Posted on 06/04/2018 7:17:18 AM PDT by CFW
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."
link to decision
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Thanks for providing the link to the decision. Much prefer to read it myself rather than a media filter. This one might be worthwhile for me to process into HTML from the PDF.
That leaves Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Interesting that Kagan — the rumored lesbian justice — concurs.
We don't know how Anthony "Mysteries of Life" Kennedy would have ruled on the foundational issue. The Court ruled in favor of the baker only as far as Kennedy would let it.
Such laws denying Shariah would pass the religious neutrality test.
Kagan's confirmation cracked me up because the press kept heralding it as historic and I'd ask lefies "why do they say that? There have been women before her, and jewish justices for a long time too. What's special?" and they'd hem and haw and wring their hands but couldn't say what we all knew because your not supposed to "out" someone and Kagan has never said it publicly. Loved making them squirm.
If memory serves the human rights or civil rights, or whatever administrative body ruled in Oregon, also showed a strong degree of hostility towards Christians and Christianity. So if that is true this ruling would I think apply.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
“The court did not decide if the state has the ability to force the baker to make the cake.”
I skimmed thru the decision. It was not “broad” in that it didn’t declare religious freedom always trumps homosexual rights. But it looked to me like it DID say the baker cannot be compelled to create cakes that conflicted with his religious beliefs.
It requires exceptions to pass a test of “strict scrutiny”, which would require (IIRC) that the government have no other means to ensure significant societal goals.
It also made it clear that the Colorado board acted in a way the large majority of the Supreme Court found repulsive and utterly illegal!
The Court has no constitutional authority to interfere with these affairs of the State of Colorado which is up to the people of Colorado to decide. Sure this one looks like a favorable decision. But tyranny will end up killing you and unconstitutional federal acts and decisions are tyranny.
The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot
That "government" the First Amendment points to is ONLY the Federal government, NOT state government.
CONGRESS shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise... Amendment I.
The First Amendment is pointed DIRECTLY at the feds and NOWHERE else.
>>Since your time is so valuable, perhaps you can spare just a little time to read this comment from the SCOTUSBLOG, many more opinions yet to come this month. Hope this helps<<
I do not subscribe to the idea that blogs are really good place to get information.
I merely commented on my completely proper and understandable reaction to a misleading headline.
Sheesh.
Next thing you know people will start asking us to read articles before commenting on them.
Oh well, all Justice Warriors are not Social.
>>USA today headline...
“A Divided Supreme Court decision...”<<
Sounds like SCOTUS is divided to me. But I gather headlines are meaningless and are best to be ignored completely.
Long established USSC case law has ruled that the first amendment is incorporated into the 14th amendment and applicable to the states thereby.
Excellent
I find this section rather worrisome,
“To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages per- formed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.”
Notice the SCOTUS assertion that Phillip’s concern was only worrisome when put in relationship with existing 2012 law. Law that predated the legalization of SSM both in Colorado and the U.S..
So is SCOTUS telling us that if this happened after that legalization that Phillip’s would have been unreasonable in supposing his action was lawful? That an assumption of being allowed to refuse on religious and freedom of expression grounds is scuttled by the state’s interest in promoting and protecting gays from discrimination by public accommodations?
It is also not reassuring that SCOTUS ruled favorably for Phillips in part because the commission at the time let other bakeries refuse anti-sodomite messages on cakes. Because that too was based on the law at the time, before gays were a protected class. Which in my opinion means whether such messages were discriminatory did not enter into it but only if any bakery could refuse any message for any customer. That might not hold true now. Indeed that was the question which does not seem to have been answered.
The court also makes clear that it is possible for the state to apply religious neutrality in such cases making it very likely that bakers or florists or photographers or inn keepers will be compelled to go against their religious convictions and provide their contractual services to same sex couples.
To me it should be obvious that certain justices would not have ruled for Phillips if they believed it would mean that religion could be used as a reason to refuse certain services to same sex couples. They were willing to agree that hostility against religion could not be the reason that a government body found a person guilty of discriminatory practices against a protected class. They must see this as easily dealt with allowing for gay rights to supersede religious beliefs.
The First Amendment has been applied to the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Regarding the Free Exercise Clause, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
That was tried back in the early days of FR. It didn't stick.
SCOTUSBLOG is a haven for legal geeks, very useful and certainly several levels above the MSM and this forum. As always, trust but verify.
The overall celebratory atmosphere here is misguided.
This was a very narrow ruling. Sure, we’ll take what we can get, but the major issue in this case was sidestepped, remaining to be adjudicated in some future case.
Hopefully, by that time, Kennedy and Ginzberg will be gone.
:)
Good to see we landed on the same page my FRiend!
The Supreme court is superior to any other court or Tribunal right? Isn’t that specifically stated in the Constitution.
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.