The Hateful Faithful & Narrow Arguments That Blind

[irosie91]

It was a huge boost for religious freedom....no matter how the left tries to spin it.

How would you feel if it was a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a Christian couple?

The real question is just how that would work out in a shariah compliant
society. No doubt----the muslim would NOT have to bake a "CHRISTIAN
CAKE"--------but it is not clear to me that a Christian could get out of baking
a muslim cake

That's nice kid, now would you like to answer the question I asked instead of substituting your own?

if the muslim had been asked to create a cross out of royal icing and write
"GOD BLESS THEM in the name of THE FATHER AND THE SON AND
THE HOLY GHOST--------I would support the muslim

 

[Leo123]

Yep. Funny though that the "Colorado Civil Rights Commission' was basically found to have violated the bakers' civil rights. Apparently 'Civil Rights' are only for 'special' people.

Civil rights? I thought the man was upset over his religious freedom? And why would you draw on that pathetic snarky comment of yours on this one instance?

Isn't religion a civil right? One would think that a 'Civil Rights Commission' would include ALL Americans that's all. I meant no 'snark' with the word 'special'....It seems that only CERTAIN people have civil rights according to this commission. That's why SCOTUS shot them down.

 

[eagle1462010]

Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated] - SCOTUSblog

But the critical question of when and how Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”

Here, Kennedy wrote, Phillips “was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.” Because he did not have such a proceeding, the court concluded, the commission’s order – which, among other things, required Phillips to sell same-sex couples wedding cakes or anything else that he would sell to opposite-sex couples and mandated remedial training and compliance reports – “must be set aside.”

 

[Leo123]

It was a huge boost for religious freedom....no matter how the left tries to spin it.

How would you feel if it was a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for a Christian couple?

The real question is just how that would work out in a shariah compliant
society. No doubt----the muslim would NOT have to bake a "CHRISTIAN
CAKE"--------but it is not clear to me that a Christian could get out of baking
a muslim cake

That's nice kid, now would you like to answer the question I asked instead of substituting your own?

if the muslim had been asked to create a cross out of royal icing and write
"GOD BLESS THEM in the name of THE FATHER AND THE SON AND
THE HOLY GHOST--------I would support the muslim

So would the Christians.

 

[eagle1462010]

Using strong language, Gorsuch emphasized that, in the United States, “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

“Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise” of his religion, Thomas concluded, “it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day.” Today’s ruling, however, casts at least some doubt on how easy it will be for others in Phillips’ position to prevail going forward, given the majority’s emphasis on the unsettled state of the same-sex marriage laws when Craig and Mullins came to Phillips in 2012 and the open hostility displayed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission at Phillips’ hearings. Thomas’ discussion of Phillips’ free-speech claim seemed to acknowledge this, with his observation that, “in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing” the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, from being used to “portray everyone who does not” agree with that ruling “as bigoted and unentitled to express a different view.” In short, today’s ruling seemed to leave open as least as many questions as it resolved. The only thing we can be sure of is that these issues will return to the courts, and in all likelihood the Supreme Court, before long.

 

[eagle1462010]

I beg to differ that Religion wasn't a motivating factor in the decision. Picking Kennedy's position by the OP doesn't give the opinion of the rest............Kennedy being a swing vote.

If you'd notice........that just as the Gay couple had a right to protection..........so does the Religious beliefs of Phillips.

If wasn't just to Bake a Cake...........it was to participate in the wedding............Which is a Religious conflict of interest to the Bakers...............

Not as cut and dry as the OP would have us believe.

 

[sparky]

agreed it's not so easy to express eagle, but from a broader objective view religous rights won out over gay rights

~S~

 

[Leo123]

agreed it's not so easy to express eagle, but from a broader objective view religous rights won out over gay rights

~S~

No it didn't it was the obvious religious persecution of the 'Colorado Civil Rights Commission' that caused SCOTUS to shoot it down. Actually a gay couple could go into that same bakery tomorrow and make the same demands and still have another case.

 

[sparky]

the SCOTUS transcripts read in favor of the Baker's religious convictions ,despite what the lesser court ruled Leo

~S~

 

[eagle1462010]

Katie Pavlich - BREAKING: Supreme Court Overwhelmingly Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker in Wedding Cake Case

"The Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint," the ruling states. "The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," the ruling continues.

 

[Leo123]

the SCOTUS transcripts read in favor of the Baker's religious convictions ,despite what the lesser court ruled Leo

~S~

Ya, I thought I said that. SCOTUS found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to 'adequately consider' Jack Philip's religious beliefs.

 

[sparky]

The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."

That's the part that worries me Eagle
~S~

 

[eagle1462010]

The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."

That's the part that worries me Eagle
~S~

In another type situation.............I agree............if that is what I think you are implying.

 

[Leo123]

The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."

That's the part that worries me Eagle
~S~

Indeed....Especially when the definition of 'religion' gets expanded. Hopefully the separation clause will not be expanded to include any theocracy.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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?"

The basis for the SCOTUS ruling is the highly subjective "deeply-held views" test.

In doing so they, themselves, demonstrated that it is government that is the most discriminatory of all. After all, who gets to decide which views are "deeply-held"?

While so-called conservatives are cheering the ruling, the SCOTUS completely missed the central point. Property rights.

Aside form that, I'd still like for someone to show us Judicial review in Article III. History shows us that it was the SCOTUS who gave themselves the power of Judicial review in 1803 Marbury v. Madison, but were restrained for some years after Jefferson raised hell about it, but then after he died, they assumed the authority again.

 

[sparky]

well fellas, i can just imagine empowering some whacko religmo's , they're out there....~S~

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thread and poll misses the mark, too.

Figures.

 

[Lysistrata]

It was a huge boost for religious freedom....no matter how the left tries to spin it.

What "religion"? Some trash thing like phillips?

 

[sparky]

The basisfor the SCOTUS ruling is the highly subjective "deeply held views" test.

In doing so they, themselves, demonstrated that it is government that is the most discriminatory of all. After all, who gets to decide which views are "deeply-held"?

de devil in de details.....~S~

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It was a huge boost for religious freedom....no matter how the left tries to spin it.

What "religion"? Some trash thing like phillips?

Doesn't matter. There lies your problem Listerine.

Constitutional right is going to trump the ghey