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.
He was only wronged by the due process. However, was still in the wrong.
At best, what does it give the baker. The baker cannot use this ruling to continue to discriminate against gays.
Perhaps he can sue the Colorado commissioner for heavy handed due process. However, all the money that christian groups spelled with a small c poured into this case are still lost.
Remanded back to lower courts for a more courteous treatment of the baker.
"The government “cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. In considering the baker’s case, the commission “was neither tolerant nor respectful of [baker Jack] Phillips’ religious beliefs.”
"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 7-2 decision, relied on narrow grounds, saying a state commission had violated the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom in ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, who had refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple.
“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”
"“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,803,324 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by finalmove
Sorry, no relevance here. The issue is being forced to embrace homosexual behavior as an ingredient of a cake.
They should have sought a certified homosexual cakery. It was all about causing trouble.
Thinking along your lines is the same justifications that people made for blacks to drink only from particular drinking fountains and sit in the back of the bus.
There are likely to be more straight couples that go there specifically as new customers because of this than gay couples that stop going there. Just do the math on how many more people are "normies" than not.
Why would more straight couples go to the bakery now due to the ruling?
As an attorney who has spent 35 years practicing law in federal court, it seems that the outcome of this case turned on the gratuitous sermonizing by the hapless member of the Colorado state commission who mocked the idea of the baker holding sincere religious beliefs. The Commissioner's comments (slamming the baker) are why the baker won in this case. So, thanks, Mr./Ms. Commissioner.
I am sorry about the outcome of the case. I fear that it will encourage more discrimination on "religious" grounds by those who are not Constitutional lawyers, who do not understand the narrowness of the High Court's ruling. With the "Christian Right" backing our current so-called President, it is hard to know what the term "religious beliefs" even means anymore."
/end of thread.
This ruling was more about how Colorado handled the case and that some kind of commission being pretty much openly hostile to the baker and his *sincere* religious beliefs. Again the commissioners in particular the mouthy ones are who lost this case for themselves. Basically they were saying "we don't give an effing thing about your religious beliefs...." which is not how the USC sees things.
This gay couple just wasted everyone’s time and a lot of money.
This case was not denying regular service but trying to enforce something against someone’s belief for the fun of a gay couple.
Why didn’t this couple just go to a bakery that had no issues to make the cake of their dreams.
In our business we help everyone and if someone asks us to do anything against Fair Housing than we deny helping them. We sell and rent to anyone based on credit and background checks and pre-approvals from third parties. I never heard anyone in my business, denying someone based on sexual preference but we have refused to help
People we don’t trust, acted strange Etc, and even had a different Realtor help a person or couple as for some reason some people just don’t get along.
In this case, why enforcing someone to prepare a cake that needs creative skills and forcing to put something on the cake that they don’t agree with.
Walmart denied to make certain cakes.
What about the left intolerance for people wearing a MAGA hat/cap and losing their minds. Even when they don’t have to interact, some leftist lost their mind just seeing someone with a hat with letters on it and that to me is not the same as creating a cake!
The ruling stated that the Colorado civil rights commission had shown hostility towards religion. It did not rule the business owners can legally discriminate against gays.
But it doesn't say they cannot. The Supreme Court punted here. They didn't officially rule if it is legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation or not, just in the ruling. No precedent created.
Fortunately the prevailing political attitude in my personal area (ironically, Colorado Springs, which ain't far at all from Denver) is "live and let live" and people aren't terrible at agreeing to disagree. All the same, I don't tend to get into a ton of political discussions with most of my friends. For instance, I keep my Facebook on a strict policy of "funny stuff ONLY." I'm not there to argue. I'm there to look at cats. Bite me. lol
I just really don't understand why they went this direction with it. Why not slam the bakers' reputation in town and online, and go somewhere else? And I'm actually pretty surprised there are not bakeries owned by people that this couple should want to support....?
Someone here mentioned that the couple was formerly friends with the owners, before all of this hubbub. Which makes me wonder if a feeling of sort of outraged betrayal, when they found out that their "friends" were not in fact so friendly to their genuine selves, seemingly turned on them. Was that it, I wonder?
I don't know. I've never met any of these folks. *shrug*
Thumbs up to you. I view it as artistic freedom. Is govt going to make me paint a portrait or take a photo of someone I dont like for whatever reason. The gay couple had every right to put the word out about their treatment by the baker. Let them start a competing bakery and put this baker out of business. I just dont agree with taking it to court. Marriage is vastly over rated anyway.
Fair enough. It's like I said. This was a terrible case to bring before the SCOTUS.
How narrow in focus? The Supreme Court generally specifies these sorts of things. This ruling was destined to make waves no matter which way it went.
This was a good case to bring to the SC. The legal, constitutional issues were clear cut and well defined. Instead of addressing those issues head on, the court, especially Kennedy and Roberts, punted.
He was only wronged by the due process. However, was still in the wrong.
At best, what does it give the baker. The baker cannot use this ruling to continue to discriminate against gays.
Perhaps he can sue the Colorado commissioner for heavy handed due process. However, all the money that christian groups spelled with a small c poured into this case are still lost.
Remanded back to lower courts for a more courteous treatment of the baker.
Actually it was the gay couple's feelings that started the whole thing.
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.
