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

To: Fhios; C19fan

“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!


129 posted on 06/04/2018 10:18:13 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
it looked to me like it DID say the baker cannot be compelled to create cakes that conflicted with his religious beliefs.

It gave with one hand and took it away with the other noting that the legal circumstances have changed. And they rule against the commission on the grounds that their scoffing at religious arguments was antithetical to a neutral stance on religion. In other words had they simply ignored it and said, look, you violated the public accommodations law by refusing to bake a cake on the grounds that the client was a member of a protected class, and had this stance been consistent with other positions they had taken, they could have gotten away with it.

159 posted on 06/04/2018 12:36:38 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]

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