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?
Ruling seems mostly reasonable, but I don't believe your analysis is correct.
I copy and pasted what the article said.
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.
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.
It’s a limited ruling based on narrow parameters. Is is not a precedent-setting ruling applying to all like cases.
Could you force a Jewish person to bake a swastika cake?
If you think this is a bad ruling I am guessing you say that this is also ok
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.
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.
True, problem is this is a very grey area.
This just in, discrimination is legal in the state of Colorado.
For liberals its discrimination . . . For conservatives its freedom.
I pick freedom . . .
The freedom to discriminate.
The freedom to choose!
To choose who to discriminate against.
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.
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.
Everyone discriminates or they don’t live long.
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.
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!
7 to 2 . . .
"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
Glory Hallelujah, Praise God & the baker, rightfully receiving his civil rights❗️👏🏻
It’s a step in the right direction! Next up....immigrants.....then ‘colored’ people.....then Gentiles! Yay America!! /s
Ez ... the early reporting I’ve read said 6-2, with no details on who voted and who abstained.
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.
Ez ... I’d bet that it’s both of the freedom hating women on the court.
The lesbian on the court? What the fuck?
Yes because you should have the freedom to discriminate 🙄
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.
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.
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.
This has nothing to do with race. It’s religious freedom.