Colorado Bakers in a Landslide

[Tim Steelersfan]

Funny how sites like USAToday and others are saying "in a narrow decision." The vote was 7-2....

Supreme Court rules narrowly for baker who refused to create same-sex couple's wedding cake

WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage, ruling that a civil rights commission was biased against him. As a result, the decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, such as florists and photographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's 7-2 decision against the same-sex couple, departing from his long history of opinions in favor of gay rights dating back a generation. Included among them was the court's 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

During oral argument in December, Kennedy and other conservative justices had expressed concern about the potential effect on other merchants with strong religious objections to same-sex marriage, from chefs to florists.

The five-year-old legal battle between Phillips and customers Charlie Craig and David Mullins represented a test between the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and religion and laws in 22 states prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community.

Phillips, 62, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was fighting for the rights of "creative artists" to choose what they will sell. Craig, 37, and Mullins, 33, were fighting for the rights of LGBT customers to choose what they will buy.

Craig and Mullins won before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the state Court of Appeals, thanks to the state's inclusion of sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination law. Twenty-one other states have similar laws.

But the Supreme Court, bolstered last April by the addition of stalwart conservative and fellow Coloradan Neil Gorsuch, represented a tougher test.

The high court had weighed in twice before on the subject of same-sex marriage. In 2013, it ruled that the federal government must recognize gay and lesbian marriages in the 12 states that had legalized them. In 2015, it extended same-sex marriage nationwide.

But even as he authored the court's landmark decision, Kennedy held out an olive branch to religious conservatives.

"It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," Kennedy wrote in 2015.

 

[Spike]

7-2 - LOL


Ginsberg & Sotomayer were the 2 votes.


Writing for the court's majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's rights by showing "hostility" to his religious beliefs in a proceeding in which he was found to have violated the law and was ordered to anti-discrimination training.


Cue the outrage!

 

[IndySteel]

 

[CharlesDavenport]

It's a deceptive headline and opening sentence. It was narrow in the sense that it wasn't a general ruling on whether or not businesses can refuse to serve gays, it was specific to this case. I would give the writer a pass on the headline - because many journalists just aren't that good with language even though it's their job - if it wasn't immediately followed up with "A divided Supreme Court..". It was a big majority decision with only two wacky liberals dissenting.

 

[Superman]

the person writing the article doesnt always have final say on the headline. that can fall on the editor.

 

[oneforthebus]

Thank goodness, a win for individual rights.

Gay advocates should understand this is a win for them too, they also can't be forced by the government to bake a cake for say, a Westboro Baptist Church wedding.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It's a deceptive headline and opening sentence. It was narrow in the sense that it wasn't a general ruling on whether or not businesses can refuse to serve gays, it was specific to this case. I would give the writer a pass on the headline - because many journalists just aren't that good with language even though it's their job - if it wasn't immediately followed up with "A divided Supreme Court..". It was a big majority decision with only two wacky liberals dissenting.

As soon as I heard the news broke, I went looking for articles. Of the first 8 or 10 articles I saw earlier on (since many have been changed), all but ONE said Narrow or Close in the headline.

It wasn't just this writer. It's the disease Liberalism

 

[Troglodyte]

Thank goodness, a win for individual rights.

Gay advocates should understand this is a win for them too, they also can't be forced by the government to bake a cake for say, a Westboro Baptist Church wedding.

Exactly. The article refers to Kennedy “departing from his history of opinions in favor of gay rights”. WTF? How was this a gay rights case? It was about the rights of the baker.

 

[ark steel]

I don't think this is the win you think it is.

Im pretty sure it was a decision that the baker wasn't treated properly by Colorado processes and procedures not on his right to not serve the gay couple.

At least, from the one article i read. I will read some more.

 

[bmoritz]

Holy crap, did Trog just make sense?

Seriously, this is NOT an anti-gay ruling. This is a pro freedom ruling. Neither the government nor bullies should be able to force a private business owner (or individual) to do something that violates their conscience. The gay couple's rights were not violated, nobody was keeping them from having a cake. They could've easily gone down the street and found another baker willing to make the cake for them, which is perfectly fine. But their "rights" are not the intent of this action, they wanted to punish this baker for disagreeing with them. I'd feel the same way if a gay baker refused to bake a cake for an anti-gay group. It's his right to refuse. Good job Supreme Court on this one.

 

[Elfiero]

Thank goodness, a win for individual rights.

