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.
Yes, if a future commission behaved similarly, this case might be cited. Again and again. The court did not address the question of anti-discrimination statutes against gays and lesbians (and other protected groups in CO), which in effect leaves CO’s law (and similar laws in other states) intact, valid, and enforceable.
Clearly, not. The ruling renders CO's law UNENFORCEABLE due to discrimination.
I keep seeing people say, "It was a narrow decision." No, 7-2 isn't a narrow decision.
This should have been obvious. You can't come to somebody and say, "You have to make X for me or I'll sue!" The baker was quite reasonable, offering to sell them any premade wedding cake he had in stock and giving them the names of other bakers in the area that could help them. It would be very different if he'd kicked them out of his shop and threatened them if they ever came back or something like that. This was a lousy case to run all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And this will backfire the same way going after Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby did. Masterpiece Cakeshop just got an absolutely ridiculous amount of free advertising. They will never want for business again.
Which Christians are fine with, as long as these statutes cannot be used to bully, harass and terrorize Christians (and others) into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.
I’m not sure what your histrionics serve here. I also find your claim to speak for all Christians suspect.
As I said before (and no one who can actually read disagrees), today’s decision speaks to the conduct of the commission, not CO’s law itself. The anti-discrimination law that protects same-sex couples from discrimination by businesses (including bakers, florists, etc) is very much valid. Florists, photographers, even bakers who refuse to sell their services for same sex weddings in CO could still be subject to the CO Anti-Discrimination Act. It’s common sense and common practice. Directly from the opinion:
“It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public... Petitioners (the baker) 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 oubkic and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
The court’s narrowly tailored ruling today continues to hold bakers, florists, photographers, etc. accountable under public accommodations laws. I’m not sure your effusive fantasy over something that isn’t written or said accomplishes much, but to each his own. Freedom of speech right?
I just ask that all businesses that discriminate against gays - post a sign in their window so I know. That way, I can choose to spend my money wisely. AND, no one will be embarrassed by coming into your place of *art* to purchase a cake. Easypeasy.
If a business discriminates against blacks - again, just post the sign so the consumers will know.
If one's religion states that they cannot bake a cake for an interracial couple - again, sign in the window.
Hate pro-choice women? Against your religion - post the sign.
That way - we ALL know where we stand before things get ugly.
That would be a disaster in reality. Their business would get vandalized or burned to the ground. The left gets very vile and angry when you don't agree with their liberal views.
I even noticed on google reviews, people are trashing his business only because of this ruling. That's flat out wrong. You should review him based on his products and service, not your political views.
Clearly, not. The ruling renders CO's law UNENFORCEABLE due to discrimination.
Nope..in effect..all the ruling did was send the case back to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with an admonition to consider the ruling absent the anti-religious bias present in the first decision. That's ALL!
all this back and forth about Gay rights pro and con...not part of the decision at all.
The SCOTUS ruling was deliberately narrow in focus..and clearly stated that this ruling did not address any of the larger underlying issues.
C'mon guys..let's stop those partisan knees from jerking and address the facts!
I keep seeing people say, "It was a narrow decision." No, 7-2 isn't a narrow decision.
This should have been obvious. You can't come to somebody and say, "You have to make X for me or I'll sue!" The baker was quite reasonable, offering to sell them any premade wedding cake he had in stock and giving them the names of other bakers in the area that could help them. It would be very different if he'd kicked them out of his shop and threatened them if they ever came back or something like that. This was a lousy case to run all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And this will backfire the same way going after Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby did. Masterpiece Cakeshop just got an absolutely ridiculous amount of free advertising. They will never want for business again.
Narrow as in narrow in focus...the decision only affects the parties involved--it does not have larger implications.
Nope..in effect..all the ruling did was send the case back to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with an admonition to consider the ruling absent the anti-religious bias present in the first decision. That's ALL!
all this back and forth about Gay rights pro and con...not part of the decision at all.
The SCOTUS ruling was deliberately narrow in focus..and clearly stated that this ruling did not address any of the larger underlying issues.
C'mon guys..let's stop those partisan knees from jerking and address the facts!
Good luck with that. Right-wing posters are still trying to come to grips with the word "narrow."
The flower shop case is similiar. Very interesting. Arlene
About the upcoming flowershop case, from the link above:
Description: Barronelle Stutzman, the sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, has for her entire career served and employed people who identify as homosexual. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington attorney general allege that she is guilty of unlawful discrimination because she acted consistent with her faith and declined to use her creative skills to design floral arrangements for the same-sex ceremony of a long-time customer, Robert Ingersoll, and another man, Curt Freed.
So she not only sells her products to homosexuals, but also employs them, and has done so for a long time. However, she says that she will not do a flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian beliefs.
Sounds right to me, as I know it would to many tens of millions of other Christians across the country.
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.
