Show of Hands

I haven’t read the ruling yet.

Let me know if you read it

From foxnews;

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.

Definitely about how they were treated and in that respect, I’d agree that Colorado overstepped. The secondary issue has yet to be decided.

Exactly. That means that it was not a decision about religious liberty. It was a case about proceedings of one incident.

Is that really true, or does this actually set any precedent?

I know. Why did CNN report it that way?

For the clicks.

Oh bc of one of the judges.

^this^

I know right. That’s what CNN reported.

Oh. That’s weird. Why did the news just report it that way?

You must get your news from the liberal media . . .

That’s Fox News. They just pulled that and changed it. I think they ducked up.

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.

Breck ... the vote was 6-2 and CNN is still pathetically reporting that it was a “narrow” victory.

It’s not clear why these nimrods report lies!

Wow.

Think, the vote was 7-2.

I saw it on NBC on the news app on my iPhone. The title of the post said it was a narrow vote. Spinning. 🌪 Spinning.

This just in:
In the NBA finals last night, the Golden State Warriors narrowly edged the Cleveland Cavaliers, 122-103.

😂👍🏽

JFish ... the early reports showed 6-2. Thanks for the update.

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

its scope

Narrow in scope

From foxnews

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 saw the headline on both CNN and pmsnbc

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!

I actually wasn’t offering an opinion. I was pointing out what the word, “narrow” meant in the context it was written.

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?

NY ... was the baker’s right to refuse upheld?

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?

NY ... who prevailed in the case?

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?

NY ... and how many of the four leftist activist judges voted with the majority?

You don’t understand what I am trying to say

NY ... I understand how desperately you’re attempting to distract from the important reaffirmation of person liberty that was confirmed today.

Even two of the leftist judges had to side with the majority. Only the two lesbians were left to flap in the wind. That’s huge!

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

NY ... and in what way was the case mishandled at the state level? Was it the religious persecution of the biased arbitration board?

This particular Baker still does not know what would happen if he repeated the same thing and was sued

@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

“Case”, not “cakes”

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.

NY ... why do you suppose that these militant deviants don’t go to Dearborn, Michigan and demand that a Muslim baker bake their “wedding” cake?

Why do you think they only chose to target Christians for their religious persecution?

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.