The Hateful Faithful & Narrow Arguments That Blind

Did the SCOTUS Rule Against Gays and For the Baker's Free Speech Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12

JBvM

VIP Member
Jun 7, 2018
4,130
253
65
... ... ...
When political and ideological arguments get narrowed down to the level of talking points, and being able to make it onto bumper stickers, they take on a life of their own. Many people may come upon the arguments only after they've become imbued with a life of their own. For them and the argument makers, who are usually purveyors of propaganda and bullshit, the arguments become a part of a doctrine of an ideological faith.

Take the discrimination/legal cases of Colorado Bakeries and Wedding cakes. But before we get into teh cases mentioned in the Supreme Court opinion on:
MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v.
COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.

Let me ask a simple enough question: "Did the SCOTUS Rule Against Gays and For the Baker's Free Speech Rights?"
 
In Colorado before Same Sex Marriages were legalized, there appears to have been a slew of discrimination cases brought before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Quote: In 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.
Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc.
Jack v. Azucar Bakery
 
This is what we get:in the case of the Baker in the SCOTUS case: a ruling on the Commission's actions.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 16–111
MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL., PETITIONER v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO
[June 4, 2018]

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 2012 a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to samesex marriages—marriages the State of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commission determined that the shop’s actions violated the Act and ruled in the couple’s favor. The Colorado state courts affirmed the ruling and its enforcement order, and this Court now must decide whether the Commission’s order violated the Constitution. The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning. One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning -- that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference. The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless.

Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent
with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question ofwhen the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined
in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.

Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.
 
So, "Did the SCOTUS Rule Against Gays and For the Baker's Free Speech Rights or against anything the LGBT community did or said?"
 
So, "Did the SCOTUS Rule Against Gays and For the Baker's Free Speech Rights or against anything the LGBT community did or said?"

Short answer? No. Why? Because the ruling applies only to this one specific case only and no other. And, they ruled in favor of the baker because CO's civil rights commission screwed the pooch on this one.
 
It was a huge boost for religious freedom....no matter how the left tries to spin it.

How is it a huge boost when the SC said that their ruling applies to only this case and no others? The ruling cannot be applied to any other cases as per SCOTUS.

You cant possibly be this daft

You continually question my intelligence on a regular basis, so why do you have problems with me asking how this is a boost? Explain how this is a boost to religious freedom, when the SCOTUS said that their ruling applies only to this case and no others? If the ruling can't apply to any other cases, it's not really a boost. Matter of fact, it's really not anything one way or the other.
 
It was a huge boost for religious freedom....no matter how the left tries to spin it.

How is it a huge boost when the SC said that their ruling applies to only this case and no others? The ruling cannot be applied to any other cases as per SCOTUS.

You cant possibly be this daft

You continually question my intelligence on a regular basis, so why do you have problems with me asking how this is a boost? Explain how this is a boost to religious freedom, when the SCOTUS said that their ruling applies only to this case and no others? If the ruling can't apply to any other cases, it's not really a boost. Matter of fact, it's really not anything one way or the other.

The Christian won you befuddled story teller

Hell even NBC said it's a huge boost for religious freedom
 

Forum List

Back
Top