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
This is a huge win. “It’s about participation”. It should apply to many others. Can you force a photographer to “participate”?? etc etc.
What the mean by "narrow" is that they are claiming the case was decided on narrow legal grounds that wouldn't apply in other similar cases. My summary indicates that it may not be so narrow as many are saying - it was decided on free exercise grounds, an area the court has studiously avoided up to now. It seems the court said that fee exercise is more than freedom of belief or worship.
Now I support the winner will have to spend more money on lawsuits to make them whole financially
A two edged sword of an opinion. How does this apply to a Muslim demanding the application of Shariah law in adjudicating his enslavement and rape of infidels?
>>My summary indicates that it may not be so narrow as many are saying - it was decided on free exercise grounds, an area the court has studiously avoided up to now. It seems the court said that fee exercise is more than freedom of belief or worship.<<
Read the comments? As usual the SJWs are purposely misinterpreting the ruling that this is like refusing service to Blacks. From that perspective, this is indeed narrow.
Yup. Appears to have voted for the bakery. So, will the aclu or splc have to reimburse them for lost revenue? Better yet, the ones that were offended originally. Maybe they should pay up. Plus any and all court costs.
WINNING!!! It never grows old!
This made my day.
Are the Gorsuch bashers here to tell us that this is all part of his “leftist church”?
Dang, fake news is getting pretty brazen in their lies.
Have you read the decision? Have you read the comments on this thread? Before SHOUTING, you might want to take a little time to understand what a narrow decision by the Supreme Court means. It has nothing to do with the number of Justices that agree with the decision. The statement is quite true, the decision was 7-2 and the opinion was decidedly narrow.
The first clear defeat for the homosexual movement in many years. Very happy here!
Not a surprise there.
Great day for the Supreme Court.
What’s especially sweet is that this opinion was released during “Pride month.”
And now a very special message to the Fudge Packers Union.
UP YOURS!
But they would LIKE that...!
Will this affect the case in Oregon where the Christian bakers were driven out of business for their religious beliefs?
Perhaps because that answer is obvious. Really, think of a reason or reasons why the state should be able to force people to perform labor. I can't think of one unless it has to do with subsistence aide, as a result of a criminal and perhaps certain misdemeanor conviction, or in the case of a state of emergency or war or a result of compliance to a lawful regulatory ruling.
Have you read the decision? Have you read the comments on this thread? Before SHOUTING, you might want to take a little time to understand what a narrow decision by the Supreme Court means. It has nothing to do with the number of Justices that agree with the decision. The statement is quite true, the decision was 7-2 and the opinion was decidedly narrow.
-
Yes... and as I said elsewhere, that doesn’t excuse the media. The majority of people are going to see the “narrow victory” headline and assume that the voting was narrow. The media is purposely misleading people by using that word.
And yet the Bing home page calls it a "narrow win for the baker".
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.