Posted on 06/04/2018 9:31:01 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court granted a limited victory Monday to a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple, finding the state showed fierce hostility toward his Christian beliefs when it ruled he broke the law with his refusal.
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.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the lead opinion in the case, said states can require people to serve all customers equally regardless of sexual orientation, as long as they justify it through law and not through animus toward religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
So what may well happen, is that the people in Colorado will come to the same conclusion, that he has to service homosexual marriages, but without any reference to his religious beliefs.
This ruling by the court is welcome news, but this case is clearly far from over.
How do they expect them to give him a fair hearing when they didn’t give him a fair hearing in the first place?
Yes, they will not give up.
PDJT will not be allowed to select a SCOTUS justice in his last two years, because Obola wasn't allowed to select a third justice in has last one year.
If he wins in 2020, PDJT won't be allowed to select a justice in the last two years of his second term for the same reason.
We'll have a two-year window in each Republican President's term for SCOTUS nominations from here on.
Very limited. The Court ruled for the baker under the laws and conditions in 2012. Both have changed - Colorado tightened their anti-discrimination laws and the Supreme Court ruled homosexual marriage legal. If Phillips were to do it again the result may not be the same.
Anthony Kennedy needs to attend an NFL training camp this summer. Because that is one of the most impressive punts I’ve seen in a long time.
Banks don’t have to service gun makers, but bakers have to bake homosexual wedding cakes.
I read the ruling and there was one section that really troubled me. They made their decision based on his refusal BEFORE it became a law.
This is the part that gives me pause:
His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was notunreasonable in deeming his decision lawful.
The ruling is narrowly targeted against the Colorado courts clear bias and not really the right to not bake a cake.
I've been watching and reading early analysis of this so far. The consensus seems to be with the Colo. review process and board (they were hostile to religion) and not the baker's civil rights.
This is where we are after the country “accepts” queers as normal. If they were normal they wouldn’t be called queers in the first place. May be time to drive them back underground.
That’s coming. The blowback is going to be epic. Ten years from how you are going to swear homosexuality is a myth.
While the ruling itself is quite narrow, it would still appear that the State would have difficulty arguing neutrality if they "approved" of bakeries discriminating against anti-homosexuality messages but "disapproved" of bakeries that didn't want to make pro-homosexuality messages. If that's the case, it would, by necessity, mean that, all other things being equal, pro-homosexuality bakeries (or other businesses) would be required to meet the same standards as an anti-homosexual bakery/business.
“Very limited.”
I suspect that the limited nature of the ruling was an attempt by the court to negotiate an adjudication that was more than 5/4. Therefore they kept watering it down until they got the extra two votes. Probably, a full-out win was not possible even at 5/4. I think the conservative Supremes probably did the best they could.
I hesitate to say this, but on the good side, Sotomayor has serous medical problems and I found articles questioning her fitness to continue serving. And, Ginsburg, who I believe was the other no vote, has one foot in Death’s door and the other on a soap cake.
As a side note for future Supremes...if you see vultures sitting around your roof, you should consider resigning when there’s a president in office you think will replace you with somebody you’d agree with. The Dems begged Ginsburg to resign. Ha! People like her live for the power they wield. Without that power they feel they’d might as well be dead.
Today’s chant “7:2”
Kennedy gives with left hand and takes away with right. He needs to go. The ability to refuse to do anything in a privately owned business should be sacrosanct.
If purple, Baal worshiping gangs are trying to gain dominance in neighborhood, should one not be able to refuse to deal with them from a motive of opposition to them?
Kennedy gives with left hand and takes away with right. He needs to go. The ability to refuse to do anything in a privately owned business should be sacrosanct.
If purple, Baal worshiping gangs are trying to gain dominance in neighborhood, should one not be able to refuse to deal with them from a motive of opposition to them?
I seen this decision called “narrow”. What a load of manure!
I heard that on FNC also. This was a “narrow” 7 to 2 decision. I’m really enjoying my new “narrow” . . . butt.
“The Dems begged Ginsburg to resign. Ha!”
She was going to hand the replacement of her seat to the first woman president. I believe she regretted her obstinance on Nov 3, 2016. That tells me she is not qualified to retain her seat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.