Lefty Supremes Kagan & Breyer Tell Why They Sided With People of Faith In Colorado Gay Cake Issue

[Cecilie1200]

So apparently, you think that if people don't agree with you, it's automatically because "the Bible isn't relevant", rather than ever considering the possibility that not everyone thinks the Bible supports you.

 

[Silhouette]

The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause.

*******

So either a local government forces a gay graphic designer to print a huge billboard for a busy highway that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" or they won't require that and will respect his right to not promote values that disagree with his core values on lifestyles.

Law applied equally. That's what the Court said. So I predict a spate of Christians inundating gay-lifestylist businesses requesting offending creations as "just another paying customer". Then the Courts will have to make a decision about the marketplace and lifestyle judgment calls. Race, country of origin and actual gender won't apply though because they are static and not lifestyle choices. And they enjoy enumerated protections while lifestyles do not. Oh and faith enjoys enumerated protections; the most important and original from the founding of our country.

All in all, gay lifestyles hold a very low rung on that ladder of protections.

It'll be OK dudmuck. You knew the party had to end sooner or later.

That's the part that bothers me: we WILL see a slew of cases, and the question will continue to rage and divide us, because they didn't make a clear decision on the actual issues. They decided it based on the tangential question of how "mean" the Commission was.

Yes they are good at passing the buck. Seems they didn't read their job description. But then again when one side keeps winning on a false premise and you're a Justice who suddenly noticed that, you can't just stand straight up and say "oops, we made a mistake and screwed up believing a false premise (that... just some... lifestyles can gain protections without an Amendment done by Congress)".

So you... hmmm....introduce the bitter pill slowly. Give the false-victors time to "smell the coffee" so to speak. I think that's pretty much what they're up to. And from that perspective it does make sense to take things slowly.

If you read the reactions the gay-lifestylist websites are having, it's pretty much along those lines. They're coming to terms slowly with the fact that their premise is now being examined and found lacking. The Court just doesn't want to shatter them all at once with too devastating of a blow. But it will come. Hey, courts make mistakes too; especially when some of their Justices are under the spell of liberal political-correctness as dominant to logical deduction and actual Constitutional wording, separation of powers and so forth. I think some of them have awoken from that spell.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So it appears that their objection is not to the decision, but the way the case was conducted, and the way the decision was reached. In other words, they're not saying that Colorado was wrong to deny him his rights, but that they didn't deny them in the right way.

This describes every single civil-rights based case the SCOTUS is asked to review. This is always the crux of every objection or decision. There is absolutely NOTHING unique about this case.

Once again, we are not hearing "The Free Exercise Clause guarantees his right to refuse", but only that it guarantees that the government will act nicely when deciding whether or not he has rights.

I disagree. It had nothing to do with being nice.

They disregarded, or treated with contempt and bias, his religious objection as if disapproving of those beliefs.

Nicely or otherwise did not matter.

Once again, "we're not saying whether the decision was right or wrong, only that you didn't go about it correctly".

Now you are correct, and I agree.

One can use religious beliefs to do all sorts of illegal shit, then hide behind the 1st Amendment. In essence, you can't use "free exercise" as both a sword and a shield.

When the Court reviewing the application of a state PA law verses a religious objection, the application must be balanced in determining who/what should yield (as it said).

The State completely disregarded the free exercise and acted not as an impartial administrative tribunal, but as a biased advocate for the gay mafia. In comparison to the other three cases, the commission did not treat Phillips, or his objection, equally.

"As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory,” Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X, at 4; featured “language and images [the baker] deemed hateful,” Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X, at 4; or displayed a message the baker “deemed as discriminatory, Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X, at 4."

"The treatment of the conscience-based objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ objection. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the other cases with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism."

The Court further explains how the commission inappropriately passed judgment on, and disapproved of, religious beliefs:

"A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. See Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (opinion of ALITO, J.) (slip op., at 22–23). The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs. The court’s footnote does not, therefore, answer the baker’s concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection."

The commission did not treat Phillips equally. They could have acted with saintly cordiality and it would not have changed their inconsistent stance. "Nice" had nothing to do with it.

But, that is only one aspect of the opinion and does not provide the complete holding.

It was also about forced expression, rather than a simple discriminatory denial of goods and services:

"Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented. He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation. As Phillips would see the case, this contention has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers’ rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs."

