Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

I can see those CNNs articles fooled the hell out of you..
CNN... fake news.



https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/opinions/masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-opinion-gupta/index.html


"Notably, the court limited its decision to the specifics of this case -- mainly how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled Phillips' claim. The court did not rule that the Constitution grants the right to discriminate but maintained the longstanding principle that business owners cannot deny equal access to goods and services."

--

in reality the court ruled that colorado violated the bakers religious rights and that laws including gay rights laws must be applied in a manner that is not hostile to religion.





UsualName said:
You are off your rocker. The court did not rule the baker had the right to discriminate but maintained the lower court’s ruling that businesses cannot deny equal access to goods and services.

As I mentioned before go read Newman v piggy park 1968. Religion is not a qualified standard to deny equal access.
More...
 
jem said:
I know the ruling of the Colorado Appellate court was reversed. Its a fact.


The Colorado appellate court affirmed the ruling of the Colorado administrative law court in favor of the gay couple and against the baker. The lower state court rejected the baker's claim that requiring to bake a cake for a same sex wedding would violate his first amendment rights and his right to the free exercise of religion.
(you can read this in the first paragraph of the US. Supreme Court opinion)

then

the US supreme court reversed the Colorado Court. Finding for the Baker saying the state of Colorado was intolerant of the Baker's rights.
More...

So do you think the baker can now deny gay couples wedding cakes?
 
optionpro got it right.
The case was about religious liberty and freedom from leftist and govt bullying.

Gays already had the rights via the 14th amendment cases to buy goods and services free of illegal discrimination... just like every other american.
No one was doubting gay rights to purchase goods and services certainly not the baker. He offered to sell the gay couple cakes.


I have to take back something I said earlier.
I no longer think that the decision was "bullshitty."
I think Kennedy did a good job bringing in another vote to protect religious liberty.

Where could the court go with this? it was already fenced in.

Robertson already told us with the Obamacare decision we could be compelled to pay money to private insurance companies. So the court could not really give us an expansive anti slavery type protection I would be expecting.

14th amendment cases already let everybody know that everyone has a right to equally have a chance to purchase goods and services. No one was arguing gays did not have those rights.

This case actually gave big protection to religious liberty and convictions...

Not only was Colorado religious intolerance shut down, the court also said states are not allowed to judge the legitimacy of a persons religious convictions. That could turn out to be very important in future anti govt bullying cases.
 
Last edited:
I’ve read at least a dozen articles from prominent gay authors who were super pissed that David Mullins and Charlie Craig even brought the case. Furious, in fact.
 
Last edited:
Really interesting... that makes sense.


bone said:
I’ve read at least a dozen articles from prominent gay authors who were super pissed that David Mullins and Charlie Craig even brought the case. Furious, in fact.
More...
 
For people who are always babbling about "freedom" and "civil rights", dem's certainly have a narrow view of the issue. We already knew that their view of the First Amendment was that it absolutely protected speech they agreed with. Anything else, not so much.

Now we see they have an equally tortured view of the First Amendment's free exercise clause. To them, it apparently protects one's ability to practice their religion inside closed doors. If religious observance causes any annoyance to an official victim class however, then it has to stop. They would give more rights to homeless bums watching porn at the public library than people trying to live a traditional Christian life.

The Supreme Court used the shocking anti-Christian bias of the Colorado commission as the ostensible basis for its decision. In doing so however, it signaled that religious rights have constitutional protection and are not to be swept away cavalierly to appease other groups.
 
that was Justice Roberts... not Robertson.

jem said:
optionpro got it right.
The case was about religious liberty and freedom from leftist and govt bullying.

Gays already had the rights via the 14th amendment cases to buy goods and services free of illegal discrimination... just like every other american.
No one was doubting gay rights to purchase goods and services certainly not the baker. He offered to sell the gay couple cakes.


I have to take back something I said earlier.
I no longer think that the decision was "bullshitty."
I think Kennedy did a good job bringing in another vote to protect religious liberty.

Where could the court go with this? it was already fenced in.

Robertson already told us with the Obamacare decision we could be compelled to pay money to private insurance companies. So the court could not really give us an expansive anti slavery type protection I would be expecting.

14th amendment cases already let everybody know that everyone has a right to equally have a chance to purchase goods and services. No one was arguing gays did not have those rights.

This case actually gave big protection to religious liberty and convictions...

Not only was Colorado religious intolerance shut down, the court also said states are not allowed to judge the legitimacy of a persons religious convictions. That could turn out to be very important in future anti govt bullying cases.
More...
 
epilogue....

Love Free Speech...
Disagreement does not equal hate... it equals tolerance.

at 3:34 he explains...

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top