“The Christians win the SCOTUS hearing, but it’s practically a technical win only. They’ve lost their fortunes during the long legal battle — the process is the punishment.”
But hasn’t the SC already decided this in the first bake-the-cake ruling? There must be some way for current and future business owners to stop Colorado dead in its tracks without having to go through the process over and over again.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. The rule of law is dead.
Actually no. The ruling didn’t address these issues on the merits. It held that a fair hearing was denied due to various statements of commission members showing a clear bias against the baker.
Not clearly. It stated that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression, but "some instances" is left ambiguous, while court specifically stated that the CO civil rights commission showed a "clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."
Conservative blogger Matt Walsh opined,
"Do not call this 'a huge win for religious liberty.' It simply isn't," he wrote in a tweet. "That is an inaccurate and misleading statement. This is a huge win for Jack Phillips, specifically, but it does precisely nothing to help the general cause of religious liberty." Despite the outcome, the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm representing the couple, argued that the court's ruling was "based on concerns specific to the case." - https://www.christianpost.com/news/supreme-court-rules-christian-baker-jack-phillips-can-refuse-make-gay-wedding-cakes.html
See my other comments above.
I certainly would not want to eat food prepared by someone who might spit or worse in it if I was not looking. However I have a completely different question for someone with legal background. I keep hearing that SCOTUS often will not hear cases until they are “ripe.” Also I read somewhere that you cannot have a case, “tort” until someone’s rights have been violated. Now if this woman wanted to consider going into wedding services but did not yet do so, she therefore would not have an unhappy client yet. Thus, if I have understood these things about “ripe” and what is needed to create a “tort” correctly, I wonder how SCOTUS was able to judge this case without engaging in what the left could say is “judicial activism” which a lot of us have complained about over the years, blaming the left for doing exactly that. Can anyone clarify this ripe and tort aspect of this case for me?