SCOTUS upholds religious freedom
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
Not a narrow decision either.
There's some insight to be gained that would edify the political thinking of the left (though we all know they don't possess that introspective gene).
There's some insight to be gained that would edify the political thinking of the left (though we all know they don't possess that introspective gene).
They have a bunch of vindictive jackasses that need to be tamped down a bit by more classical leftists
When you say, not a narrow decision are you referring to the vote count or the actual holding?
The vote was 7-2 (3 Justices holding the opinion, 2 dissenting, 4 concurring in the result, but based upon different, broader reasoning), but the actual holding was very narrow based upon actual animus held by Colorado commission toward religious viewpoints. Mentioned the Commission allowed the refusal of a baker to make a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it. Kennedy even explicitly stated that similar cases like this might end up differently in the future.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue respect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy said.
Last edited:
Actually, it was a rather narrow ruling and limited to this case alone. Yes, it was 7-2, but it was 7-2 because it was a ruling regarding the process.
Essentially, the Supreme Court punted today on the substantive issue that is being debated in these cases. The Supreme Court did not strike down the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. It just found that the process the Colorado Civil Rights Commission used in this case to be flawed.
Justice Kagan's concurring opinion essentially laid out how the Civil Rights Commission could find that the baker violated the Anti-Discrimination Act and have it upheld by the Supreme Court.
"What makes the state agencies’ consideration yet more disquieting is that a proper basis for distinguishing the cases was available—in fact, was obvious.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) makes it unlawful for a
place of public accommodation to deny “the full and equal enjoyment” of goods and services to individuals based on certain characteristics, including sexual orientation and creed." Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a) (2017).
The three bakers in the Jack cases did not violate that law. Jack requested them to make a cake (one denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage) that they would not have made for any customer. In refusing that request, the
bakers did not single out Jack because of his religion, but instead treated him in the same way they would have treated anyone else—just as CADA requires. By contrast, the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.
In refusing that request, Phillips contravened CADA’s demand that customers receive “the full and equal enjoyment” of public accommodations irrespective of their sexual orientation. Ibid. The different outcomes in the Jack cases and the Phillips case could thus have been justified by a plain reading and neutral application of Colorado law—untainted by any bias against a religious." - Justice Kagan
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) makes it unlawful for a
place of public accommodation to deny “the full and equal enjoyment” of goods and services to individuals based on certain characteristics, including sexual orientation and creed." Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a) (2017).
The three bakers in the Jack cases did not violate that law. Jack requested them to make a cake (one denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage) that they would not have made for any customer. In refusing that request, the
bakers did not single out Jack because of his religion, but instead treated him in the same way they would have treated anyone else—just as CADA requires. By contrast, the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.
In refusing that request, Phillips contravened CADA’s demand that customers receive “the full and equal enjoyment” of public accommodations irrespective of their sexual orientation. Ibid. The different outcomes in the Jack cases and the Phillips case could thus have been justified by a plain reading and neutral application of Colorado law—untainted by any bias against a religious." - Justice Kagan
I found this comment interesting from the NYT comments section:
"I'm a transgender woman engaged to another transgender woman. I also live about 15 miles from Masterpiece
We haven't had a marriage ceremony as of yet. When we do, I want to use the gayest cake Baker there is. I wouldnt use Masterpiece even if they were forced to make me a cake.
Let's face it, tribalism is going to win. Our society isnt ready yet for the next step and we probably wont be until more people embrace tolerance (which will probably require people to lose their religions as well).
As such the only people I can trust are other transgender people and queers. If I want to buy a shirt I'll find a gay shirt store. If I want to buy a car Ill find another transgender person to buy it from. If I need another employee for my company I'll discriminate against normals and hire a transgender person. I've done it before and Ill do it again.
I actually think this cake Baker had the same right to be tribal as I do. I cant trust normal people to not kill or denigrate me, so I put almost all my trust into other LGBTQ people. This guy is just doing the same thing, except his trust is all in God and people who believe in God.
Tribalism will win. It's sad, but the world is sad and you can really only trust your tribe."
"I'm a transgender woman engaged to another transgender woman. I also live about 15 miles from Masterpiece
We haven't had a marriage ceremony as of yet. When we do, I want to use the gayest cake Baker there is. I wouldnt use Masterpiece even if they were forced to make me a cake.
Let's face it, tribalism is going to win. Our society isnt ready yet for the next step and we probably wont be until more people embrace tolerance (which will probably require people to lose their religions as well).
As such the only people I can trust are other transgender people and queers. If I want to buy a shirt I'll find a gay shirt store. If I want to buy a car Ill find another transgender person to buy it from. If I need another employee for my company I'll discriminate against normals and hire a transgender person. I've done it before and Ill do it again.
I actually think this cake Baker had the same right to be tribal as I do. I cant trust normal people to not kill or denigrate me, so I put almost all my trust into other LGBTQ people. This guy is just doing the same thing, except his trust is all in God and people who believe in God.
Tribalism will win. It's sad, but the world is sad and you can really only trust your tribe."
Again, your point?
This was a narrow ruling. I'd draw your attention to the posts above and the opinion itself.
Narrow in scope; not in voting margin. Pretty simple really.
Do you even read the rest of the thread before posting your spoonfed narrative as directed?
In fact, there was no majority for any particular holding when it comes to the reasoning.
Why do I even ask? It’s obvious you don’t.
3 signed off on the decision.
4 concurred with the result based upon alternate reasoning.
2 dissented.
