Posted on 06/04/2018 7:26:16 AM PDT by hercuroc
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
“But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some
of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.”
That’s on page 3 or so, and I’m already thinking that’s the meat of it. The CO Rights Commission slandered him, this is the Holocaust, blah blah. I think this is the “narrow” ruling — that in this particular case, they were biased against him from the get-go, and were provably not biased against other bakers in the same situation, so this one guy wins today.
“The wholesome (Norman Rockwell) America died in the latter 60’s”
Actually, by 1963 the hippies were doing their “cultural revolution” in colleges. The Greatest Generation had raised a generation of spoiled brats that were then in college.
Nobody in any business has to. This is not about “cakes” , If I make furniture and two homosexuals come in and I believe God’s Word ( Leviticus) that they are an abomination to God, I can deny service!!
I don’t think we have to serve Muslims if we believe they are not saved. 7-2
Not sure but I’m guessing there’s a gay couple about to be slapped with a lawsuit violating a baker’s religious rights.
It doesn’t look like this case would help the case of photographers, unless they were able to send another photographer in their place. A sole proprietor photographer would have to contract the work out.
7-2 IS NOT a narrow decision.
I think you are mistaken. "Narrow" has nothing to do with how many justices lined up on each side. It has to do with the scope of the issues decided. There have been many "narrow" cases decided 9-0. And there have been many "broad" cases decided by 5-4 - ie. the gay marriage case itself.
They went for the brass ring and fell in the mud. Nothing more deserving for a contrived grievance.
You’re right. Basis of ruling is commissioner showed open hostility to Christianity. Has limited future application.
Only the left thinks 7-2 is a narrow ruling
Gotta love the title :)
Yes - the flipping liberal media can’t tell the truth even when it is mathematical and public for all to see.
A 7-2 USSC opinion is actually pretty rare; more than 2/3’s of USSC votes are actually closer.
The only hold outs were RBG and Sotomayor.
7-2 is a blowout victory in USSC terms.
“business don’t have to service”
The decision partially hinged on the fact that the bakery would’ve sold them another cake in the shop. They just wouldn’t make a “special” one.
But it has nothing to do with how broad or narrow the issues resolved are. IN fact the narrower the decision the easier it is to get consensus, the broader the implications the harder it is to get consensus.
You’re correct, the word “narrow” as used here refers to the applicability of the decision to the broader collection similar legal challenges.
I hope the Baker goes after the commission for violating his rights as well.
Way too easy to predict who the two were. Surprised it wasn’t three with Kagan.
It’s a narrow, vs. general, ruling.
Narrow, as in addressing very specific details of the case, not a broad win for free speech or religious liberty.
—
That may be true, but it’s also true that a majority of the people reading the headline are going to be misled into thinking the vote was narrow.
Which is why they wrote it that way, of course.
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.