 

[AZGAL]

This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority and not "narrow" in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief. The government has evolved to allow conscientious objectors to military service if there is proof of deeply held belief against war. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood and Little Sisters of the Poor -Catholic sisters sidestepped providing certain birth control under the force of the Health Care mandate by a Supreme Court victory. A Muslim prisoner won his right to keep his beard in a Scotus case in his favor. The Boy Scouts were not ordered to accept gay scout leaders by the government, but instead changed their policies of their own management negotiations (now "the Scouts"). A very important case is when a St. Patrick's Day parade won in the Supreme Court against a gay pride entry because the st. Patrick's Day parade asserted that the Pride people did not have the same MESSAGE as the parade. The wedding florist may or may not get a hearing at the Supreme court, but she clearly told her gay friend: I am sorry to hurt your feelings, but "because of my relationship with Jesus, I cannot..." provide flowers to your gay wedding. WE SHALL all just have to be tolerant BOTH WAYS in our complex society. Just like denying gays the happiness of same sex marriage in Obergefell was wrong, denying Phillips his right to his deeply held religion was wrong. The hostilities Phillips endured were obvious and wrong as well. He was going to be persecuted by the Commission's regulations or lose his livelihood in the end being punished for his religious beliefs by a governmental agency that should have taken everyone's rights into consideration and should have understood the federal protection of freedom of religion.

"Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.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. 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, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case."

 

[Silhouette]

This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases.

"Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

Do you think that the Court would've said Phillips was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims if he refused to bake based on the fact that the clients were black? No, of course not. And so you're right. This case and the decision on this case has far more precedent and impact that most think. It was their way of saying "lifestyles do not have legal dominance over enumerated protections like religion". Or, "lifestyles are not static things like race".

 

[AZGAL]

I think it is worse than that. I think that a pattern of same sex couples who act "shocked" and "surprised" that a known meek, devout Christian baker or florist or photographer would politely refuse signals something ominous as it stinks of setting up these business owners to fail. well Masterpiece Cakeshop did not fail at bringing to light a hatred towards Christian business owners by customers, media and a corrupt governmental body. people are catching on a bout who the real victims are. Losing a business and being ridiculed across social media is way more harmful than having to go into a modern marketplace that includes apps and online ordering to select a satisfying match in what you want. I DO NOT SHOP at companies I dislike and neither should anybody else. WE are free to chose. No wonder the Jewish justices except Ginsburg were upset by the rise of hostility towards small religious oriented (weddings are also religious) Christian businesses: The Supreme Court elders remember WW2 and know these tactics are ugly.

Kristallnacht is The Night of the Broken Glass. On this night, November 9, 1938, almost 200 synagogues were destroyed, over 8,000 Jewish shops ...

 

[Silhouette]

No wonder the Jewish justices except Ginsburg were upset by the rise of hostility towards small religious oriented (weddings are also religious) Christian businesses: The Supreme Court elders remember WW2 and know these tactics are ugly.

Kristallnacht is The Night of the Broken Glass. On this night, November 9, 1938, almost 200 synagogues were destroyed, over 8,000 Jewish shops ...

Yeah, I never thought of it that way but yeah. Those memories are pretty fresh still. And, the Nazis were a cult too. Must really feel like a red hot poker on raw nerves with the LGBT cult trying to drive people of faith out of business. It's why the LGBT marriage-shop snipers are singling out Christians right now. They don't want to rock the boat by assaulting the livelihood of an Orthodox Jew or Muslim. But they're obviously next. If one religion has to promote the cult of buttsex, they all do. By force of law OR ELSE.

Kristalnacht indeed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases.

"Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

Do you think that the Court would've said Phillips was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims if he refused to bake based on the fact that the clients were black? No, of course not. And so you're right. This case and the decision on this case has far more precedent and impact that most think. It was their way of saying "lifestyles do not have legal dominance over enumerated protections like religion". Or, "lifestyles are not static things like race".

I think that would depend on just how nasty and biased the Commission acted. But no, racism is not seen by most people as an enshrined right to which society must pay lip service before disregarding it.

I think the judges who will interpret it as precedent would have probably decided that way anyway. And I think the ones inclined to ignore religious liberty are going to ignore this case. One might argue that they would ignore ANY decision they didn't agree with, and be at least somewhat correct, but I think a much stronger decision on the actual issues of the case would have been better than what appears to be merely kicking the can down the road.

 

[Silhouette]

I think the judges who will interpret it as precedent would have probably decided that way anyway. And I think the ones inclined to ignore religious liberty are going to ignore this case. One might argue that they would ignore ANY decision they didn't agree with, and be at least somewhat correct, but I think a much stronger decision on the actual issues of the case would have been better than what appears to be merely kicking the can down the road.

