[Retvet]

Listen to the spoiled brats whine “I want this, give it time.”

[Jim W N]

The Court has no constitutional authority to interfere with these affairs of the State of Colorado which is up to the people of Colorado to decide. Tyranny will end up killing you and unconstitutional federal acts and decisions are tyranny.

The ONLY "government" the First Amendment points to is the Federal government, NOT state government.

CONGRESS shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise... Amendment I.

The First Amendment is pointed DIRECTLY at the feds and NOWHERE else.

[robroys woman]

I read the decision. The title of the article is correct.

[KyCats]

The Court really botched this. It should have ruled that persons cannot be forced to PARTICIPATE IN a gay marriage. Period.

Selling a cake to gays is much different from creating one for them. Selling a roast beef is much different than attending the reception and carving it.

Very easy standard to establish and protects the rights of all persons.

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING post. Thanks.

[DannyTN]

Interesting analysis.

So it seems that Colorado Civil Rights commission is either going to have to allow Phillips to refuse to bake the cake based on his religious values or its going to have to require the other bakers to bake the cakes with statements derogatory to gay marriage despite their secular values.

[DownInFlames]

Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Sotemeyer, you will be replaced. Be warned.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The whining from the libertine left shows that there was some good in the ruling. But I agree with the writer of the article that Clarence Thomas’s concurrence contains the heart of the matter.

[Alberta's Child]

Interestingly, the Federal courts seemed to have made a much stronger statement in support of religious freedom in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. It was decided on explicit religious freedom grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that said closely held corporations (i.e., corporations that are not publicly traded, and where the owners control the sale of all shares) are protected by the First Amendment against government regulations that impose burdens on their religious freedom.

I believe any individual or group of partners who owns a business would do well to draft a set of company bylaws that clearly defines the company as one that conducts business according to specific religious tenets. This will go a long way toward ensuring that there will be no question about the legal protections afforded to the company under the Hobby Lobby ruling.

[shanover]

This country has more pressing problems than cakes and fags. This should not be an issue. The left makes it an issue by design.

[savagesusie]

The basic fundamental issue is that people who choose to sodomize others are NOT protected persons. In fact, they should be felons in a true “justice” (virtue) System based on Right Reason according to Natural Law (US Constitution). They strip dignity and meaning from other people and self-—and under American law, human beings are to never be used as a “means to an end” (Marxism/socialist/slavery/satanism). Only the true Christian worldview treated all people (even unborn) with dignity and respect....and no other virtue system is compatible with American jurisprudence.

We have to get back to Rule of Law, not this evil, Rule of Man which throws out Natural Law and Objective Truth (God) (our system of Just Law) for irrational, arbitrary “laws” which deny Truth (God), deny science, and deny Reality/culture/traditions, etc., which Just Law can NEVER do.

We have to remove “justices” who throw out our Constitution-—but we haven’t yet. People like Ginsberg need to be in prison for TREASON—and so does Kagan and the other Lucifereans on the court where Lucifer is their supreme (irrational) ‘law’ and where they ignore and throw out our Supreme Law.

[servo1969]

If Kennedy could have found a way to rule against Jack Phillips he would have. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was too blatant with their disdain of Phillips’ religion. The message has been sent to future litigants: If you want Kennedy’s help supplanting religious rights with homosexual rights don’t be so damn obvious about it.

[Sam Gamgee]

Ugh. Why do we even have a category/concept of “protected persons”? What happened to all equal under the law?