there's no way around the obvious conclusion.
This wasn't a gay couple turned away for gas, healthcare, or any other service/good. As a Christian, if I were a Dr., I would have no problem treating a gay patient. As a biz, I have no problem selling to anyone/everyone. Again, not an endorsement, not a violation of my conscious because it requires no endorsement.
This is the difference that is specifically protected by 1A and, IMHO, moves it well outside of Civil Rights law (public accommodation). Those who think Phillips violated the civil rights of the gay couple have it exactly backwards.
Diana DeGette isn't even sure it's a matter of civil rights laws...
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...cakeshop-owner
Why would they need to amend if it is already superior to 1A?Quote:
One way we can achieve this aim is by passing the Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Together, we can work to guarantee that no one is denied rights, services or accommodations simply because of who they are and who they love.”
I haven't formed a full opinion on this overall argument, but how can you utter these two statements, in the same sentence, without considering that perhaps they are related?Quote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
On the other hand, I feel the same way about unions, even though I've never been a member of one.
The SCOTUS ruling didn't address the core point of contention here: where does the First Amendment take a back seat to anti-discrimination laws. The majority opinion did say that the baker's rights were trampled on by the state commission, that's it. Further, the baker never refused to serve the gay couple as he agreed to sell them any baked goods that weren't a wedding cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
+ 1Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooskibar03
They wanted to cause a stink. CO is now screwed up enough that it got traction. If the tables were turned, the hype and outcome would be different.
Remind me again where you got your law degree and how many years you have been a lawyer?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
"Reserve the RIGHT to Refuse Service"
As a private business this should be all that is necessary.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
He wasnt forced to endorse anything. He was asked to bake a cake! He wasnt asked to ordain the wedding ceremony. He wasn't asked to join them in matrimony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
He refused them only because they were gay and that is the definition of discrimination.
His religious bs has no place being used to decide which customer to serve or place limitations upon which services he will render to whom based on their sexuality.
His religious views are his and his alone. Not to be imposed upon anyone else.
The right to religious freedom is a personal one. You can worship as you please, choose your religion, your God, place of worship (church), whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey Badger282.8
But it should not be allowable to weaponize your religion to the point where you deny someone a service at a business that is open to the general public.
In the case of the Colorado baker. he weaponized his religion and used it to discriminate against a couple only because they were gay.
What do you on your own time is your business. Forcing your belief system others is bovine scatology and that's exactly what happened in this case.
it's not quite that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/t...-of-appearance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where does Freedom of Religion come Into play then?
You wont see a Muslim hotdog vendor. Just because he was a Baker doesn't mean he has to give up his religious beliefs.
Its funny to hear "weaponize his beliefs", isn't that exactly what muslims have done yet we still allow that religion of peace..............
So just to be clear it's only Weaponizing when its Judao Christian Values being expressed right?