So the ACTUAL ruling WAS narrow, even based upon vote count.
It was also narrow with regards to its holding, as established earlier with quotes from the actual opinion.
We need a facepalm emoji.
Last edited:
Basically all they did was call out the plaintiffs without ruling. How can you be intolerant of the bakers choices while asking for tolerance of your choices.
So if the baker closes on Good Friday because of his religious beliefs, he should be sued because he isn't accomodating the public that doesn't share his religious beliefs???
I imagine the same baker, would probably not bake cakes for Satanic rituals, Islamic unions, and even Jewish unions (I use unions as I'm not sure if they are called marriages in those religions).
How accomodating to the public should a privately owned business be?
No, because he isn't discriminating against anyone by doing that. However, if on Good Friday, the baker said he would only serve Christians (or perhaps only evangelical Christians) and refuse service to people of other faiths, he would then be discriminating.
When one opens a public accommodation, they must abide by anti-discrimination laws.
Last edited:
But the baker didn't say he wouldn't serve them. He said he would not make a cake for a gay marriage, which is against his religious belief. He didn't discriminate against them, just that he would not be party to their wedding.
Edit: If he had refused services if they wanted a cake for their baby announcement or adoption or whatever, then he would be discriminating against them as a gay couple.
Edit: If he had refused services if they wanted a cake for their baby announcement or adoption or whatever, then he would be discriminating against them as a gay couple.
He would not bake them a cake, thus he would not serve them. He chose to not serve them based soley on their sexual orientation. That is discrimination.
Just as it would be discrimination if he told an interracial couple he wouldn't bake them a cake because of his religious beliefs (which, unfortunately, is still claimed by some---see link) and yet served couples of the same race.
http://kinsmanredeemer.com/RacemixingIsNotChristian.htm
Ive never gotten a liberal to ask a black person if they think being black is the same as being gay.
The basis of your argument, in bold, is incorrect. He offered to bake them something else, but not a wedding cake. He did not discriminate against gay people but against participating in their wedding, which at the time was not yet legal in Colorado
Ask them if a brown skinned Muslim woman should be required to bake a wedding cake for a gay white man.
#Cognitive-Dissonance
I am fighting the urge to get into this one (obviously, I am losing the battle to walk away).
Does the baker bake wedding cakes as a regular part of the business. Yes? Then refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is absolutely discrimination.
Offering to bake some nice cookies is not in any twisted sense the same as a wedding cake.
That is like a pizzaria refusing to bake a pizza for a gay/christian/black/white/whatever but offering up a nice sandwich instead. No amount of mental acrobatics changes that.
Edit note: he was not participating in the wedding. He was commissioned to bake a wedding cake.
If that brown muslim woman owns a bakery that bakes wedding cakes, yes, she would be required.
Then you are saying one person's first amendment rights are more important than anothers.
Nope. Not even a little. If you own a business, you cannot discriminate. Simple as that. Again, the mental acrobatics to make the business owner the victim and his liberties being trampled on is impressive. I do not know if he can get around that by making it a members only or private bakery if that is possible. But, as a business owner that provides a service for the public, he cannot discriminate.
Yes, he would not bake them a wedding "cake" solely because they were a same-sex couple (while he did bake cakes for opposite-sex couples). He refused them a service he provides based on their sexual orientation. Again, that is discrimination.
Absolutely she should be, if she was operating a public accommodation such as a bakery.
Last edited:
I believe it is more due the creative process than just the selling of the cake.
Just as dress designers refuse to create gowns, using their creative gifts, for Melanie Trump. The baker shouldn't be required to use his creative gifts to create something against his religion.
At least the baker sites his religion as a reason, where the designers just refuse because of pettiness.
Just as dress designers refuse to create gowns, using their creative gifts, for Melanie Trump. The baker shouldn't be required to use his creative gifts to create something against his religion.
At least the baker sites his religion as a reason, where the designers just refuse because of pettiness.
That is a little better argument. However, if Melania pushed it, they would sell her a gown or they would be susceptible to a lawsuit.
Hit post before I was ready.
You can refuse service to an individual. If the customer was beligerent to the owner or employees or behaved inapplrpriately, the business could refuse service. However, their sole reason was that of discrimination. I am all for personal freedoms. I am equally against discrimination.
You can refuse service to an individual. If the customer was beligerent to the owner or employees or behaved inapplrpriately, the business could refuse service. However, their sole reason was that of discrimination. I am all for personal freedoms. I am equally against discrimination.
So do you believe a public accommodation owned by a Muslim should be able to refuse its services to all Christians because the Muslim may claim providing the service goes against his/her religion?
I disagree. You ARE saying one persons rights are more important than another person.
The baker has views that he believes gay marriage is wrong. You are asking the baker to go against his religious beliefs. He should bake a cake for whoever wants it, but should be required to decorate it with messages counter to his strongly held beliefs.
If a Nazi wanted me to bake him a cake I would bake him a cake. But if he wanted me to make a cake showing Nazi power or a pro-Hitler message, then I would not.
May be a small or understood detail, but you can't discriminate against a protected class.
Clearly regular run-of- the-mill discrimination is allowed in all sorts of ways.
@CowboyJD tell me to shut the hell up if need be.
Your scenario is too generalized. This ruling was very specific.
If a Christian went to a Muslim caterer and wanted a feast prepared for 4th of July. And part of their request was a large pig roast, then, yes I believe they could refuse that request.
Can the consumer and the provider fit protected class categories?
@CowboyJD (same as preceding post)
