SCOTUS Rules in favor of Colorado Bakers

[Irish Exit]

Victory in the sense that this single case was deemed unfair due to comments made by the civil rights commission. Court did NOT rule on the legality of discrimination.

The good news? This sets precedent for the Muslim ban.

It was a victory in the sense that 7 of the 9 justices said, "You win" to the baker. As for precedents, who knows. I am not sure this case has a lot of value legally other than to the parties unless the courts want to expand it somehow as it involved a defunct state law in effect at the time and the civil rights procedural due process nebulous.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I still don't understand how baking a cake could possibly go against their religion.

There was never a refusal to sell them a "baked cake".

Why do liberals seem to just ignore that fact; but then, they also refuse to see the word illegal when it comes to certain forms of immigration.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

But he claims to be Christian so therefore should have to prove with some holy text that he's not simply discriminating IMO.

Is that what was asked for?

 

[Flash]

But he claims to be Christian so therefore should have to prove with some holy text that he's not simply discriminating IMO.

Not really. He gets to interpret his Christianity any way he chooses. He may have to show his beliefs are sincere. He can be the only person in the world holding certain religious beliefs.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

I forgive you.

Are you still professing to be ignorant of any religious objection to baking a gay wedding cake?

I know they object but the argument that it's based on religion is flimsy IMO. If you profess to be of a certain religion then you should need to prove that somewhere within the tenets of that religion gives you specific instructions to do something like discriminate.

 

[countryboy]

Now it will be up to potential customers to determine who the real winners here are.

As it should've been to begin with. But noooooo, butthurt (pun fully intended) libs think they have a right to force people to abandon their first amendment rights.

 

[Timshel]

You can read into it anything you want; but the bottom line is, the SC said

The supreme court said Colorado should not have been so mean to Phillips. It's a very narrow ruling and the article was accurate.

Now go get a job, loser.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

Not really. He gets to interpret his Christianity any way he chooses. He may have to show his beliefs are sincere. He can be the only person in the world holding certain religious beliefs.

Man I'm so glad I don't have to interpret my atheism.

 

[Legion]

I know they object but the argument that it's based on religion is flimsy IMO. If you profess to be of a certain religion then you should need to prove that somewhere within the tenets of that religion gives you specific instructions to do something like discriminate.

Think so?

Is it your contention that all citizens must "prove" their rights are valid when subjected to adverse governmental action?

 

[Legion]

Man I'm so glad I don't have to interpret my atheism.

You're lucky you're an American (if you are one, that is).

If you came under the authority of some theocratic regimes, you could be forced to do exactly that, or face punishment.

Here we have a judicial system that allows people's deeply-held religious beliefs to be balanced with the needs of society and the rights of others.

 

[Ralph]

Can't you read? Again, they were using a different context.

It was not narrow in the sense of the vote of the jurist but in regards to the legal issues involved.

Maybe read beyond a headline and you will be able to figure these things out on your own.

The only issue was the content and context of the United States Constitution, according to the standard that calibrates all US LAW....it was a no contest vote. The only contrary "legal sense" was the left wing judges that allowed the case to go to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[Timshel]

Baking a cake and making a specialized cake, are two separate issues and acts.

You don't like it?

Go pound sand.

But, the Supremes said nothing about that.

I know what your up to, but just because you are very stupid does not mean you can't get a job, loser.

 

[Legion]

I know they object but the argument that it's based on religion is flimsy IMO. If you profess to be of a certain religion then you should need to prove that somewhere within the tenets of that religion gives you specific instructions to do something like discriminate.

Have you ever read the texts that Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe are the words of their god and are therefore binding upon their behavior?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I know they object but the argument that it's based on religion is flimsy IMO. If you profess to be of a certain religion then you should need to prove that somewhere within the tenets of that religion gives you specific instructions to do something like discriminate.

Prove it how?

Give the specific litmus test you would find necessary?

 

[Stretch]

Now it will be up to potential customers to determine who the real winners here are.

Yup...thank goodness for capitalism

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The supreme court said Colorado should not have been so mean to Phillips. It's a very narrow ruling and the article was accurate.

Now go get a job, loser.

You can read into it anything you want; but the bottom line is, the SC said

 

[Mr.Badguy]

Think so?

Is it your contention that all citizens must "prove" their rights are valid when subjected to adverse governmental action?

Prove is the keyword here. If this guy said he practices Steve-ism and made a 5 minute pamphlet in Microsoft Word saying that part of his religion is to not participate (even tacitly) in any homosexual ceremony, I'd give him more credit.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

But, the Supremes said nothing about that.

I know what your up to, but just because you are very stupid does not mean you can't get a job, loser.

You can read into it anything you want; but the bottom line is, the SC said

 

[Flash]

Man I'm so glad I don't have to interpret my atheism.

A person has a better chance of proving the sincerity of his beliefs if he is a member of some larger sect that possesses those beliefs. For example, a guy has an easier chance of getting conscientious objector status in the draft if he is a Quaker.

A person's beliefs can be based on morals rather than religion. An atheist can have strong moral beliefs against all war to get conscientious objector status but cannot be against just a specific war.

 

[Nordberg]

There was never a refusal to sell them a "baked cake".

Why do liberals seem to just ignore that fact; but then, they also refuse to see the word illegal when it comes to certain forms of immigration.

yes there was. But the Supremes were not ruling on that. This is about Phillips getting a panel in Colorado that had a guy on it who was anti refusal of gays on religious grounds. Supremes saw that as a hostile decision and ruled on that. Only that. This decision is very narrow. No precedences.