Gay advocates should understand this is a win for them too, they also can't be forced by the government to bakuenuente a cake for say, a Westboro Baptist Church wedding.

Yeah because Christians love frequenting gay establishments.

This is a victory for bigotry and the fact that it's being celebrated here is to be expected. I guess now someone can make the argument that because they consider black people the "seed of Cain" they have a religious right to not serve them either.

And before you all say " Oh that's ridiculous. It would never get that far " just remember you all argued that gay marria
ge could end up with people asking to marry goats, dogs, etc. So my scenario is also possible, right?

I wonder what the Muslims are going to want......

 

[oneforthebus]

Yeah because Christians love frequenting gay establishments.

This is a victory for bigotry and the fact that it's being celebrated here is to be expected. I guess now someone can make the argument that because they consider black people the "seed of Cain" they have a religious right to not serve them either.

And before you all say " Oh that's ridiculous. It would never get that far " just remember you all argued that gay marria
ge could end up with people asking to marry goats, dogs, etc. So my scenario is also possible, right?

I wonder what the Muslims are going to want......

Except the court didn't rule that it's legal to refuse to serve gay people.

I don't expect you to grasp subtlety but I'll give it a shot...

Because Colorado law allows people to refuse to bake cakes with messages that are anti-gay marriage or demeaning to gay people, they can't also force someone to bake a cake that gives tacit approval to gay marriage when that person has a sincere religious belief against it. In that sense Colorado law is hostile to religious beliefs specifically, vs. being ok with refusal for other sorts of moral objections. Therefore Colorado law is discriminating against the baker solely on the basis of his religion, which is forbidden by the Constitution.

No, you're not allowed to refuse to sell gay people a cookie, but you can refuse to bake a cake celebrating their wedding if you hold a sincere religious belief that gay marriage is wrong.

 

[oneforthebus]

I don't think this is the win you think it is.

Im pretty sure it was a decision that the baker wasn't treated properly by Colorado processes and procedures not on his right to not serve the gay couple.

At least, from the one article i read. I will read some more.

Here's the actual decision, if you're interested...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

 

[Steelworth]

Because Colorado law allows people to refuse to bake cakes with messages that are anti-gay marriage or demeaning to gay people, they can't also force someone to bake a cake that gives tacit approval to gay marriage when that person has a sincere religious belief against it. In that sense Colorado law is hostile to religious beliefs specifically, vs. being ok with refusal for other sorts of moral objections. Therefore Colorado law is discriminating against the baker solely on the basis of his religion, which is forbidden by the Constitution.

No, you're not allowed to refuse to sell gay people a cookie, but you can refuse to bake a cake celebrating their wedding if you hold a sincere religious belief that gay marriage is wrong.

Refreshing to see even-keeled, well-articulated reasoned responses to vile trolls like Elfie. Well said.

 

[Steelworth]

Exactly. The article refers to Kennedy “departing from his history of opinions in favor of gay rights”. WTF? How was this a gay rights case? It was about the rights of the baker.

Bingo. At least that's what I got from it as well.

 

[Steelworth]

Yeah because Christians love frequenting gay establishments.

And why did a gay couple not just go to another baker when they apparently knew of this establishment's views on gay marriage? Now that is what I heard (that they knew about the establishment, there's nothing I can exactly confirm), but isn't it reasonable to understand that any private business has a right to refuse service to anyone (minus a protected class i.e. race, color or religion)? And that they didn't have take this to the extreme?

And get out the Constitution already, you've got some reading up to do.

 

[Troglodyte]

Yeah because Christians love frequenting gay establishments.

This is a victory for bigotry and the fact that it's being celebrated here is to be expected. I guess now someone can make the argument that because they consider black people the "seed of Cain" they have a religious right to not serve them either.

And before you all say " Oh that's ridiculous. It would never get that far " just remember you all argued that gay marria
ge could end up with people asking to marry goats, dogs, etc. So my scenario is also possible, right?

I wonder what the Muslims are going to want......

I disagree with the baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. I agree that he should have the right to do it.

Ever see those cakes that have photographs printed onto the frosting? Imagine a pro-life group wanting to have a picture of an aborted fetus printed onto a cake so they could deliver it to someone as a protest. Should a baker be forced to take their business and sell them the cake in a box with their company name on it?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I disagree with the baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple.

We are stunned.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Ginsberg & Sotomayer were the 2 votes.

