In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.
I always found it inconsistent the progressives wanted to have it their way and not be discriminated against, but then tell Muslims that it’s fine to discriminate against Jews.
It wasn’t narrow in the votes. It was narrow in what the ruling means and applies to. People wanted this case to decide the “religious liberty” question. It didnt. That’s how it is narrow. It’s scope
In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.
NY ... who — other than you — cares about the spin? Did the baker have the right to refuse ... yes or no?
Even activist leftist jurists couldn’t deny that the baker had the right to refuse. This is a huge victory for liberty and a huge loss for the fascist left!
Calling it narrow in scope is not spin if the question of religious liberty is still unanswered. If the ruling applies to only this case, it is indeed narrow in scope. What did I say to piss someone off now?
I don’t know. A lot of the readings indicate that the baker’s victory was about this case only because the proceedings in his state were not carried out appropriately. I have not read yet that there are implications beyond the scope of this case. Have you read something different?
The baker obviously. Isn’t there a desire though to want a decision that goes beyond the scope of this one case though? Are you taking my question seriously, or are you just trying to win the conversation?
No, that is not what I am doing. I am pointing out that the question about religious liberty has not been answered. The court’s decision today was about how the state processed the case. The Supreme Court said that the case was mishandled at the state level. The Supreme Court has not stated what would happen in this case had the state dealt with the case appropriately. They have not weighed in on the issue of what is and is not constitutional. We will be seeing this case again for that reason. You might want to make it about me, but it is not about me. Believe what you want, but you need to read on this topic more I think
@Think- from what I’ve read, the case was mishandled because the State was hostile and unusual in the way in which I treated the baker when prosecuting the case, therefore the results of that case have now been undone, since it was not fair and impartial when deliberating. It’s almost as if the cakes did not happen now
NY ... you’re partially correct. To be more precise, the Supreme Court determined that Colorado discriminated against the baker. They were supposed to be dispassionate and unbiased and in fact the court found that Colorado was disgustingly biased against the religious rights of the baker.
The Supreme Court smacked Colorado for their intolerance of the religious freedoms of the baker.
The fact is that nobody believes this is over. This detestable Gay couple purposely targeted this baker because they wanted a fight. There’s no doubt that other bullies among the militant LGBTQIPA crew will likewise attempt to abridge the religious freedom rights of this or other bakers, photographers or others who have deeply held religious convictions in their attempt to make all submit to their perverted lifestyle. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court does it’s duty in the future and upholds the religious liberty of all Americans and doesn’t not compel them to participate in commerce.
I’ll say this. I am of the belief that the constitution will ultimately not allow for denial of services to those that are gay, or lgbtqipa. I also see why some believe that they are sometimes forced to service people/deals, while at work, that go against their closely held religious beliefs. I think both sets of people (in general) are respectable and deserving. I’m honestly not fully certain of the best way forward.
I’m not fully sure if you think that all lgbtqipa are militant and deviant, but your tone suggests intolerance towards them in general. If I mistook your meaning, please accept my apology.
In this case, the baker did not get a fair “trial” at the state level. It sounds like it may have been discriminatory and an injustice. And I’m glad the Supreme Court found this and did what they did. That ruling, however is about the handling of the case, not the larger issues at hand.
Comments: Add Comment