Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[bodecea]

https://nypost.com/2019/06/17/supreme-court-sends-oregon-wedding-cake-case-back-to-lower-court/

"The Supreme Court sent both cases back to the state level."
Ummm....no. They did not! Been reading long?

Yes they did......try actually reading the rulings, my friend.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You didn't read the ruling......or worse, you didn't understand what you read. Which is it?

So ironic.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes they did......try actually reading the rulings, my friend.

You have my citation from NBC news about the Colorado baker. Show me where his case is being returned to a lower court. All you have to do is produce evidence for your claim, yet you fail to do it over and over again.

Here it is again, you poor little moron. In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Still waiting for your correction. Let's just admit you have no intention of correcting
your egregious error. I'm already at peace with that reality.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes they did......try actually reading the rulings, my friend.

You have my citation from NBC news about the Colorado baker. Show me where his case is being returned to a lower court. All you have to do is produce evidence for your claim, yet you fail to do it over and over again.

Here it is again, you poor little moron. In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding

Although the Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop did not resolve this issue, it did indicate that claims like that of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop were unlikely to prevail under the free exercise clause and Employment Division v. Smith. Justice Kennedy’s opinion suggested that the free exercise clause will not provide a basis for such refusals of service when there is not the expression of hostility to religion. The Court declared: “while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
​

In other words, the ruling changed nothing.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

In other words, the ruling changed nothing.

Yes, it's good to know people like the Christian baker and other like minded people have always been protected against the bullies with rainbow flags.. It's the Constitution, stupid!

It's unfortunate he has to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get his justice, however.

 

[P@triot]

You can't show where the bible states that bakers shouldn't bake wedding cakes for gay couples, can you? Another made up "deeply felt belief".

Please stop talking about the Bible. You don’t have the slightest clue what it says.

 

[P@triot]

How so? I think my position is pretty consistent.

Key word there, my dear. The fact is, your positions are wildly inconsistent. I have proven that time and time again.

 

[P@triot]

In other words, the ruling changed nothing.

Bwahahaha! In other words, you can’t bring yourself to accept a Supreme Court ruling if it doesn’t support your bat-shit crazy beliefs.

 

[Seawytch]

In other words, the ruling changed nothing.

Yes, it's good to know people like the Christian baker and other like minded people have always been protected against the bullies with rainbow flags.. It's the Constitution, stupid!

It's unfortunate he has to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get his justice, however.

Neither case was decided on those merits.

The Court’s decision is narrow and leaves unresolved the key question of whether forcing businesses to provide services for gays and lesbians, or others, violates free exercise of religion or free speech rights of owners who wish to refuse to provide such services. The issue is sure to come up again, perhaps in cases involving florists who won’t make flower arrangements or photographers who won’t take pictures at same-sex weddings. Interestingly, the Court had the chance to take such a case after its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop that involved a florist who refused to make flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding, but the Court remanded the case in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop. In Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, the Washington State Supreme Court came to the same conclusion as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals.

There were two questions presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop that were not resolved by the Court: Would requiring services violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment? Would requiring services be impermissiblecompelled speech in violation of the First Amendment?
​

Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

 

[Seawytch]

How so? I think my position is pretty consistent.

Key word there, my dear. The fact is, your positions are wildly inconsistent. I have proven that time and time again.

Yeah? Prove it. Cite the inconsistencies, puppy. Be specific. Maybe with some links to these inconsistent statements.

 

[Seawytch]

In other words, the ruling changed nothing.

Bwahahaha! In other words, you can’t bring yourself to accept a Supreme Court ruling if it doesn’t support your bat-shit crazy beliefs.

What were the rulings, Snotweiller? Did the rulings change a single Public Accommodation law anywhere? Are you now free to discriminate against gays like you want the law to allow?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding
A victory is a victory whether acknowledged or not.

 

[Seawytch]

In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding
A victory is a victory whether acknowledged or not.

Pretty sad victory. It's like claiming victory when you're the guy that took home the year supply of Top Ramen instead of the prize money.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Pretty sad victory. It's like claiming victory when you're the guy that took home the year supply of Top Ramen instead of the prize money.

The Supreme Court vindicated this baker and ruled in his favor.

I'm not sure how much more of a victory it could have been.

 

[Seawytch]

Pretty sad victory. It's like claiming victory when you're the guy that took home the year supply of Top Ramen instead of the prize money.

The Supreme Court vindicated this baker and ruled in his favor.

I'm not sure how much more of a victory it could have been.

They didn't rule in his favor, they vacated the lower court ruling but did nothing to existing law.

The Court did not reach the central issues of the case: Would it violate free exercise of religion or freedom of speech under the First Amendment to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to design and bake a cake for a same-sex wedding?​

You got a year supply of freeze dried noodles. They will run out. Another case will come up and the court will have to decide if its willing to overturn 50+ years of precedent.

