SCOTUS sides with Christian baker in same-sex wedding cake case

The Washington Times ^ | 11:32 a.m. on Monday, June 4, 2018 | Alex Swoyer

[shanover]

Christians should identify themselves as Muslims and there would be no problem. /sarc

I know of no case in which a Muslim was court mandated to go against his/her religion.

[FlingWingFlyer]

It would seem like it to me. Especially when the two losers were the compelling life story lady, Sotomayor and the sleepy-eyed sleeper, Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.

[\/\/ayne]

The Supreme Court did the same thing with Gentala v. City of Tucson. The original court then dismissed the case, still being unable to give a fair trial.

[\/\/ayne]

The Supreme Court did the same thing with Gentala v. City of Tucson. The original court then dismissed the case, still being unable to give a fair trial.

Checking further, they didn't dismiss, the Gentalas won at the original court.

IT IS ORDERED that the City of Tucson's policy of precluding events "held in direct support of religious organizations" from receiving Civic Events Fund support is DECLARED INVALID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is not justified by First Amendment Establishment Clause considerations.

Tucson then declared they had a limited number of park support for non-profits and only those on their preferred list would get consideration. But it's not due to religion!

[Uncle Sham]

We do not obey the Supreme Court decisions. We obey LAWS passed correctly by our legislative bodies and signed by our executive bodies. Screw the Judicial branch. All the Constitution gives them is an an opportunity to express an opinion. They can rule a law unconstitutional but it does not remove the law. In the same sex marriage case in Kentucky for instance, the Kentucky state legislature was the ONLY body that could either remove or re-write the law being contested. The Supreme Court could not even order them to do so. They had no legal authority to pass legislation in the state of Kentucky. They just had an opinion.

[SMGFan]

Erick Erickson
@EWErickson
Sotomayor is the most consistently hostile Justice on the Supreme Court towards religious liberty. Ginsberg comes close, but Sotomayor is more predictably hostile.
10:25 AM · Jun 4, 2018.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1003643798721875968

[KC_Conspirator]

Nothing "narrow" about it and IT DOES set precedent, unlike what freedom hating liberals are saying in the media.

Notice that its Ginsburg and Sotomayor who dissented.

[Deplorable American1776]

Winning... 👍

[KyCats]

Obama wasn’t able to select a third justice because Republicans controlled the Senate and McConnell refused to submit the nomination for a vote. Trump doesn’t face this problem so long as Republicans control the Senate.

[Steely Tom]

Even with a Republican majority in the Senate, he'll still face strong blowback from the Democrats and the MSM; the two forces will combine to try to stop him from nominating anyone in his last two years.

I'm not saying they'll succeed, but they sure will try.

[The people have spoken]

Drudge’s headline (”SUPREMES: YOU DON’T HAVE TO BAKE THAT CAKE!”) is garbage.

[epluribus_2]

REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE? ???

[ridesthemiles]

Banks don’t have to service gun makers, but bakers have to bake homosexual wedding cakes.””

Maybe someone needs to sue Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Along with a couple of banks.

Ikeep hearing that banks are refusing to allow CASH deposits. How about grocery stores? Fast food outlets? Gas stations? The local churches with Sunday offerings? There are plenty of places that cash is used & should be used. I have a friend who moved her business banking of over 19 years from a national bank because hey informed her they would no longer accept cash as of later this year. She walked out of their building & went to another local state bank & moved her business there.

[zeugma]

This ruling by the court is welcome news, but this case is clearly far from over.

The ruling was disgraceful. The court is supposed to provide surety under the law in determining what is, and is not lawful. The court punted this case, which has been ongoing since 2012. I suspected this might be what they were up to after reading through the oral arguments. They telegraphed pretty clearly that they would likely try to pin this on the bigotry of the colorado commission. The supreme court is a worthless bag of dog crap.

[YogicCowboy]

Can’t really affirm unalienable rights. Can’t have that.

[YogicCowboy]

Yep.

[YogicCowboy]

I have been saying that for years. There is no such thing as homosexuality; it is homoeroticism.

[YogicCowboy]

Yes. This is not a real win - for the baker or for us.

Just as 3D Chess that violates Flynn’s Constitutional rights, and forces him to sell his house to pay for legal fees to fight a false charge, is not a win.