I’ll allow it.
Btw, LGBT status is a protect status...at least under Colorado law.
Also in several different federal appellate court districts to varying degrees as well.
SCOTUS upholds religious freedom
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
I’ll allow it.
Btw, LGBT status is a protect status...at least under Colorado law.
Also in several different federal appellate court districts to varying degrees as well.
I’ll allow it.
Btw, LGBT status is a protect status...at least under Colorado law.
Also in several different federal appellate court districts to varying degrees as well.
I figured they were. I was pondering for myself if small business operators or possibly non profits can fit a protected category as well. Surely a public Corp never could.
Well, that’s the dilemma Kennedy is trying to resolve in his decision, isn’t it?
The balancing of those competing protected interests.
Again, I disagree. By his own testimony he baked cakes for many with a different sexual orientation. But it was the rainbow message on the cake in which he refused. Specifically meaning, he did not discriminate against the gay couple, he was against having to create their message.
I ask you this. Should an African-American custom T-shirt designer be forced to print t-shirts with the confederate flag?
It would make sense to me for small operators and potentially non profits with their announcement of claiming such a protection.
Then they'd be subject to scrutiny and open to litigation if breaking the responsibilities/parameters that come with the claimed protection.
I have only read the opinion...none of the briefs or arguments, but I know how I would have argued this case on behalf of the baker. I would have argued that I am not discriminating on the basis of LGBT status because I wouldn’t make a cake celebrating gay marriage for anyone regardless of status....the same way Iwouldnt make a cakewitha racial slur or anti-gay slur on it. If the gay couple wants to buy a three tier white cake of generic design and put their own Happy Gay Marriage or plastic groom and groom on top after they buy it, morepowerto them.
This is kind of where I am.
It’s not illegal discrimination to say, I won’t bake you a cake witha certain expression on it. It would be prohibited discrimination I refuse to bake you a three tier cake with white icing because I suspect (or even know) you are going to serve it at your gay wedding.
In your situation, if they wouldn’t print such t-shirts for anybody it’s not illegal discrimination. If they wouldn’t even sell t-shirts to them, it would be.
Last edited:
Could you provide a link or something to back this claim up. The Supreme Court opinion today stated the following:
"the shop's owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages . . . "
"To Phillips, creating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be equivalent to participating in a celebration that is contrary to his own most deeply held beliefs."
"To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned. Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. He explained, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” The couple left the shop without further discussion."
Is the Supreme Court being dishonest about the facts of this case?
According to the facts as given by the Supreme Court today, the latter is essentially what occurred in this case (no design was discussed in the original encounter).
I have read the decision in its entirety and understand that, thanks.
Good couple of (actually more than a couple...4) paragraphs from oyez.com explaining why they decided the way they did in this particular case despite that.
“The Court explained that while gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression. The Colorado law at issue in this case, which prohibited discrimination against gay people in purchasing products and services, had to be applied in a neutral manner with regard to religion. The majority stated that Phillips' claim that creating cakes was a form of artistic expression was required to be afforded Free Speech protections, and were a component of his sincere religious beliefs.
The Court also explained that in 2012, the year that Phillips refused his services to Craig and Mullins, the law in Colorado and across the country with regard to same sex marriage was much more unsettled than it became after United States v. Windsor, 570 US 744 (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US ___ (2015). At the time, the State Civil Rights Division had also concluded in at least three other cases that bakers had acted lawfully in declining to serve same sex couples. Thus it was not unreasonable for Phillips to believe that he was acting lawfully at the time, and his claims before the Commission were entitled to neutral treatment.
However, the Court stated that Phillips did not receive this neutral treatment, with members of the Commission showing clear and impermissible hostility toward his religious beliefs. The Court explained that commissioners' comments disparaging Phillips' beliefs and characterizing them as rhetorical were inappropriate, though these comments were not mentioned or disavowed in subsequent legal proceedings. The Court concluded that these comments cast doubt on the fairness of the Commission's consideration of Phillips' claims. The Court also pointed out that disparities between Phillips' case and those of other bakers with objections to making cakes with anti-gay messages, and who were victorious before the Commission, further reflected hostility toward the religious basis for Phillips' position.
