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.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Shows that these 2 will always vote hard progressive left. It would be great to see Trump replace RBG sometime in the near future.
I have not yet had time to read the decision. Did you? Perhaps their 'dissent' was over the (reportedly) narrow ruling. For all I know, these two wanted a broad ruling protecting First Amendment right to not have to create a special cake that violates ones religious conscious.
I doubt it. But still, I haven't read it. Tomorrow when I have time.
There was no discussion of the design or decoration on the cake. And what is a "gay theme"?
Not being an expert in the field I would guess something along the lines of two male figures holding hands. Not something that would bother me but if it was something that upset or offended the baker then I would let him make the call whether or not to take the gig.
I realized that about < 4 . I meant a landlord which has more than 4 units, thus must follow the Fair Housing Act regarding anti-discrimination against protected classes.
The ability to discriminate might now be possible as of today due to today's Supreme Court ruling which allowed discrimination against a protected class if religious belief comes into play. In Colorado, discrimination against a gay couple(in the SCOTUS case it was a gay couple) wasn't allowed but is now allowed due to religion.
This could open the door to a landlord that has an 8 plex or a landlord with a building with 25 rental units refusing to rent to a man and woman with a baby that want to live together as a couple, because the lanlord's religious belief is against non married couples shacking up and having what the landlord considers an illegitimate baby, per religious belief. The SCOTUS ruling might have changed the ability to have religious belief trump discrimination for protected classes well beyond gay weddings.
I don't see that happening. As others have pointed out, the ruling was pretty much laser focused on the specifics of this case like how he was sued even before gay marriage became legalized in Colorado. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a law that can protect both religious freedom while protecting people from discrimination of basic needs and services. No one should be discriminated from receiving housing, food, medical and other needed services. But demanding a custom designed wedding cake is far from a needed or required service.
I am glad the conservative majority court did not try to tackle broader constitutional questions that could have lasting effect on unlawful discrimination. There is a very real fear that a precedent-setting opinion on the broader constitutional questions would upset the legal framework to protect people from discrimination in all the states. You might have wedding service vendors start refusing services to unions of mixed races, etc. I think many people who are against same-sex marriage will celebrate this decision because they have been thirsty for some symbol of validation, however empty. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage is still legal in all 50 states of the union.
The court clearly left the boundary between freedom of expression and discrimination against protected classes murky. My sense is that Kennedy does not want to tackle this question and would rather let lower courts hash out the legal arguments. To put it bluntly, the court is waiting for same-sex marriage opponents to die out (mostly the older generations), the social landscape to change, and allow time for the society to accept the fact that same-sex marriages are legal and (soon) normal. Just like people who were anti-miscegenation back in the days, people today who are anti-same-sex marriage will comprise a minority in the next 5-10 years and their views will be in the margins of civil society.
Yes. A baker could be an atheist who refused to write any number of religious phrases on baked goods or to bake a cake in the shape of a Bible, etc.
What the baker could NOT do is refuse to make a cake just like the ones they make regularly and sell it to someone BECAUSE that person is a Christian.
Which is perfectly fine. An atheist baker should not feel like they are being forced by government to spend part of their work day writing Bible verses on a cake when they personally detest Christianity. This ruling is applicable beyond just Christianity.
I have not yet had time to read the decision. Did you? Perhaps their 'dissent' was over the (reportedly) narrow ruling. For all I know, these two wanted a broad ruling protecting First Amendment right to not have to create a special cake that violates ones religious conscious.
I doubt it. But still, I haven't read it. Tomorrow when I have time.
No did not read it but just playing the odds based on their previous history. I'm not a betting man but on this one I would make a wager.
Supreme Court rules 7-2: Cakes are property of those that make them.
The Supreme Court ruled today on the Colorado Cake Baker, being forced into slavery, was unconstitutional. He can refuse to service, those wanting him to perform acts against his will and convictions.
A win for individual LIBERTY in the USA.
Guess who the 2 dissenting opinions were.
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.
Supreme Court rules 7-2: Cakes are property of those that make them.
