Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[EvilEyeFleegle]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

Nope..very narrow ruling..effects the case only...the larger question remains open--

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters

I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

As well as Halloween and other Holliday’s the baker finds offensive. The reason you homos always lose this fight is because you find it nessicarey to lie.

**ouch*** Spellcheck is your friend.

Why do you insist in thinking that because one is not homophobic..they're Gay? Very odd.

I don't find it 'nessicarey' to lie at all..and I defy you to find where I did!

Lied by omission. Did also won’t bake cakes for druids, or these folks who copy the religious crap from the show Vikings, you know your type. This wasn’t about a guy not making cakes for fags like your self. It was about his freedom of expression and his ability to run his business as he sees fit.

I'd almost respect your position..if you didn't feel the need to express your homophobia with the homosexual insults..why do you do that/ It brands you as a lower sort.

As far as freedom of expression and his ability to run his business as he sees fit--well..that ship sailed a long time ago. Our nation has laws..agree or not..break them at your peril. In any event, this story has a long way to go..do not be surprised if the Colorado commission rules against him again..you know how petty bureaucrats feel about being overruled.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The entire issue can be summed up in the first paragraph of the ruling:

"In 2012 a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages the State of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time."


The ruling sharply chastised the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission for its publicly expressed hostility toward religious belief -- something the Commission is also tasked with protecting.

 

[Wyatt earp]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights

 

[Wyatt earp]

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...



Here's your cake!

"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.

Say what?


They write to readers like a 6th grader

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...



Here's your cake!

"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.

Say what?


They write to readers like a 6th grader

I'm not sure what you mean. Who writes to readers like a 6th grader?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...



Here's your cake!

"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.

Say what?


They write to readers like a 6th grader

I'm not sure what you mean. Who writes to readers like a 6th grader?

The newspapers , the news outlets, it's well known..they write to US on a 6th grade level. They know most people just read headlines and listen to newsbites to form an opinion .

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...



Here's your cake!

"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.

Say what?


They write to readers like a 6th grader

I'm not sure what you mean. Who writes to readers like a 6th grader?

The newspapers , the news outlets, it's well known..they write to US on a 6th grade level. They know most people just read headlines and listen to newsbites to form an opinion .

That's probably not far from the truth. What does that have to do with what I posted?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Using terms like "fag" or "homo" or "cum guzzler" are expressions of childish homophobia.

Well..homophobia for sure. Childish? Nah..kids are not naturally homophobic. It take adults to program that into them.

Bullshit. Any normal boy would be offended, even sickened, at the thought of having sex with another male. That doesn't take training to be homophobic because it's not homophobic. It's being normal.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...



Here's your cake!

"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.

Say what?


They write to readers like a 6th grader

I'm not sure what you mean. Who writes to readers like a 6th grader?

The newspapers , the news outlets, it's well known..they write to US on a 6th grade level. They know most people just read headlines and listen to newsbites to form an opinion .

That's probably not far from the truth. What does that have to do with what I posted?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1969.tb00854.x

Abstract
This paper is based on a study of American newspaper readability in metropolitan and non‐metropolitan areas.

The results indicated that there was a significant difference between front page readability level of metropolitan and non‐metropolitan newspapers. There was a significant difference in readability level between metropolitan and non‐metropolitan newspaper articles. With the exception of the local news, the non‐metropolitan means were higher for each of these classifications.

There was no significant difference between metropolitan and non‐metro‐politan Associated Press articles. However, there was a significant difference between United Press International metropolitan and non‐metropolitan articles. United Press International articles in non‐metropolitan papers were more difficult to read.

 

[asaratis]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

Those signs are from yesteryear. Nice try!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.

Say what?


They write to readers like a 6th grader

I'm not sure what you mean. Who writes to readers like a 6th grader?

The newspapers , the news outlets, it's well known..they write to US on a 6th grade level. They know most people just read headlines and listen to newsbites to form an opinion .

That's probably not far from the truth. What does that have to do with what I posted?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1969.tb00854.x

Abstract
This paper is based on a study of American newspaper readability in metropolitan and non‐metropolitan areas.

The results indicated that there was a significant difference between front page readability level of metropolitan and non‐metropolitan newspapers. There was a significant difference in readability level between metropolitan and non‐metropolitan newspaper articles. With the exception of the local news, the non‐metropolitan means were higher for each of these classifications.

There was no significant difference between metropolitan and non‐metro‐politan Associated Press articles. However, there was a significant difference between United Press International metropolitan and non‐metropolitan articles. United Press International articles in non‐metropolitan papers were more difficult to read.

As I said, you're probably right about the 6th grade reading level thing.

What's your point? What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[asaratis]

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.

