Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Moonglow]

No, he said he refused to sell them a wedding cake but offered to sell them other types of cakes...Plus there is already a thread on the subject.

 

[Polishprince]

Glad to see a return to Freedom of Religion under Donald J. Trump's leadership.

Its the 500th Day of the Trump era, things are really moving along

 

[dblack]

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.

As long as PA laws are gone for ALL instances. All instances.

Exactly. I haven't read the decision yet, but it sounds like this is another carve-out - special rights for special people. Refusing to serve another person, regardless of the reason, should be considered a basic human right. If this is just an exemption for government-approved religious beliefs, it misses the point entirely.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

This is not the profound moment many anti-gay activists are looking for.

If you "think" we actually have any rights, look up "Civil Forfeiture", then get back to us.

Your rights have become subjective, depending on who is violating them and which judge hears the case.

 

[martybegan]

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...



Here's your cake!

The 7-2 part is mostly that the commission erred in not considering the religious aspect of the situation.

The opinion on what the outcome should be after the commission decides again is far more narrow.

 

[martybegan]

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.

As long as PA laws are gone for ALL instances. All instances.

No need to remove all PA laws, when they apply to an actual PA.

And the laws have to take into account the religious beliefs on any party involved.

To me this is the narrow decision that was needed, no more, no less.

 

[there4eyeM]

Interesting. I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason. Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.

But, can they have it and eat it, too?

 

[TNHarley]

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.

As long as PA laws are gone for ALL instances. All instances.

Every damn one of them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminate.

 

[TNHarley]

Religion is just another tool of discrimination.

To some, the governments abuse of power is a religion.

 

[martybegan]

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminate.

What they said is the religious beliefs of the people in question cannot be ignored, and have to be taken into account when deciding cases like this.

 

[Moonglow]

Religion is just another tool of discrimination.

To some, the governments abuse of power is a religion.

and the use of a religion to a human is like a drug..

 

[rightwinger]

Opens up a can of worms allowing business to use religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone ....not just gays

 

[S.J.]

Wow, 7-2. Boy, that sure was a close one!

 

[Pete7469]

It's one thing to not provide services based on hating queers, but it shouldn't be illegal.

It's a whole other thing to not want to be involved in a gay wedding. Even just doing the cake, or catering, or being the photographer. It forces you to be somewhere you don't want to be.

RegressiveParasite is cutting and pasting furiously right now.


.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

A link to the decision:

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

A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.

Yup. Those beliefs were discounted in the original case. Now the free exercise clause must be applied. It's quite a significant decision in the overall order of things.

The key is will the commission do the right thing, or double down on persecution.

If so, the legal path will be repeated.

 

[dblack]

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.

As long as PA laws are gone for ALL instances. All instances.

Every damn one of them.

Yep. If this is just an exemption for "sincerely held religious beliefs" (ie if this allows Christians to discriminate against gays, but not vice-versa) then it is not a victory for freedom.

 

[martybegan]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

A link to the decision:

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

A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.

Yup. Those beliefs were discounted in the original case. Now the free exercise clause must be applied. It's quite a significant decision in the overall order of things.

The key is will the commission do the right thing, or double down on persecution.

If so, the legal path will be repeated.

More than likely, and then the issue is how will the lower courts treat any appeals?

 

[Pete7469]

What they said is the religious beliefs of the people in question cannot be ignored, and have to be taken into account when deciding cases like this.

That's the only thing that should have been taken into account.

The words "Married / Gay" aren't even written in the constitution.

Freedom of Religion is.


.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.

The first amendment only states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As far as I can tell there was no law made that prohibited the baker from exercising his religion.

Unless of course the baker provided the quote from his religious text that expressly says baking a cake for sinners is itself a sin