Wring, Stop putting words in the Court’s mouth. They ruled that the commissions blatant bias against religion denied him the religious neutrality necessary for a fair hearing.
you just said the same exact thing I said- He was discriminated against because of bias against His religious beliefs- the lower court’s decisions denied him a fair trial
[[The SC ruled today that the baker’s religious rights were violated- that it was he who was discriminate against because of a bias against religion]]
That is what i said- which is exactly what you said- He was discriminated against by a biased court- That is why the lower court’s ruling was overturned
Christians and Christian business owners have a right Not to be discriminated against for their beliefs- our constitution protects us against that- The SC decision showed that the lower court violated that right to not be discriminated against, which resulted in denying the baker a fair trial.
a follow-up to my last post- this is from the decision:
“State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specificmessages they considered offensive.”
In otherwords- they had a right to exercise their religious belief and refuse to make the cakes based on personal religious belief- or even any belief- religious or not- as you will see i nthe following:
“the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declin-ing 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.”
His right to object to making the cake, based on his religious freedom, was violated because the lower court refused to consider the case neutrally
“(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.”
Further making it clear that his right to religious beliefs was violated
“As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical,”
“(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious be-liefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc.v.Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520.
So yes- The SC court Did rule that his religious rights had been violated by the lower court- resulting in a trial in which there was no neutrality