Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Reverses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Scotusblog ^ | 6/4/2018 | Scotusblog

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; anthonykennedy; bakery; colorado; fagmarriage; fakemarriage; firstamendment; freedom; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; jackphillips; lavendermafia; masterpiececakeshop; obergefellopinion; religiousliberty; ruling; scotus; weekendatruthies; winning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-212 next last
To: CFW

This is a huge win. “It’s about participation”. It should apply to many others. Can you force a photographer to “participate”?? etc etc.


61 posted on 06/04/2018 7:43:15 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"NARROWLY? 7-2 is NARROWLY?????"

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.

62 posted on 06/04/2018 7:45:18 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45
Kagan??

She’s probably a tad smarter than Sotomayor, and worked to keep the decision narrow, concerned about long term implications. RBG is too old to give a darn.
63 posted on 06/04/2018 8:04:14 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Now I support the winner will have to spend more money on lawsuits to make them whole financially


64 posted on 06/04/2018 8:06:19 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
“The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”

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?

65 posted on 06/04/2018 8:07:02 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Islam is Satan's finest work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

>>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.


66 posted on 06/04/2018 8:09:12 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (robert mueller is an unguided missile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: bigdaddy45

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.


67 posted on 06/04/2018 8:09:58 AM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CFW

WINNING!!! It never grows old!


68 posted on 06/04/2018 8:12:05 AM PDT by chesley (What is life but a long dialog with imbeciles? - Pierre Ryckmans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

This made my day.


69 posted on 06/04/2018 8:14:07 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Are the Gorsuch bashers here to tell us that this is all part of his “leftist church”?


70 posted on 06/04/2018 8:15:02 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
NARROWLY? 7-2 is NARROWLY?????

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.

71 posted on 06/04/2018 8:18:12 AM PDT by centurion316 (Back from exile from 4/2016 until 4/2018.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CFW

The first clear defeat for the homosexual movement in many years. Very happy here!


72 posted on 06/04/2018 8:19:14 AM PDT by Midwesterner53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Not a surprise there.


73 posted on 06/04/2018 8:20:30 AM PDT by EdnaMode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Great day for the Supreme Court.


74 posted on 06/04/2018 8:20:44 AM PDT by EdnaMode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

What’s especially sweet is that this opinion was released during “Pride month.”


75 posted on 06/04/2018 8:22:32 AM PDT by fwdude (History has no 'sides;' you're thinking of geometry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCarea51

And now a very special message to the Fudge Packers Union.
UP YOURS!


But they would LIKE that...!


76 posted on 06/04/2018 8:25:50 AM PDT by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Will this affect the case in Oregon where the Christian bakers were driven out of business for their religious beliefs?


77 posted on 06/04/2018 8:29:44 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Conservatives love America for what it is. Liberals hate America for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The court did not decide if the state has the ability to force the baker to make the cake.

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.

78 posted on 06/04/2018 8:32:33 AM PDT by Fhios (1980's Where's Waldo, 2018 where's sessions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

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.


79 posted on 06/04/2018 8:32:44 AM PDT by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CFW
Ginsburg dissents, joined by Sotomayor. So it’s 7-2.

And yet the Bing home page calls it a "narrow win for the baker".

80 posted on 06/04/2018 8:34:23 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Time to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-212 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson