Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And, not because I don't think that gay people deserve not to be denied services based on their sexual orientation.
I just think the baker wasn't treated kindly by the Commission.
That is the decision in a nut shell. I sympathize with the baker. He should not be treated poorly and should be given full due process by an impartial hearing officer.
The court does have to tread lightly in these type cases. Kennedy wrote a good opinion.
There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments
that the State could make when it contended for a different
result in seeking the enforcement of its generally
applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the
public. 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. But, nonetheless, Phillips was
entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his
claims in all the circumstances of the case.
With that in mind, this is not a ruling to allow bakers to decline to make cakes for gay people.
It is a ruling against the manner in which the case was handled by the commission.
It was the correct ruling. The state’s granting of absolute supremacy of rights for one demographic over another is what made this case so appalling. There is a difference between refusing to serve someone based on who they are and refusing to provide a service that requires the person to be an active participant. It is the participatory nature that is the problem.
Should I be forced to take pictures of a wedding involving people whose religious beliefs mean it will be in the nude?
- No, that violates my rights.
.
Should I be able to say I won’t sell pre-made breakfast muffins to someone just because they belong to that church?
- Absolutely not, that violates their rights.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Just because CNN paints it that way does not make it so. So a baker can refuse but a limo driver couldn't? No, this is not how laws work. There is nothing narrow to this ruling. It may not be all encompassing conceivably but it is not narrow.
There was no discussion of the design or decoration on the cake. And what is a "gay theme"?
LOL. Sometimes I get on here and laugh my arse off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
That is the decision in a nut shell. I sympathize with the baker. He should not be treated poorly and should be given full due process by an impartial hearing officer.
The court does have to tread lightly in these type cases. Kennedy wrote a good opinion.
Rest assured - some religious zealot/bigot like Kim Davis will take this to the nth degree and it will be right back in the Supreme court next year.
I do. This is a great slap down to the liberal gay agenda using discrimination law as a means to bring down Christianity in America.
That is exactly right. This was a monumental win for Christians and religious rights, which coukd have gone the other way if Hillary had won and nominated an anti-Christian bigot to the position that Justice Gorsuch now holds. Praise God, for he is good!
This ruling was a ruling against anti-Christian bigotry, which was called out and rebuked quite forcefully in this paragraph from the opinion linked above:
(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
Christian Derangement Syndrome!
Why would commissioners think it acceptable to say such things in a hearing... Not only dismissal of his beliefs but raw hostility. Of coursed they were biased. And Justices Bader Ginsberg and Sotomayer are fine with it.
That is exactly right. This was a monumental win for Christians and religious rights, which coukd have gone the other way if Hillary had won and nominated an anti-Christian bigot to the position that Justice Gorsuch now holds. Praise God, for he is good!
Worse case the ruling is then 6-3. 7-1=6.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
