Posted on 12/05/2017 10:38:12 AM PST by TexasGurl24
Lines began forming outside the Supreme Court last week for one of the biggest oral arguments of the year, in the case of a Colorado man who says that requiring him to create custom cakes for same-sex weddings would violate his religious beliefs. At the end of over an hour of debate, it became clear that, at least in one respect, the case is just like so many others: It is likely to hinge on the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who initially seemed sympathetic to the same-sex couple but later expressed real concern that Colorado had not been sufficiently tolerant of the baker’s religious freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Both the Slimes and the Compost produced sniveling opinion pieces disguised as news that would only say that the court seemed "Sharply divided."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-wedding-cake-bakers-case-protects-religious-freedom-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/05/c73e6efa-d969-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.2964e8c179d6
Imagine my shock when the rambling moonbats at ThinkProgress who hate Christians and the Constitution were far more honest with how bad this was for the Sodomites.
https://thinkprogress.org/lgbtq-rights-horrible-day-scotus-e189ca49c6c3/
It says something when Thinkprogress is MORE honest than the Slimes or the Compost.
Paging Fake Conservative Bill Kristol and those iffy Bush Judges
Just pray that Kennedy doesn’t catch another case of Souteritis before the opinion is written.
Get it to the SCOTUS and we all know what happened in the Muslim country ban ruling this week :)
The faggots had their 8 years of bullying. Now it’s our turn...
With our constitution, how could they side any other way. The constitution protects citizens from discrimination by the government. Private citizens have the right to discriminate all they want and for any reason.
At least, they do according to the constitution.
Here are some excerpts from Statements that Kennedy made during Oral Arguments:
“Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”
“And — because accommodation is, quite possible, we assume there were other shops that — other good bakery shops that were available.”
“Part of that speech is that state law, in this case, supersedes our religious beliefs, and he has to teach that to his family. He has to speak about that to his family.”
“Well, but this whole concept of identity is a slightly — suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against — against gay people. He says but I just don’t think they should have a marriage because that’s contrary to my beliefs. It’s not - It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.”
Kennedy being a liberal, sounded coherent in those statements. Amazing.
RE: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado baker
I have no doubts about how Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch will decide.
I also have no doubts about how Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan and Ginsburg will decide.
These are the two justices I fear -— Kennedy and Roberts ( are they included in the “Conservative Majority” the title of this article refers to? )
I wouldn’t put it past SCOTUS to rule the other way. Just look at how the same sex marriage thing turned out. Or their ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Yeah, I get that. But they can’t go THAT nuts too many times before people have to start asking some hard questions.
i hope so.
but let’s remember: SCOTUS has disappointed us before. Many times.
Has the baker ever stated whether he was willing to design a cake for a civil union?
You would think that in a free country a person could make a fortune catering to gays and liberals who support these policies. Why is that not sufficient to solve the problem?
The correct solution years ago was to outlaw government involvement in marriage.
I read Amy Howe’s article. Normally she does a very good job of neutral unbiased coverage of SCOTUS proceedings, but I do have a bone to pick with her on this one...and will get to that later.
The crux of the article seems to confirm what I expect the ruling in this case to be. It will be a 5-4 opinion in favor of the baker, handed down by the Court at the very end of the term as the custodial staff is emptying the wastebaskets and turning out the lights. As much as this will be a victory for Masterpiece Cake Shop, it will not be a broad victory in favor of opponents to the concept of same sex marriage. This case looks like it will be a very narrow ruling confined more or less to its facts. It will not contain language broad enough to allow Christians generally to opt out of participation in same sex weddings. The Court will not want to disturb its rationale for public accommodations civil rights enforcement laws. Masterpiece Cake Shop wins because it’s a two-fer argument; religious belief coupled with forced expression. You have to have both to win. Most cases only have the belief without the public endorsement/compelled expression aspect. And the conservatives on the Court don’t want to permit compelled expression.
This is why the Court has not taken up cases involving Christian photographers and florists. They don’t have the expression element to the same extent as the cakeshop (although a good friend of mine makes a good argument that the photographer has a better case than the baker).
The tug of war between public accomodation laws and expression is why the Court didn’t want to take this case; it passed something like 10 or 13 conferences before the Court granted certiorari. It does not like to have to rule between competing fundamental rights. But that’s the result of creating those rights through substantive due process. Sooner or later in that labyrinth of rights, they will come into direct conflict, and someone’s rights become licenses. They are granted, and revoked, by the state with less due process than a fishing license.
Now on to my bone to pick with Amy Howe. In the article she talked about the justices who sided with the gay couple. I’ve spoken to several people who have taken that view, and it is WRONG. The gay couple are NOT parties in this lawsuit. It is between the State of Colorado and an individual. It is an exercise of the power of the state to enforce a law against a private citizen. The gay couple are not parties, don’t have standing, and don’t stand to gain or lose from this suit. That is a fundamental issue people need to understand.
And that is perhaps ultimately the reason the baker should win. It’s not gay couple vs baker, it’s the State vs. the baker. It his his fundamental rights that are at issue, not the rights of the gay couple.
Depending on Kennedy to bring this one home, makes me dubious
There are several unfair double standards at play here.
First, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has said three times (per the WSJ article “Let them not bake the cake”) homosexual businesses can refuse a traditional marriage message piece per THEIR beliefs but the Christian baker cannot refuse per his beliefs. Because the courts say homosexuals’ beliefs are protected by the First Amendment while Christians’ beliefs are hate speech and/or a violation of civil rights rules now interpreted to mean you cannot refuse what a homosexual asks for, no matter what.
Second, the unfair double standard with Muslims. The Obama administration sued businesses to say you must let the Muslim refuse to ring up alcohol and ham though working as a clerk and the Muslim truck driver can refuse to drive a beer truck per his beliefs .... but the Christian cannot refuse per THEIR beliefs.
So both Muslims and homosexuals are given accommodation for their beliefs while the Christians are told shut up and do it, you evil bigots.
What about obsessing about the absolute and military enforced power of the federal government? It was THAT government that (in the South) made blacks into slaves, that passed Jim Crowe laws, that made blacks go to different bathrooms. Just for examples.
BK is such a broiling POS. I hate that guy more than I could hate pretty much any liberal.
It's not like there aren't people available to do the task.
Interesting that the hard line seems to be drawn on the idea whether baking and decorating a cake is an artistic expression (therefore a form of protected speech) whereas other services - hairstyle, makeup - would not be protected. Kagan brought this up in her questioning. The “Wise Latina” contributed pablum.
So even if the baker wins, I guess it has limited applicability. For example, the florist in Washington fighting the same fight would not be protected.
How the hell did this case just become only about cakes and not about one’s right to participate in a ceremony he/she objects to based on religious beliefs?
I hate relying on Kennedy as the deciding vote... Will feel much more comfortable with such cases once Trump gets another Judge on that court.
I would like to have seen the raw oral arguments, because I trust NOTHING when it comes to reporting.
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.