Show of HandsShow of Hands

MrAmerica June 4th, 2018 2:21pm

The Supreme Court has ruled that the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of religious beliefs did not violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. Good ruling?

20 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
06/04/18 12:28 pm

Ruling seems mostly reasonable, but I don't believe your analysis is correct.

Reply
MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
06/04/18 12:42 pm

I copy and pasted what the article said.

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
06/04/18 12:50 pm

Then your article didn't really word it well. This wording seems to endorse the view that the Court found his religious objection to be a valid reason to turn down service, which is not correct. Rather the Court found the Commission did not fairly consider the case, more or less ignoring whether or not he was actually within his right to deny service.

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
06/04/18 12:55 pm

I see this to be roughly analogous to looking at the Court's ruling in that other recent case where an officer trespassed on a guy's property to uncover a stolen motorcycle and saying, "the Court found that so-and-so did not violate anti-theft laws by taking a motorbike." It's completely missing the point of the ruling.

lj74
06/04/18 11:05 am

It’s a limited ruling based on narrow parameters. Is is not a precedent-setting ruling applying to all like cases.

Reply
dlinz001
06/04/18 10:38 am

Could you force a Jewish person to bake a swastika cake?

Reply
dlinz001
06/04/18 10:40 am

If you think this is a bad ruling I am guessing you say that this is also ok

AmericanWolf For the Benefit of All
06/04/18 3:45 pm

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have to before today anyway, but if I'm wrong about that, they still have to after this ruling. Today's case only applies to a narrow range of cases regarding religious speech.

AmericanWolf For the Benefit of All
06/04/18 3:46 pm

It's frustrating. The ruling is so limited in scope that almost every attempt at an analogy you'll see people making for the next few days will be inapplicable.

dlinz001
06/04/18 4:13 pm

True, problem is this is a very grey area.

NemoDude Dead, at this point
06/04/18 7:52 am

This just in, discrimination is legal in the state of Colorado.

Reply
ezh2o Texas Hill Country
06/04/18 8:21 am

For liberals its discrimination . . . For conservatives its freedom.

I pick freedom . . .

ezh2o Texas Hill Country
06/04/18 8:24 am

The freedom to choose!

NemoDude Dead, at this point
06/04/18 8:24 am

To choose who to discriminate against.

GeneralDevin MN
06/04/18 10:15 am

No it’s not. You cannot force someone to violate their religion as it’s a constitutional protected right. That’s what liberals wanted out of this case.

GeneralDevin MN
06/04/18 10:20 am

The baker offered alternative options to use as wedding cakes but the gay couple refused and insisted he put on gay imagery. This imagery deeply violated the mans religion as it would be seen as him directly supporting something that contradicts his religious beliefs.

So the idea of this being discrimination is completely preposterous. He tried selling them wedding cakes but they didn’t bite.

jlong105 Indiana
06/06/18 9:35 am

Everyone discriminates or they don’t live long.

Think Lovin Life
06/04/18 7:29 am

This is not just a good ruling. It is a GREAT ruling! Finally a vindication for individual liberty and a huge smack down on fascist government regulations that oppress the normal citizens.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
06/04/18 7:32 am

And of course CNN has to bialy report this enormous victory by using the headline ... “The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objections.” when the vote was 6-2!

JennaB Mother
06/04/18 7:38 am

"The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand ..."

It's not a ruling on "religious liberty" it's a ruling on this case specifically

SHIPPY1944 Tn.
06/04/18 7:42 am

Glory Hallelujah, Praise God & the baker, rightfully receiving his civil rights❗️👏🏻

Squidboy Snarkapottamus
06/04/18 7:49 am

It’s a step in the right direction! Next up....immigrants.....then ‘colored’ people.....then Gentiles! Yay America!! /s

Think Lovin Life
06/04/18 7:52 am

Ez ... the early reporting I’ve read said 6-2, with no details on who voted and who abstained.

ezh2o Texas Hill Country
06/04/18 7:55 am

Fox Business has consistently reported the ruling as 7 to 2, no report on who voted which way, but you know one negative vote was the lesbian on the court.

Think Lovin Life
06/04/18 7:57 am

Ez ... I’d bet that it’s both of the freedom hating women on the court.

AdamStephens West Virginia
06/04/18 8:00 am

The lesbian on the court? What the fuck?

JennaB Mother
06/04/18 8:01 am

Yes because you should have the freedom to discriminate 🙄

AdamStephens West Virginia
06/04/18 8:03 am

Well you kinda should, it shouldn't be viewed favorably and people need to understand that homophobia is a religious beliefs and that should be factored into opinions of religion.

Think Lovin Life
06/04/18 8:04 am

Jen ... yes, you do. I do. We all do. What you do not have the freedom to do is to attack a citizen, to ruin them for the free choices they make.

Thankfully, the majority — even two leftists — agree that our freedoms must prevail over militant feelings.

JennaB Mother
06/04/18 8:07 am

I don't have militant feelings but by your logic you should be able to discriminate like you could discriminate prior to the civil Rights movement of the 1960s. It's disgusting and discrimination has no place in modern society. Gay straight, black white, brown, jewish, atheist, christian, able, disabled or otherwise.

Zach21 California
06/04/18 8:41 am

This has nothing to do with race. It’s religious freedom.