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.
Does this mean a landlord can legally refuse to rent to an unmarried man and woman with a baby, due to the landlord's religious beliefs that they should be married? Even if they qualify for the rental otherwise.
Or does the 'narrow' ruling mean that other such discrimination versus religion doesn't apply. Does it only apply to the 1 Colorado case. I am not understanding the 'narrow' part of the ruling. How narrow?
I do not see how it couldn't mean that. It does not apply to only this one case.
Does this mean a landlord can legally refuse to rent to an unmarried man and woman with a baby, due to the landlord's religious beliefs that they should be married? Even if they qualify for the rental otherwise.
Or does the 'narrow' ruling mean that other such discrimination versus religion doesn't apply. Does it only apply to the 1 Colorado case. I am not understanding the 'narrow' part of the ruling. How narrow? How does it impact precedence for other issues ?
The scope is narrow, and covers only the baker in question.
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.
They are saying it was ruled narrowly, not a narrow ruling. They then argue that Thomas didn't completely agree which would be 6-2 but that is a toss away argument. It was 7-2 and as I noted earlier, the ruling isn't even narrow. A narrow ruling would be one where only bakers were covered. This ruling does not do this. It is not narrow in any sense of the word.
You left out the key sentence: The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.
Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
1,607 posts, read 1,085,674 times
Reputation: 1372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It had nothing to do with the customer themselves. It was the ceremony celebrating a lifestyle that is sinful and demanding that the owner help service this ceremony. If they had asked for a birthday cake, I'm sure the owner would have no problem with the order.
I believe that cake shop offered ready made cakes to the homosexuals, but they wanted custom cakes that require artistic talent. The baker refused to use their talents to promote, embrace and glorify the homosexual lifestyle.
Does this mean a landlord can legally refuse to rent to an unmarried man and woman with a baby, due to the landlord's religious beliefs that they should be married? Even if they qualify for the rental otherwise.
Or does the 'narrow' ruling mean that other such discrimination versus religion doesn't apply. Does it only apply to the 1 Colorado case. I am not understanding the 'narrow' part of the ruling. How narrow? How does it impact precedence for other issues ?
It supposedly only applies to this particular case and this particular baker. But that's just what I heard on my lunch hour.
We'll see how far bigots will try to take it with regard to unmarried, Muslims, and so on and so forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Jesus ate dinner with the "sinners" and this did not make the church very happy. Jesus had no problem associating with those whose actions he did not agree with.
Because this was about creating a custom cake, a one time cake for the couple. The couple was free to choose a cake in the refrig. They wanted a custom cake. The freedom to create and not to create stands behind this view of religious freedom. Suppose I was an artist and I painted portraits of privately owned dogs, horses, houses, etc. why should I be forced to paint a portrait of you or your dog etc when I dont lke you or your dog. But I have prints made of many breeds of dogs including yours. You are free to buy a print. But why would the law force me to create a custom portrait for you? Now we need to have a case that truly protects artistic and religious freedom.
Isn't this the crux of the matter? Not that the baker wouldn't sell the gay couple a cake but that he wouldn't bake and decorate the cake to the couples specifications, which I assume would have had some kind of gay theme. What exactly did the gay couple request for the decoration?
You left out the key sentence: The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.
That's why it was narrow.
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.
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.
The business owners never wanted to broadly discriminate against homosexuals in the marketplace, and neither do any Christian merchants that I have ever heard of.
In fact, as I am sure that you know very well, they routinely sold their standard products to homosexuals and were very pleased to do so. It was only when they were asked to participate in a ceremony that was offensive to their religious beliefs that they drew a line and say that they would not participate in this particular ACTIVITY.
The goal was never establish the right to descriminate broadly against homosexuals in the marketplace, and anyone who tries to suggest that it ever was is 1) moving the goalposts, and 2) not telling the truth.
Last edited by Spartacus713; 06-04-2018 at 10:16 AM..
Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
1,607 posts, read 1,085,674 times
Reputation: 1372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lee
It is about time some sanity has started to return to our country. The heck with SJW and anyone who needs a safe space, time for our country to be what it once was before Obama ruined it.
It would be no surprise how Obama lied about his approval of homosexual marriage to get elected, then rammed it through after he was elected.
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.
