Normality Prevails: Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Christian Baker via 7-2 Vote

IWB ^ | Chris Black

[davikkm]

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled via a 7-2 vote in favor of “Gay biased” Christian baker Jack Phillips. The ruling states that Philips had the right to refuse service to a gay couple who asked him to bake them a wedding cake. The owner of the bakery was lynch-mobbed back in 2012 by LGBG/leftist activist for refusing to do business with the gay couple on religious grounds, and he even faced charges for discrimination. It’s funny that the mainstream fake news media called the 7-2 vote of the SCOTUS a narrow win.

7-2 is a blowout in baseball or hockey. It’s the same for the Supreme Court as well. That’s Public School Progressive Math at its best, if you ask me. Here’s the guts of the decision: previously, the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled against the bakery and so did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The US Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Court’s treatment of the bakers elevated one view of what is offensive over another view and, in doing so, sent a signal of official disapproval of the baker’s religious beliefs which violates the US Constitution. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s hostility to the baker’s religious viewpoint violated the baker’s First Amendment rights.

[daler]

So, isn’t there a judge in Hawaii or Washington state who thinks he or she can overturn this?

[BlackAdderess]

I like the fact that this ruling was on the religious intolerance the baker was subjected to. This could have been such a bad decision for conducting business in the marketplace and instead it turned out to be a wise one.

I think it is safe to say that it is morning once again in America!

[fwdude]

Can anyone in the know explain what this court opinion means in its outworking?

Can Phillips refuse to serve these two sodomites a wedding cake?

Can Phillips refuse to sell ANY wedding cake to sodomites from now on?

Is Phillips just let off the hook for this one “offense?”

[buridan]

I saw one article describing the decision not as a “narrow win,” but as a “narrow ruling.”

[beergarden]

LOL. Nah, Looks like the end of the faggotry.

A side tidbit to this story is that the butt munchers who initially bought this to the media who wanted a cake? There were more than 50 bakeries within a 100 mile radius and they chose this one Christian berk intentionally outside the travel radius..

[BlackAdderess]

I’m not in the know but I think some of this may have turned on the concern for artists to not be compelled to make reputation-damaging “art” just because the client orders them to do so.

[Robert DeLong]

Urban dictionary:

berk - An idiot. Similar in tone to 'prat', 'prick', 'twat' or similar

Is that what you meant to call this Christian baker?

[Fantasywriter]

Have you never made a typo? Have you never tangled with auto correct?

[Phlyer]

I saw one article describing the decision not as a “narrow win,” but as a “narrow ruling.”

This is key. The "narrow" applies to the ruling, which was only that the lower court's decision was too derogatory to the Christian religion. There is nothing about whether the bakery can be forced to make a cake for homosexuals, only that the reason has to be based on more than not liking Christianity.

They will be back, and the only change (other than time lost) will be that the lower courts change the wording of their rationale and not their decision (forcing the Christian bakery to bake the cake). In other words, they'll make the same decision but not mention Christian faith in their ruling (despite the fact the bakery's principal argument was on free exercise of religion). And the decision by the Supreme Court explicitly allows this.

So this is actually bad news. It does not in any way say that Christian faith is a justification for not baking a wedding cake for homosexuals. There is nothing in there that says Christian faith and doctrine is as protected as other forms of 'social justice' advocacy (e.g. banks refusing to loan money to gun dealers). All it says is that a lower court can't base its decision primarily on disagreeing with the Christian doctrine.

This decision actually opens up a host of paths forward for the homosexuals, and closes the main door - religious faith and doctrine - that the bakery was using.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think you've made a key distinction there.

A "narrow win" would be a 5-4 vote.

A "narrow ruling" is this 7-2 vote which voted on very narrow grounds: namely, that in this particular case, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's treatment of Phillips was so overtly hostile towards his religious viewpoint and did not act in a neutral manner when it weighed his case.

Unfortunately, they did not rule on the underlying argument, which is that designing and crafting a wedding cake is a form of expression --- an artistic creation, if you will --- and therefore a form of speech, something which no one has a right to try to coerce.

The Masterpiece baker did say the gay pseudo-marital couple were welcome to buy anything they wanted off the shelves. "Try the donuts. I recommend the macaroons." He just refused to create a cake for the purpose of a gay wedding against his will.

This ruling, unfortunately, did not address precisely that refusal.

[SeekAndFind]

Actually, this looks to me like a PYRRHIC victory.

As I said in a previous post.... the DECISION’s SCOPE IS LIMITED.

There’s a lot to be said for decisions that are narrowly limited to the point at hand. Just because our Congress is no longer responsible, taking up the mantle and legislating clearly, doesn’t mean we should be leaning on the SCOTUS to do our legislating. Besides, it was the baker himself who argued for a narrower construction (see Page 10).

“[..]there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. ”

They conceded that they had to make cakes for gay weddings. It was only the issue of artistic skills and expressive statement (1st Amendment) they fought:

For those who say this is a great victory,. I say it’s more like catching an opponent moving a pawn illegally. Sure, it stops their move in this case, but it’s no great victory in the game itself.

The decision has verbiage like the following (page 9):

““[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

That’s far from a rebuke of the general principle of public accommodations law and its ability to infringe (my word) on religious liberty. And this language wasn’t from a dissenter!

How about Page 12:

“And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”

[Robert DeLong]

Yeah, that is why I gave you the opportunity to set the record straight. Perhaps I should have just accused you outright. At least then you indignation would be understandable.

Remember this, when people read your comments sometimes the meaning is lost, and sometimes the meaning was actually meant. I had to know which was the case here.

[Robert DeLong]

Never mind, it was you who made the original post.

[Fantasywriter]

It wasn’t my comment. Go back and check if you doubt me.

But even though I didn’t make the original post, I do understand both typos and coming out on the losing end of auto correct. I have done both.

[fruser1]

He doesn’t have to bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding.

It is implied the case would’ve gone against him had he denied the sale of any cake.

The issue not addressed is if he had refused to make a new, plain cake, for a gay couple, as opposed to one already on the shelf.

[Robert DeLong]

Actually I did correct myself that you were not the original poster, in post #14. We have all had that happen to us, which is why I sought clarification. For all you or I know that is exactly what he intended to call the Christian baker, though I hope that is not the case. Still waiting for that clarification I might add.

[DownInFlames]

Hey Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotamayor, and Kagan, you will be replaced befor the end of 2024.

[Fantasywriter]

I put the chances that the OP actually wanted to describe the baker with an obscure slur—that a typo or auto correct could have derived from ‘baker’—at ~.0001

[Robert DeLong]

I prefer to know the facts, not the chances. Why not let him make the clarification himself? Do you have a problem with me finding out his reason? For all I, or you, know he is one of the many atheist that are regular posters here.