For example, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits restaurants and other public accommodations from discriminating based on race. A restaurant owner could claim that forcing it to cook food for African-Americans is impermissible compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. Any business that wants to discriminate would be able to say that forcing it to provide services is compelling its expression. In fact, why couldn’t an employer say that it can hire only men to express a view about the type of work that should be done by the sexes or that women’s role should be in the home? Enforcing antidiscrimination law and forcing the employer to hire women would thus be impermissible compelled speech.​

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

They didn't rule in his favor, they vacated the lower court ruling but did nothing to existing law.

You are misrepresenting the point of the judgement so as to claim your little victory. That's disingenuous to say
the least.
This baker's intent was not to do away with public accommodation law even though you constantly
claim otherwise. His victory in court was in reestablishing an exception to the law based on his religious convictions. Not in ending it. The Supreme Court recognized this quite sensibly.

As long as you continue to lie, or misrepresent what the Supreme Court judgement was all about, you will continue to
be wrong and your bleating will be ignored as it should be.

The Court did not reach the central issues of the case: Would it violate free exercise of religion or freedom of speech under the First Amendment to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to design and bake a cake for a same-sex wedding?

You got a year supply of freeze dried noodles. They will run out. Another case will come up and the court will have to decide if its willing to overturn 50+ years of precedent.

No one is trying to overturn public accommodation laws.
Perhaps you are just incapable of forming your own views on what has obviously happened and why. That's what happens when all your opinions are formed for you by leftist media clones.

 

[Seawytch]

They didn't rule in his favor, they vacated the lower court ruling but did nothing to existing law.

You are misrepresenting the point of the judgement so as to claim your little victory. That's disingenuous to say
the least.
This baker's intent was not to do away with public accommodation law even though you constantly
claim otherwise. His victory in court was in reestablishing an exception to the law based on his religious convictions. Not in ending it. The Supreme Court recognized this quite sensibly.

Which he also DID NOT DO.

But that was exactly the issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop: Is a business’s freedom to choose its customers more important than the government interest in stopping sexual orientation discrimination?

The Supreme Court did not answer this question, but instead decided the case on narrower grounds by concluding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed impermissible hostility to religion. [...]

The Court’s decision is narrow and leaves unresolved the key question of whether forcing businesses to provide services for gays and lesbians, or others, violates free exercise of religion or free speech rights of owners who wish to refuse to provide such services.
​

As long as you continue to lie, or misrepresent what the Supreme Court judgement was all about, you will continue to
be wrong and your bleating will be ignored as it should be.

You're the one that doesn't understand the ruling. You think it did something it did not do.

leaves unresolved the key question of whether forcing businesses to provide services for gays and lesbians, or others, violates free exercise of religion​

No one is trying to overturn public accommodation laws.
Perhaps you are just incapable of forming your own views on what has obviously happened and why. That's what happens when all your opinions are formed for you by leftist media clones.

That's right, they're not...because they don't actually care about 1st amendment rights or religious freedom, they only want to be anti gay and have it legally sanctioned. Definition of bigoted.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Which he also DID NOT DO.

But that was exactly the issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop: Is a business’s freedom to choose its customers more important than the government interest in stopping sexual orientation discrimination?

The Supreme Court did not answer this question, but instead decided the case on narrower grounds by concluding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed impermissible hostility to religion. [...]

The Court’s decision is narrow and leaves unresolved the key question of whether forcing businesses to provide services for gays and lesbians, or others, violates free exercise of religion or free speech rights of owners who wish to refuse to provide such services.

Fuck off! This was and is about being forced to participate in a ceremony through his own labor in which this man did not believe or want to be associated with . No more and no less.
Did Masterpiece Cake refuse to serve gays as a usual order of business? No one has alleged that at all.

You're the one that doesn't understand the ruling. You think it did something it did not do.

It exonerated the man who declined to bake a cake for a couple of sodomites.

That's right, they're not...because they don't actually care about 1st amendment rights or religious freedom, they only want to be anti gay and have it legally sanctioned. Definition of bigoted.

You agree no one is trying to overturn public accommodation laws.
Why didn't you just say so weeks ago instead of being such a thick skulled asshole?
Your interpretations and opinions of these people and their motives is absolutely irrelevant and I couldn't care less.
Neither could the courts. The issue is settled.

 

[Seawytch]

Fuck off! This was and is about being forced to participate in a ceremony through his own labor in which this man did not believe or want to be associated with . No more and no less.

That's not what the SCOTUS ruled. That's what the bigots WANTED the SCOTUS to rule on, but they declined and instead ruled, quite narrowly, in favor of this baker, but ONLY because there was alleged "animus" towards his religion (which is arguable). In other words, they punted because they didn't want to take up the larger argument.

It exonerated the man who declined to bake a cake for a couple of sodomites.

No, it didn't "exonerate" him. He is still guilty of discriminating and breaking the law.

ou agree no one is trying to overturn public accommodation laws.

No, I don't agree. Libertarians want to get rid of all PA laws, Republicans will only say out loud that they want to get rid of the ones that protect gays.

The issue is settled.

Not by a long shot