Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

I think in order to have it seem negative, they’re picking up on the narrowness of the decision, law(s) affected, rather than the vote.

Almost every Supreme Court decision is as narrow in its application as the Justices can make it, but that’s usually ignored by those who think they support the ‘winning’ side.

Let me tell you what the decision does not say. If you are a homosexual couple you can force someone to abandon their Christian beliefs unless the state commission is mean to the Christian. That is absurd. This is the greatest day for the freedom of religious beliefs in our life time. By 7-2 the court ruled unequivocally that you may absolutest deny service based on Christian beliefs. What a great day for America!!

Of course...those two bitches! Hopefully, they will drop out, one way or another, and our President can replace them with worthy, upright, respectable people.

I saw lots of that comment on Facebook’s trending. NO idea what the frig that means.
Came here to find an article with a positive headline I can post on Facebook.

Since SCOTUS ruled that the Colorado government agency was essentially hostile to religion, is it now possible for the Baker to sue the agency for .....???

The fundamental question of whether or not a business can deny services or goods to a person by citing religious belief was not settled. If this case were to be taken back to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the same decision reached without the issue of alleged antireligious bias entering into it, that ruling could well be upheld by the same SCOTUS. A similar case could result in a decision upholding the rights of the customer. They kicked the can down the road.

I disagree vehemently. The issue was NOT that homos could force a Christian to serve them in their decadence except the state has to be nice to the Christian. The issue was do Christians have to serve people living in abomination and the answer 7-2 was NO!! This means that religious freedom triumphs over all other civil rights and there is absolutely no doubt about that. And that was the correct decision.

If they were demanding you make an engraving on the furniture celebrating their nuptials, you could refuse them.

And that's basically what the baker said - He didn't refuse their service because "they were gay". They wanted him to bake a cake which, as you said, "celebrated their gayness". I think I even read somewhere before that one of them had used his bakery before.

They found the narrowest possible ground on which to make their ruling.

Good analysis by Glenn Beck:

https://www.theblaze.com/video/glenn-beck-the-supreme-court-dodged-the-bigger-question-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case

The below provides more info and argumentation .

This should have never made it this far. At the time of the refusal (2012) to create a special work (typically over $500 cake for the specific purpose of celebrating what the Bible nowhere sanctions but only condemns), the CO state constitution itself invalidated same-sex marriage and defined marriage as btwn male and female ( by amendment it specified marriage as being btwn opposite genders, thus agreeing with the Lord Jesus - Matthew 19:4-6) . Therefore the baker acted in accordance with both the Law of God and the highest law of the state, but who is prosecuted by a political commission.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission not only fined Jack, but ordered that if he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, he also had to do it for same-sex couples. Then the Commission—behaving like some communist dictatorship might—ordered Jack and his employees to go through a “re-education” program and provide quarterly compliance reports. -http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/11/breakpoint-get-facts-jack-phillips/

And wedding cakes have traditionally been used to convey a message. A dress maker refusing to sell a wedding dress to a man for his homosexual wedding when even the state did not recognize such as a legal marriage would also be justified.Another somewhat proper analogy would be a black couple trying to contract with a Jewish baker to create a cake celebrating the anniversary of Luis Farrakan's Nation of Islam, and the baker refusing due to this being a perversion of the True God. Resulting in the baker being charged with discrimination against a minority based on race.

In July 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. (In 2000, Gov. Bill Owens signed into law a bill banning same-sex marriage.[1] In 2006 by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent voters had passed Colorado Amendment 43 which defined marriage in the state constitution as only between one man and one woman.[2] On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court removed the legal obstacles preventing Colorado's county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, legalising same-sex marriage in the state.[3] Since 2014, the state has since allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that marriage is a fundamental right that extends to same-sex couples.)[4]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in 2012 to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[5]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings[5]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.[6][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Colorado

Until 2013, a couple with an out-of-state civil union or same-sex marriage could not dissolve their relationship in Colorado, because C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado. - Same-Sex Marriage & Civil Unions

Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014.

After being denied a marriage license, a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit on October 30, 2013 in the Colorado District Court....Colorado's attorney general announced he would defend the state's ban.[16]...On July 18, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court ordered clerks in Adams and Denver counties stop issuing marriage licenses....On October 7 [2014], the Colorado Supreme Court removed the legal obstacles preventing Colorado's county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, legalising same-sex marriage in the state.[3] - Same-sex marriage in Colorado - Wikipedia

Just as Jack would not create custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, as has been stated, he would not contract to create a cake for straight people who wanted one to celebrate "gay marriage" or that of btwn a man and his goat.

Creating and selling a cake is not just selling a cake when you know it is to be specifically used to do something unlawful. Celebrating an unlawful sexual union is sin, and knowingly creating and selling a special work specifically for that celebration facilitates/helps that sin by providing assistance, is sin. Even in US law, while dealing with weightier cases aligns with this. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

Was Masterpiece refusing to sell a cake anyone else could buy? No.
Was Masterpiece singling out homosexuals in denying to contract for a cake celebrating homosexual marriage? No (straight couples would also be refused such/"discriminated" against, like as for Halloween and divorce celebrations).
Was Masterpiece acting consistent with his convictions here? Yes.
Was the refusal by Masterpiece to recognize "gay marriage" also that of the state at the time? Yes.
Would Masterpiece be conveying recognition of "gay marriage" by contracting to provide this special and expensive cake? Yes.
Was the state effectively requiring Masterpiece not to have or act upon compelling convictions in this regard by punishing the owners for not recognizing what the state itself historically did not? Yes.
Would the state punish a black or Jewish or Muslim baker for not creating a special cake for a KKK celebration, though they have the right to freedom of speech? Unlikely.

it’s because they’re so FABULOUS!