Posted on 06/17/2019 7:15:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court has said not yet to a second helping of cake.
Justices announced today that they won’t hear a new case on the religious freedom and free speech rights of bakers who refuse to sell custom wedding cakes to same-sex couples for religious reasons. But they did send it back to the lower courts for reconsideration.
That means questions left unanswered in last year’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will remain unanswered for now.
The new case, which originated in Oregon, features a family-owned bakery, Sweetcakes by Melissa, and a lesbian couple. It asks what should take precedence when LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws clash with the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court sidestepped that question in its Masterpiece decision. Justices ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had unlawfully disrespected the religious beliefs of the Christian baker involved, basing their decision on the specific case rather than the larger question of how to balance LGBTQ rights with religious freedom protections.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
Now THERE'S a stupid question.
So can someone translate this gibberish? Is this good news or bad news for normal people?
RE: So can someone translate this gibberish? Is this good news or bad news for normal people?
For me, it is BAD NEWS. The Supreme Court ( unlike say, Roe v. Wade or Obergfell v. Hodges ) made a cowardly decision not to tackle an issue that affects the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS of every American, ensuring further future lawsuits, instead of settling the issue once and for all.
Cop out by the SUPREME COURT, which started this mess in the first place.
The court punted and kicked it back for review by the lower court.
RE: how to balance LGBTQ rights with religious freedom protections
The constitution does not mention LGBTQ rights. But religious freedom is IN the BILL OF RIGHTS. It is the *FIRST* AMENDMENT for a good reason -— this is exactly the right the constitution was designed to protect. It was foremost in the framers minds.
Why the SCOTUS cannot even make a simple decision which should be a no brainer is frustrating to say the least.
Agree
When a constitutional right is in conflict with a non-constitutional right it should be a no brainer
The court sent it back down for review based on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Kagan wants no part of that cake, LOL.
Perhaps someone with better legal mind can explain it to me, but all I’m seeing is an act of cowardice. This matter is as pertinent to the Constitution as it gets.
Looks like we still don’t have a pro-First Amendment majority. The most they could do was throw it back to a lower court. We need another solid Justice or two.
Quite right! Probably most times governments pretend things to be true that aren't true, big problems arise. A few that I can think of off-hand are: the Salem witch hunts; legalized slavery; the holocaust; abortion; and now pretending that homosexuality is normal.
In the long run none of this pretending has/will pass the test of time. In the meantime, millions of people are suffering.
It does seem, more often than not, those losers simply wimp out and refuse to do their effing jobs.
Maybe certain justices want Trump to send them a new conservative justice before they take this case so they can get 5 justices to agree on the decision they want to write.
Notice what the first letter is to see who really wields the power. They are evil, hateful, horrible people. It ain’t like in the movies, guys.
BAD, THEY CAN KEEP SUING CHRISIANS WHO STAND UP OUT OF BUSINESS.
And plenty more as well. It doesn't seem to matter that we supposedly control judicial appointments. They find it impossible to say that their predecessors made stupid and evil decisions.
What's next? People "marrying" their Toyota Corolla?
Idiots.
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.