The Court concluded that the Commission's actions violated the State's duty under the First Amendment not to use hostility toward religion or a religious viewpoint as a basis for laws or regulations. Under the facts of this case, the Court determined that Phillips' religious justification for his refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not afforded the neutral treatment mandated by the Free Exercise Clause.”
Feel a little sick now, but a lawyer made something make sense to me....(blue-ish font).
Seriously, though, that does make sense why they ruled that way. Had this occurred after the 2013 case, this case would be very different.
I haven’t read this whole thread but we all know the gays could buy any cake or cookie in the place right? The baker just wouldn’t make a gay wedding cake specifically for a homosexual ceremony.
Text of the Supreme Court decision:
drive.google.com/file/d/1cwklUhgrKecWW9An7FCcSa5ppAYZSwds/view?usp=sharing
drive.google.com/file/d/1cwklUhgrKecWW9An7FCcSa5ppAYZSwds/view?usp=sharing
So my answer to this is to make political affiliation a protected class as well. Then, all the artists who said they'd not play for Trump's inauguration would be violating the law and would be forced to perform.
I say that to preface the question: What makes one 'class' of people more in need of protection than others?
I say that to preface the question: What makes one 'class' of people more in need of protection than others?
Nothing other than liberal dogma; i.e., believing in stuff like "privilege", "microaggressions", "oppression"....all of which are rooted in Cultural Marxism.
For argument/discussion sake, I would say a history of state sanctioned and encouraged (and in many situations state enforced) discrimination by a wide range of the body politic.
The most intolerant are those who claim tolerance. Their open minds are one-way only just like most liberals.
This has been my favorite thread in a while.
Persecution due to religion and slavery are perhaps the 2 oldest aggrieved classes in human history. Well, and cucks.
The two went hand in hand.
Persecution due to religion and slavery are perhaps the 2 oldest aggrieved classes in human history. Well, and cucks.
The two went hand in hand.
Isn't this what Facebook, Google, Twitter and the rest are doing by censoring/removing posts they disagree with?
No, not according to the law.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgo...k-pages-without-any-explanation/#6067dc7a1d4e
I originally thought there was only one concurring opinion joined by three other justices. This is how it actually when down.
Opinion of the court by Kennedy...joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Karan, and Gorsuch.
Separate concurring opinion with additional analysis by Gorsuch...joined by Alito.
Separate concurring opinion with additional analysis by Kagan...joined by Breyer.
Thomas concurring in result, but based upon different analysis...joined by no one.
Dissent by RBG and Sotomayor.
So it was really 2 (opinion of the court)-2(concurring)-2(concurring)-1(concurring in judgement)-2(dissenting). In that type of situation, negotiations go on between the justices as to whom is going to write the official opinion of the court and whom is going to join by concurrence.
That is clear as mud, I’m sure.
Literally the least confusing thing about this issue.
So we have a couple of groups involved that can claim protected status/consideration based upon my statement, and the Supreme Court decision we are discussing tries to give some direction on how we should balance them.
The Supreme Court essentially punted on the big questions. This particular decision is basically limited to this particular case rather than making any larger principles or direction for the layman.
I have a hard time picturing people at that level as being cowards. Are they potentially just saying that they don't know the answer to the larger question(s)?
No. The opinion of the court specifically declined to make a broad pronouncement of guiding principles. Said that would have to wait.
“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.
That said like much direction on how to resolve these issues in the future to you?
Also, I wouldn’t attribute it to cowardice. It’s judicially conservative to decide the case in front of you on the facts and law in front of you instead of making broad pronouncements of what the law is to be in the future.
I like conservative jurisprudence. Not talking about politically conservative. I’m speaking jurisprudential conservatism v. activism.
I like conservative jurisprudence. Not talking about politically conservative. I’m speaking jurisprudential conservatism v. activism.
So, basically they're doing their jobs and not trying to set into law what they may "interpret" it to be???? Make the legislature legislate???
That is what conservative jurisprudence is.
There are plenty of politically conservative judicial activists, and any other permutation of political leanings and jurisprudential activism v conservatism.
