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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.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.
I disagree. It had nothing to do with being nice.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.
Now you are correct, and I agree.Once again, "we're not saying whether the decision was right or wrong, only that you didn't go about it correctly".
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.
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 ...
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 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 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.
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.