At the time of the refusal to bake the cake for the gay gents, gay marriage was not legal.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable
pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his
religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as
despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetori-
cal—something insubstantial and even insincere. The
commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’
invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses
of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappro
priate for a Commission charged with the solemn respon-
sibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-
discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.

Get it right..you posted a part of the opinion...one that i agree with---but don't leave out Justice Kennedy's defense of Gay rights. That's part of the opinion as well. The commission was wrong..but the larger questions still remain unresolved.

Did you not read the opinion? Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started. He won.

I did read the ENTIRE decision. The case is returned to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling, with an admonition not to trample on the Baker's religious rights. That's all..period.
His win is transitory..the commission could still choose to rule against him. The court took no stance on the larger issues.

BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.

The baker refused to serve their wedding based on his religious beliefs. The Colorado Commission can't force him to bake a cake no matter how you want to twist it.

 

[asaratis]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

A link to the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.

Yup. Those beliefs were discounted in the original case. Now the free exercise clause must be applied. It's quite a significant decision in the overall order of things.

The key is will the commission do the right thing, or double down on persecution.

I don't think this particular commission can do anything. It has already condemned the baker's religious beliefs.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Using terms like "fag" or "homo" or "cum guzzler" are expressions of childish homophobia.

Well..homophobia for sure. Childish? Nah..kids are not naturally homophobic. It take adults to program that into them.

Bullshit. Any normal boy would be offended, even sickened, at the thought of having sex with another male. That doesn't take training to be homophobic because it's not homophobic. It's being normal.

Bullshit. Homophobia is not about wanting or not wanting to have sex with another male. It's about hating some else for their decisions or who they are. What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to do with another consenting adult?
Homophobia is not natural..and it is declining rapidly in the US. That is what bothers many here on this board...their prejudices are not being passed on to the next generation.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable
pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his
religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as
despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetori-
cal—something insubstantial and even insincere. The
commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’
invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses
of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappro
priate for a Commission charged with the solemn respon-
sibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-
discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.

Get it right..you posted a part of the opinion...one that i agree with---but don't leave out Justice Kennedy's defense of Gay rights. That's part of the opinion as well. The commission was wrong..but the larger questions still remain unresolved.

Did you not read the opinion? Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started. He won.

I did read the ENTIRE decision. The case is returned to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling, with an admonition not to trample on the Baker's religious rights. That's all..period.
His win is transitory..the commission could still choose to rule against him. The court took no stance on the larger issues.

BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.

The baker refused to serve their wedding based on his religious beliefs. The Colorado Commission can't force him to bake a cake no matter how you want to twist it.

Force him to..well, of course not. Sanction him for not doing it...still remains to be seen. Upon their decision rests a lawsuit or two I bet.

 

[task0778]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights

Not exactly. The ruling basically says that "The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," and that their decision against the cake baker was tainted by an anti-religion bias. Which it definitely was. But the Court also said they were not deciding whether other business owners have a right to refuse to take part in gay weddings, saying those issues "must await further elaboration in the courts."

IOW, it is still to be determined whether a Christian cake baker can deny service to a gay couple based on religious freedom. What if the baker says "yeah, I'll sell this cake over here or I'll make you a wedding cake that is undecorated but I won't decorate a cake for you." What then, that ain't the same as saying I won't sell you a cake at all. Where's the line that says I have to do this if I want to be open to the public but not that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.

At the time of the refusal to bake the cake for the gay gents, gay marriage was not legal.

Does not matter. Read task0778's post immediately above this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable
pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his
religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as
despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetori-
cal—something insubstantial and even insincere. The
commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’
invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses
of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappro
priate for a Commission charged with the solemn respon-
sibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-
discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.

Get it right..you posted a part of the opinion...one that i agree with---but don't leave out Justice Kennedy's defense of Gay rights. That's part of the opinion as well. The commission was wrong..but the larger questions still remain unresolved.

Did you not read the opinion? Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started. He won.

I did read the ENTIRE decision. The case is returned to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling, with an admonition not to trample on the Baker's religious rights. That's all..period.
His win is transitory..the commission could still choose to rule against him. The court took no stance on the larger issues.

BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.

The baker refused to serve their wedding based on his religious beliefs. The Colorado Commission can't force him to bake a cake no matter how you want to twist it.

You are stretching.

 

[task0778]

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.

At the time of the refusal to bake the cake for the gay gents, gay marriage was not legal.

It is now, and that is not going to change.

And was it legal in PA at the time? Was it illegal to have such a cake in PA at that time?

The case in question was in Colorado, not Pennsylvania, and at the time gay marriage was not legal, I think. Now it is.