Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.
The ruling was 7-2.
The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.
The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand with the justices holding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.
The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow up from the Court's decision two years ago to clear the way for same sex marriage nationwide. That opinion expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?
It is what it is. I find it interesting how SCOTUS seems to be tailoring their rulings to be as narrow as possible lately, setting it up for more cases later. Sometimes it makes sense, other times,. like here, not so much. I do not see what they gain by leaving the question open.
Neither do I. I expected them to address the religious freedom argument with his case, because it's the perfect case to do it with. But I guess we'll just have to wait until someone else brings a similar case to the SC.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?
Anyway, I think the business should be able to turn away whoever they want to, even if it's for bigoted reasons. Who cares, they will ultimately lose business from discrimination. It doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint to discriminate against gays, and is a dumb business strategy, so **** 'em for being bigoted, it's their own ignorance that will make their business suffer.
Stupid question, but how is a 7-2 ruling "narrowly"https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?
Edit: For some reason the site is running really slow today, and as I was waiting for the page to load back in, oh so slowly, after my post I thought that maybe the reason is to get agreement among the members. Let's agree to rule this way, but make it as narrow as possible, kinda thing. That is pure speculation based on no evidence(which hypocritical me usually bitches when people do), but I suppose is possible.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?
I'm going to have to read the actual reasoning behind the Court's decision before commenting. I'll try and give my thoughts on it later today.
My thoughts are, Rastafarians have religious objections to the prohibition of MJ, so does that make the prohibition of MJ unconstitutional?
Have Rastafarian found a friend in the American conservative, because this USSC decision gives them firepower to argue that the War on MJ is unconstitutional.
Can we bet on Conservatives standing in principle here, to argue that the ban on MJ is religious persecution?
Anyway, I think the business should be able to turn away whoever they want to, even if it's for bigoted reasons. Who cares, they will ultimately lose business from discrimination. It doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint to discriminate against gays, and is a dumb business strategy, so **** 'em for being bigoted, it's their own ignorance that will make their business suffer.
Stupid question, but how is a 7-2 ruling "narrowly"
Stupid question, but how is a 7-2 ruling "narrowly"
My thoughts are, Rastafarians have religious objections to the prohibition of MJ, so does that make the prohibition of MJ unconstitutional?
Have Rastafarian found a friend in the American conservative, because this USSC decision gives them firepower to argue that the War on MJ is unconstitutional.
Can we bet on Conservatives standing in principle here, to argue that the ban on MJ is religious persecution?
Anyway, I think the business should be able to turn away whoever they want to, even if it's for bigoted reasons. Who cares, they will ultimately lose business from discrimination. It doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint to discriminate against gays, and is a dumb business strategy, so **** 'em for being bigoted, it's their own ignorance that will make their business suffer.
I thought it was a cowardly ruling by them. They didn't answer if the baker was within his rights to refuse to make the cake or not.https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?
MJ? Michael Jackson?
Stupid question, but how is a 7-2 ruling "narrowly"
Neither do I. I expected them to address the religious freedom argument with his case, because it's the perfect case to do it with. But I guess we'll just have to wait until someone else brings a similar case to the SC.
MJ? Michael Jackson?
I'm going to have to read the actual reasoning behind the Court's decision before commenting. I'll try and give my thoughts on it later today.
I thought it might be coming as well. And, I think it's a fair ruling. The answer to bigoted bakers is for open-minded people to boycott those business in favor of a more welcoming baker. Money talks, and I, for one, would never buy from a bakery that discriminated. I think social pressure is what eventually changes the world.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?
I thought it was a cowardly ruling by them. They didn't answer if the baker was within his rights to refuse to make the cake or not.
I'm not even sure what this ruling means. Do we have a new trial in the lower court to answer the original question now?
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?