Sounds like you still do not understand it. It is only a victory for Phillips in regard to the Colorado panel that showed hostility to him. It does not give anything to any other bakers or any other people at all. It is not about religious convictions at all. that is why the Supremes made it so clear. No precedence. This is a decision based on technical facts about the panel that made the decision before it got to the high court., So you are absolutely and totally wrong., as usual. The Supremes even put this in the decision so people like you might get it. These disputes must be resolved with tolerance without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without suffering gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market against gays or anyone else ". It does not change laws and sets no precedences"
SCOTUS Rules in favor of Colorado Bakers
- Thread starter Irish Exit
- Start date
Sounds like you still do not understand it. It is only a victory for Phillips in regard to the Colorado panel that showed hostility to him. It does not give anything to any other bakers or any other people at all. It is not about religious convictions at all. that is why the Supremes made it so clear. No precedence. This is a decision based on technical facts about the panel that made the decision before it got to the high court., So you are absolutely and totally wrong., as usual. The Supremes even put this in the decision so people like you might get it. These disputes must be resolved with tolerance without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without suffering gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market against gays or anyone else ". It does not change laws and sets no precedences"
The fact that the commission was not neutral and made hostile remarks toward Phillips supports sailor's statement that his religious beliefs were "trampled." It gives him justice regardless of whether it applies to any other situation.
I never knew you were Islamophobic or anti-Semitic.
You really can't think except in terms of "us vs them" identity politics, can you.
A straight man didn't ask Phillips to create a gay wedding cake. If one had done so, Phillips could still refuse using his strongly-held and sincere religious belief as a defense against a claim of discrimination.
Kagan's separate opinion (which was joined by Breyer) made a point that should have been in Kennedy's.
She pointed out that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission allowed other bakers to refuse to bake cakes for a Christian troll with messages opposed to marriage equality. One of the rationalizations the commission gave was that this message was offensive whereas, presumably, a cake for a same sex couple is not.
That reasoning is faulty as the state has no business setting standards of what is and is not offensive.
But as Kagan pointed out they could have used another standard that would have been perfectly valid. That is, the denial of the Christian trolls message had nothing to do with his Christian faith. But Phillips rejection of this same sex couple did have something to do with their identity.
Kennedy's opinion seems very flawed to me mostly because it fails to give the lower courts any guidance and may instead confuse them but especially business owners. It's obvious in this thread that many will misunderstand, misrepresent or just be too lazy to actually consider the import of Kennedy's opinion here.
She pointed out that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission allowed other bakers to refuse to bake cakes for a Christian troll with messages opposed to marriage equality. One of the rationalizations the commission gave was that this message was offensive whereas, presumably, a cake for a same sex couple is not.
That reasoning is faulty as the state has no business setting standards of what is and is not offensive.
But as Kagan pointed out they could have used another standard that would have been perfectly valid. That is, the denial of the Christian trolls message had nothing to do with his Christian faith. But Phillips rejection of this same sex couple did have something to do with their identity.
Kennedy's opinion seems very flawed to me mostly because it fails to give the lower courts any guidance and may instead confuse them but especially business owners. It's obvious in this thread that many will misunderstand, misrepresent or just be too lazy to actually consider the import of Kennedy's opinion here.
The Supreme Court seemed to think it was about the 1st Amendment free exercise of religion:
"Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
gosh, you don't even need religion for that......
Controlled Opposition
Note my apathy
I thought that a SCOTUS ruling would finally put an end to years of fruitless discussions of wedding cakes. C'mon folks, it's a done deal.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Unfortunately for your claim of discrimination, has been ruled to be in error.
Where have I ever suggested that I discriminate against anyone?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Since when does the word NO equate to hate?
And are you familiar with the definition of create?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
ftfy
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Not yet at least; because there are a couple of other identical cases to be heard.
When a woman says it to a lust-crazed DEMOCRAT like Rapin' Bill Clinton or his good pal Horny Harvey Weinstein?
the act was the hostility of the Colorado panel toward Phillips. Not about religion and god given right to abuse gays .
Correct, the commission violated his free exercise of religion. He did not claim a right to abuse gays, only to choose not to bake a cake against his religious beliefs. It is a big stretch to call that "abuse."
All cases of constitutional rights being violated involve government violation of those rights. In this case the government body was the CO civil rights commission.
Did those bakers who refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages abuse those requesting the cake? Either the party requesting the cakes was abused in both situations or neither situation. I go with neither.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And in a 7 - 2 decision, the SC essentially said:
He stated explicitly that he would not knowingly create anything for a homosexual wedding- no matter who it was that wanted it.
“When they get them in our law” wtf are you saying? Do you not u defstand religious liberty? The governments role in protecting it?
Biblical Christianity instructs its adherents to render to Ceaser that which his in all things, excepting when it requires him to act against his own conscience in the matter of his faith.
The baker was was clear that he had sold undecorated baked goods to these homosexual men- but as marriage is an institution founded in his faith, in good conscience he could not lend his god given craft to their homosexual wedding.