Posted on 06/04/2018 9:31:01 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court granted a limited victory Monday to a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple, finding the state showed fierce hostility toward his Christian beliefs when it ruled he broke the law with his refusal.
The 7-2 decision sends the case back to Colorado with firm instructions to give Jack Phillips, the Christian baker, a fair hearing.
But the ruling does not establish a First Amendment right to refuse services to same-sex couples, as Mr. Phillips and his conservative backers had hoped.
Instead it suggests a road map for states such as Colorado, which have public accommodation laws, to use in evaluating cases like this one that pit First Amendment religious rights against anti-discrimination protections.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the lead opinion in the case, said states can require people to serve all customers equally regardless of sexual orientation, as long as they justify it through law and not through animus toward religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I know of no case in which a Muslim was court mandated to go against his/her religion.
It would seem like it to me. Especially when the two losers were the compelling life story lady, Sotomayor and the sleepy-eyed sleeper, Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.
The Supreme Court did the same thing with Gentala v. City of Tucson. The original court then dismissed the case, still being unable to give a fair trial.
We do not obey the Supreme Court decisions. We obey LAWS passed correctly by our legislative bodies and signed by our executive bodies. Screw the Judicial branch. All the Constitution gives them is an an opportunity to express an opinion. They can rule a law unconstitutional but it does not remove the law. In the same sex marriage case in Kentucky for instance, the Kentucky state legislature was the ONLY body that could either remove or re-write the law being contested. The Supreme Court could not even order them to do so. They had no legal authority to pass legislation in the state of Kentucky. They just had an opinion.
Erick Erickson
@EWErickson
Sotomayor is the most consistently hostile Justice on the Supreme Court towards religious liberty. Ginsberg comes close, but Sotomayor is more predictably hostile.
10:25 AM · Jun 4, 2018.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1003643798721875968
Notice that its Ginsburg and Sotomayor who dissented.
Obama wasn’t able to select a third justice because Republicans controlled the Senate and McConnell refused to submit the nomination for a vote. Trump doesn’t face this problem so long as Republicans control the Senate.
I'm not saying they'll succeed, but they sure will try.
Drudge’s headline (”SUPREMES: YOU DON’T HAVE TO BAKE THAT CAKE!”) is garbage.
REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE? ???
Banks dont have to service gun makers, but bakers have to bake homosexual wedding cakes.””
Maybe someone needs to sue Dick’s Sporting Goods.
Along with a couple of banks.
Ikeep hearing that banks are refusing to allow CASH deposits. How about grocery stores? Fast food outlets? Gas stations? The local churches with Sunday offerings? There are plenty of places that cash is used & should be used. I have a friend who moved her business banking of over 19 years from a national bank because hey informed her they would no longer accept cash as of later this year. She walked out of their building & went to another local state bank & moved her business there.
The ruling was disgraceful. The court is supposed to provide surety under the law in determining what is, and is not lawful. The court punted this case, which has been ongoing since 2012. I suspected this might be what they were up to after reading through the oral arguments. They telegraphed pretty clearly that they would likely try to pin this on the bigotry of the colorado commission. The supreme court is a worthless bag of dog crap.
Can’t really affirm unalienable rights. Can’t have that.
Yep.
I have been saying that for years. There is no such thing as homosexuality; it is homoeroticism.
Yes. This is not a real win - for the baker or for us.
Just as 3D Chess that violates Flynn’s Constitutional rights, and forces him to sell his house to pay for legal fees to fight a false charge, is not a win.
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.