SCOTUS Rules in favor of Colorado Bakers

Jarod said:
I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may choose who you make that cake for I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may.
Click to expand...

That's not what I gathered from the opinion. Can you quote what it is you are referring to?

All they said was the commission did not treat his religious objection fairly and therefore violated his first amendment rights. They did not say he was allowed to discriminate in a stock or custom made cake in the future.

The ruliung is much more narrow than you suggest.
 
katzgar said:
As usual you are confused they called the decision narrow
Click to expand...

Since you are in the slow class, my post above the line in the OP was an exact cut and paste from the source provided. Since you are also illiterate or blind, "narrow victory" was in their first sentence.
 
Darth Omar said:
And they will be misled into thinking it was a narrow vote; when, in fact, it was closer to a blowout and a smack down of the lower court and the CO authorities.
Click to expand...

Stupid and lazy people are often misled. That's your fault DohMar.

It was no smack down. He still has to bake the cakes.
 
Nordberg said:
Not the same thing. Messages are one thing and it is choosing to write it. But gays do not choose who they are. They are being as god made them. The court will wind up hearing the refusal for other reasons like religion in the future. I heard on the TV thathe Supremes actually ruled on the Colorado ruling not giving enough respect to the religious beliefs of the baker. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS seems to think they are the same thing.
 
Kacper said:
The SCOTUS seems to think they are the same thing.
Click to expand...

Nope. The reason they call it narrow was because they were ruling on just the Phillips case. The court specifically said it was about the treatment he had in the Colorado court ,saying he was treated with hostility. The Supremes said their ruling was only about this and not a precedence. In the ruling " it does not allow discrimination against gays or anyone else. It does not change laws and sets no precedences." Court said "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." This case has nothing to do with the first amendment or the right to discriminate.
 
Nordberg said:
Nope. I disagree with the ruling and its eventual impact, which can be very corrupting. This was about the Colorado ruling and whether the bakers beliefs were given fair sway. So a technical ruling, not on principles. They said the Colorado ruling was hostile to the bakers religion. It is a narrow ruling because it did not address the big picture, whether a company can discriminate against gays or others. It referred only to the Colorado case procedures.So the judges that thought that was true are allowing others to read it as allowing discrimination on basis of sexual preference and perhaps more.
Click to expand...

These dipshits don't deserve any real explanations.

Let them think they won.
 
J Craft said:
A victory for free speech, mutual tolerance and civil rights for all.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It was about a person on the Colorado panel that ruled against Phillips showing open hostility to Phillips position. No precedence. The court made it very clear this was about the bad treatment he got in Colorado, but not bigger than that. Court made it clear it was not bigger than that. that is why it is referred to as a narrow decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top