Posted on 06/05/2018 5:56:06 AM PDT by C19fan
The Supreme Court has ruled on the Masterpiece Cake case — and on the surface, it would appear to be a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. The justices ruled 7 to 2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the religious freedom of a baker, Jack Phillips, when it sanctioned him for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012.
“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
How about, “No.”
Yeah good luck with that.
Typical RAT. Lose the game and keep changing the long time rules until you win.
Using the NY Times standard....we should be throwing the Constitution out about every sixteen months, and writing a new fresh one.
Liberty is a one-way street to liberals.
I noticed the “o” in your post was lowercase. Did you not read the article in all of it’s insanity ?
If you did I would expect you to type “How about, “HELL NO WEIRDO IDIOT”
“David French notes that one of Justice Kennedy’s reasons for finding Colorado was motivated by anti-religious animus in its ruling against the baker is that Colorado has protected the right of bakers to refuse to create cakes with explicitly anti-gay messages. This portion of the majority opinion will make it difficult in some wedding vendor cases for states to navigate their way around today’s decision.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/a-narrow-ruling-in-the-colorado-cake-baker-case.php
I am of the opinion that the Constitution, esp the 1st Amendment’s assembly clause is quite clear. Private (not corporate) individuals have the right to assemble -or not assemble- peacefully. One of the reasons private individuals assemble is for the conducting of commerce.
As such, the clause clearly establishes the right of the individual to either participate or not at their sole discretion. There is no “public accommodation” clause in the Constitution.
NYT GFY
To paraphrase what Rush said yesterday, these media lefties sincerely believe most of America agrees with them.
NYT...how about just GTFO of the country instead.
It's "Pauline Kael Syndrome."
‘Change the constitution.’
It isn’t a Word document. It has a prescribed, very clear Amendment process. The process is difficult. Intentionally so.
ERA was a pig in poke that died a deserved death. God know what abuses would have occurred under its provisions and (mis)interpretations to cover everything from gays to people who think they’re magpies.
As I said yesterday to the disapproval on some on here - I believe people have the right to live the way they want to and that includes gay people. I am a pro-freedom and pro-diversity. This is what I believe as a conservative and it makes America great.
In the New York Times op-ed, the other side illustrated how they’re for coercion and conformity. If you don’t live and think the way they want, there is no room for you in their America. The American people are tolerant and genrous to all in their midst. Between us and the Left we should have that debate.
And the Constitution wasn’t written to protect folks we like or opinions of which we approve. Political correctness has no place in it. The Mastercake case brought that point home. Every American has a right to equal protecion of the laws, including Christian bakers. Period.
I refuse to watch it but Chris Plante has been hammering ‘The Fourth Estate’ which is the NY Times’ so-called documentary love letter to...The NY Times.
According to Plante the groupthink is impenetrable. The ‘men’ in the piece look, dress and act alike and have that mewling, lisping accent so prevalent today among the Pajama Boy set.
Good luck changing the Constitution. LOL.
Typical lib speak. Don’t like the result change the rules.
Are you gay?
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.