Of course.

Exactly. The article refers to Kennedy “departing from his history of opinions in favor of gay rights”. WTF? How was this a gay rights case? It was about the rights of the baker.

No it isn't. It's about the rights of gay people to force anyone they want to bake them a wedding cake. Unless it's a Muslim bakery, then refusal is okay.

And why did a gay couple not just go to another baker when they apparently knew of this establishment's views on gay marriage? Now that is what I heard (that they knew about the establishment, there's nothing I can exactly confirm), but isn't it reasonable to understand that any private business has a right to refuse service to anyone (minus a protected class i.e. race, color or religion)? And that they didn't have take this to the extreme?

Actually they went to several bakeries who didn't have a problem with it until they found one who did. This was simply a wedding in search of a lawsuit.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

I disagree with the baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. I agree that he should have the right to do it.

Ever see those cakes that have photographs printed onto the frosting? Imagine a pro-life group wanting to have a picture of an aborted fetus printed onto a cake so they could deliver it to someone as a protest. Should a baker be forced to take their business and sell them the cake in a box with their company name on it?

Point of fact he did not refuse to make a cake for them only to decorate in a way that would go against his beliefs they were free to have an undecorated cake and get it decorated or to by a already finished cake. He did not refuse them purchase just not a personalized cake.

 

[Steelr4evr]

7-2....yeah close...haha...******* media jerkoffs. It's a win for freedom. Bravo! Now go unfuck that healthcare ruling you ******** did while Barry the marxist was in office.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

7-2....yeah close...haha...******* media jerkoffs. It's a win for freedom. Bravo! Now go unfuck that healthcare ruling you ******** did while Barry the marxist was in office.

I rarely will come to the media’s defense but they defined it as narrow not close. There is a big difference in those terms narrow refers to the scope not margin.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

The problem is liberals think that rights should be ranked based on the person, kind of like you rank poker hands

High Card = Religious rights related (not including muslims)
1 pair low = white male (includes non-muslim Indians and Far East Asians)
1 pair face cards = gun rights
2 pair = conservative woman (any race)
3 of a kind = straight male minority citizen (unless conservative, then they count as a white man)
Straight = gay man or woman
Flush = Black (non conservative)
Full House = Illegal Immigrant
4 of a Kind = Transgender
Straight Flush = Outspoken liberal celebrity, politician, or talking head.

Obviously that's a joke (you have to tell liberals something is a joke). But the sad part is it does sum up how liberals view laws or pretty much any scenario in judging which party is in the right.

We heard as much during Justice Gorsuch's confirmation hearings. I forget who asked the question but the gist of it was "Don't you think you should make an effort to rule in favor of the little guy whenever possible?" Gorsuch basically, answered No, i have to follow what the law says and not give one side an advantage. This was then viewed as an outrageous answer.

It was similar during Sotamayour (sp) hearing. She bragged about using her experience as a "wise latina woman" in making rulings. Liberals loved hearing this but conservatives were rightly concerned because it essentially means using things outside the written law to make decisions.

RBG has said that we should sometimes look to international law over American laws to make rulings. Pretty much just pick and choose whatever you need to make the ruling you want.


So when a liberal sees a situation where 2 freedoms butt heads, they think you just pick a winner. Gay trumps religion so you MUST make the gay wedding cake. Transgender trumps most everything so a creepy guy in a wig gets to use the women's shower at Planet Fitness and if a woman complain, SHE will be asked to leave.

Liberals just can't come to terms with the simple truth of freedom. Sometimes you will have to put up with **** you don't like. You want free speech? Then you have to put up with hearing the other side.

Libs forget that all the time. They praise anybody who kneels for the anthem, then denounce Trump or anybody else who says they should stand. You can't have it both ways. You can't say they have the right to kneel and then tell the other side to shut up.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

I heard this on Michael Savage coming home from work last night (Ad libbing):

It wasn't just Christians who took up the lawsuit. Yes, the original bakers did, but they ended up having the backing of both Jewish and Muslim groups as well. The media doesn't want you to know that- it would destroy their whole narrative.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I heard this on Michael Savage coming home from work last night (Ad libbing):

It wasn't just Christians who took up the lawsuit. Yes, the original bakers did, but they ended up having the backing of both Jewish and Muslim groups as well. The media doesn't want you to know that- it would destroy their whole narrative.

I'd love to see links that support this. That's bombshell stuff.