I don't know. In Hively 2016 there was a lot of verbiage in section "C" of the Opinion about how convoluted, twisted up and muddled all these cases are getting on solid views of law that they must be measured by in the end. I think Justices and judges are going to be going back and reading those dissenting opinions instead of being arrogant and blindly-activist this time around the bend. I mean, they like their paychecks too. And don't forget that Chief Justice Thomas sent a message recently: "this victim thing has gone far enough". What he meant was that his Court will not tolerate any more non-logical judicial-activism to pander to whining victims to give them literally anything they want: including suspending separation of powers to make Judicial-Legislating vogue of the day.

If the cult of LGBT wants a protective Act from which and to which all these various courts can solidly refer as their separation of power requires, then they need to petition Congress. Enough of this rogue-litigation; no matter how "noble' or "sympathetic" the motivation. That's what Thomas was saying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think the judges who will interpret it as precedent would have probably decided that way anyway. And I think the ones inclined to ignore religious liberty are going to ignore this case. One might argue that they would ignore ANY decision they didn't agree with, and be at least somewhat correct, but I think a much stronger decision on the actual issues of the case would have been better than what appears to be merely kicking the can down the road.

I don't know. In Hively 2016 there was a lot of verbiage in section "C" of the Opinion about how convoluted, twisted up and muddled all these cases are getting on solid views of law that they must be measured by in the end. I think Justices and judges are going to be going back and reading those dissenting opinions instead of being arrogant and blindly-activist this time around the bend. I mean, they like their paychecks too. And don't forget that Chief Justice Thomas sent a message recently: "this victim thing has gone far enough". What he meant was that his Court will not tolerate any more non-logical judicial-activism to pander to whining victims to give them literally anything they want: including suspending separation of powers to make Judicial-Legislating vogue of the day.

If the cult of LGBT wants a protective Act from which and to which all these various courts can solidly refer as their separation of power requires, then they need to petition Congress. Enough of this rogue-litigation; no matter how "noble' or "sympathetic" the motivation. That's what Thomas was saying.

Yes, but Thomas is ONE Justice. And we can see that the final decision issued by the court is nothing like Thomas's firm, definitive statement.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, but Thomas is ONE Justice. And we can see that the final decision issued by the court is nothing like Thomas's firm, definitive statement.

True, not yet. But the Court knows its audience's frailties. So my opinion is that they're taking it slow. But the shot has gone across the bow. They want gays to back off and "respect" Christians right to refuse to promote things they cannot promote re: faith. That may seem small to you, but it's not. It's actually quite the resounding defeat because the cult of LGBT was certain it could force Christians to abdicate their core values in order to stay in the marketplace. The Court said "yeah, that ain't happenin'".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, but Thomas is ONE Justice. And we can see that the final decision issued by the court is nothing like Thomas's firm, definitive statement.

True, not yet. But the Court knows its audience's frailties. So my opinion is that they're taking it slow. But the shot has gone across the bow. They want gays to back off and "respect" Christians right to refuse to promote things they cannot promote re: faith. That may seem small to you, but it's not. It's actually quite the resounding defeat because the cult of LGBT was certain it could force Christians to abdicate their core values in order to stay in the marketplace. The Court said "yeah, that ain't happenin'".

We'll see. I'm too much of a pessimist to think the Supreme Court is doing anything as definite and affirmative as that, not with the likes of Ginsberg and Sotomayor on their roster. I'm more inclined to think this was just the only decision they could get those hags to support that would give the win to the baker.

 

[Silhouette]

We'll see. I'm too much of a pessimist to think the Supreme Court is doing anything as definite and affirmative as that, not with the likes of Ginsberg and Sotomayor on their roster. I'm more inclined to think this was just the only decision they could get those hags to support that would give the win to the baker.

Well the thing about becoming a Supreme is that you have to make decisions that cut you to your core. And even the lefty Supremes know the chaos of trying to sift out one lifestyle for complete protection while denying thousands of others arbitrarily. You see, even Kagan knows you can't be arbitrary when interpreting rights. I almost said "assigning" rights there but then I remember that the Judicial can do no such thing. They must rely on law passed by Congress. A thing that has not happened with the gay lifestyle, setting it apart and above the myriad of other lifestyles who could then clamor for "equality" on their coattails. Even Kagan is smart enough to see that dogma vs dogma in a Supreme test would be a Nightmare on Elm Street. Because they'd be disallowed to choose between them.

Which AGAIN is the reason why long ago I told the LGBT cult that they needed to apply for tax exempt status and become an official religion (which is what they are anyway). Instead they've gone the route of judicial-legislation and "bootstrapping' language into places where it simply doesn't belong. They thought demanding the courts rewrite federal law was how to get it done. Then they decided to persecute the Christians and that was when they made their fatal mistake and exposed their false premise. Lifestyles are not innate.