Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1 SCOTUS Sides With The Cake-baker 
    Senior Member cadillac shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,582
    The Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of the Colorado-baker who claimed he didn't have to make/sell a wedding-cake to a gay couple if he felt his religious-beliefs would be violated because of homosexuality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    FL & MO
    Posts
    53,261
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member SVPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    9,784
    1. It wasn't even close, with two Libs joining the majority. It really should have been 9-0.

    2. Part of the reasoning was the Free Exercise Clause, which had become somewhat of an ugly stepchild in the Bill of Rights. It being cited should worry Proggies as much as the decision itself.

    3. DU-grade Progs will be praying all the more for RBG's health, including atheists.
    Facts don't matter to DUpipo.

    BIG CHEETO Is Watching You!

    Note to "Warpy" and "shockey80": I voted for Donald Trump! I would do so again!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Angry Old White Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Swamps of Southern La
    Posts
    2,097
    I guess a firebomb comes next for those poor people at the bakery. You and I all know the low lives out there are already planning something, that's how they roll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    19,209
    I can imagine the reaction at DU, but I don't really want to read it. It's probably really bad, filled with statements that could be interpreted as threats.


    I support legalized gay marriage, and there are plenty of business owners out there who are more than willing to make a cake for a gay wedding, provide a venue, perform the ceremony, and so on. Why not take your money to them? Oh, yeah, you wanted to sue them for more money.

    The Stones sang it best-You Can't Always Get What You Want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Banacek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Connecticut
    Posts
    10,688
    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the dissenters. What a surprise.

    An NPR headline

    In Narrow Opinion, Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Baker Over Same-Sex Couple

    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...cake-shop-case

    Obviously my comprehension of the word "narrow" is incorrect.
    Unknown philosopher at a St. Patrick's Day celebration 1967

    1 beer between 3 guys is better than no beers between no guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Festivus Moderator ralph wiggum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Springfield, USA
    Posts
    20,641
    Narrow is essentially the scope of the ruling.

    When I heard that it was 7-2, knew it would be Ruth & probably Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Banacek View Post
    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the dissenters. What a surprise.

    An NPR headline

    In Narrow Opinion, Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Baker Over Same-Sex Couple

    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...cake-shop-case

    Obviously my comprehension of the word "narrow" is incorrect.
    Voted hottest "chick" at CU - My hotness transcends gender
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    22,920
    Quote Originally Posted by SVPete View Post
    1. It wasn't even close, with two Libs joining the majority. It really should have been 9-0.

    2. Part of the reasoning was the Free Exercise Clause, which had become somewhat of an ugly stepchild in the Bill of Rights. It being cited should worry Proggies as much as the decision itself.

    3. DU-grade Progs will be praying all the more for RBG's health, including atheists.
    Considering the clearly biased behavior of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the decision should definitely have been 9-0. This tells us we have two hard left ideologues who cannot even evaluate facts that disagree with their prejudices.

    The sad fact is that this ruling is weak--it merely sends the baker back to the biased Commission in the hopes that they will now be "more fair." Actually, they will just hide their biases better:

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ing-cake-case/
    ...The 7-2 decision sends the case back to Colorado with firm instructions to give Jack Phillips, the Christian baker, a fair hearing.

    But the ruling does not establish a First Amendment right to refuse services to same-sex couples, as Mr. Phillips and his conservative backers had hoped.

    Instead it suggests a road map for states such as Colorado, which have public accommodation laws, to use in evaluating cases like this one that pit First Amendment religious rights against anti-discrimination protections.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member greatagain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    119
    Two things I really want to make clear:

    1. ANYONE (gay or straight) can walk in to that bakery and buy ANYTHING that they sell, cakes included. The issue was the baker did not want to make a CUSTOM cake for them. I find that distinction very important.

    2. The Baker stopped making any custom cakes to ANYONE because of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    22,920
    The Other McCain has hit the nail on the head here. First, quote from PJ Media:

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/breakin...ing-cake-case/

    While the decision is a victory for Phillips, it didn’t settle the question of whether others similarly situated would have the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake or participate in other expressive arts in violation of their conscience. The court merely said that Phillips was treated unfairly by the Commission. . . .

    In other words, not a lot has changed with this decision, except to get Jack Phillips out from under the thumb of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which received a sharp knuckle-rapping from the justices.
    Far from being a monumental religious liberty decision, the narrow scope of the case means that larger issues will perhaps be left for a future Supreme Court to decide.
    Now McCain:
    A Narrow Victory for Liberty
    http://theothermccain.com/2018/06/04...y-for-liberty/

    Before getting to the commentary, let me interrupt to say that (a) the “landmark 2015 decision” was wrong — see Justice Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell — and also (b) the description of the decision as “legalizing gay marriage” is misleading. What the court majority did [in Obergefell] was, in essence, to abolish the political existence, in contravention of the 10th Amendment, of the 31 states that had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage in those states. Under the doctrine of Obergefell, the states are reduced to mere administrative jurisdictions of a centralized national authority....

    If states do not have the right to self-governance, so that the people through their state legislatures cannot write laws about marriage, how is it that states can empower a Civil Rights Commission which could trample the religious liberty of a Christian bakery owner like Jack Phillips?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •