Supreme Court Backs Christian Baker

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-...er-over-gay-142233685.html?.tsrc=bell-brknews

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple​

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. . . .



Score one for normal peoples' rights!

Hopefully the baker can sue the Gay Couple and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for his legal fees.


Moi

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

I wonder which two liberals crossed over.

That is an extremely rare thing for them to do.

 

Not exactly.

The Commission did not take in to account the bakers' religious beliefs, and so the Supremes 7-2 sent the case back to the Commission to reconsider with that factor now added in.

If the Commissions says the bakers can make such decisions based on sin, can they refuse to serve the adulterer, the harlot, the person who worship sinfully at another denomination, etc.

I hope the Commission and the Supremes in the future think this through.

 

I am not a Christian, nor do I play one on TV.

I do believe Christians have rights too!
The court got it right.
Hopefully the commission will too.

 

Then the bakers can refuse to serve non-Christians, based on their sinful rejection of Christianity, Moi621. They can refuse to serve you.

 

Hey, they could refuse me for that too but, you know, that's okay. I'll go down the street to the next bakery if they do. No reason to raise a lot of hell and waste the court's valuable time suing someone when you have many alternatives available. Stop trying to impose yourself on people who want nothing to do with you.

 

The SCOTUS basically kicked the can down the road.

 

Finally a little sanity and concern for individual rights. Enough is enough!

Can you imagine investing and opening a business and then not being able to turn down a customer's demands? What if a gay or black or Arab customer came in and asked to buy a big knife, and he had that weird look in his eyes? Then what?

(I love Rowan Atkinson!)​

 

If they just bought the cake it would have been fine. But they were asking the baker to write something which went against his beliefs. We have to respect people's individual rights, and stop trying to impose our own on others.

 

I'm sue they targeted this man with the intention of harming him and destroying his little business. They didn't really care about the stinking cake they just wanted to drag him into court and ruin him. We've seen it before. All the costs should be ordered paid by the plaintiffs in this case.

 

The two dissenters were Ginsberg and Sotomajor.

"Fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority."

Impeach Ginsburg & Sotomeyer! ​

 

Great. I have no problem with that at all. I tend to stay away from where I an not wanted.

 

Limited ruling citing anti-religious bias in this particular case. Interesting, but nothing life-changing here so far. The Supreme Court did not set any new precedents or provide some kind of sweeping victory or defeat. It maintains that the bakers violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law and that states have the right to enact and enforce such laws, from what I read.

 

That would have to be Breyer and Kagan (who concurred).

 

Worrisome decision in that the Commission might have won had they shown more sympathy to the baker.

But that just means that Kennedy would have voted agains tty baker. At least three of the justices (Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch) might well have gone all the way for the baker on the "First Amendment trumps legislatively created rights, period."

What would you think of a privately owned small hotel in the south that refused to rent the honeymoon suite to a gay couple (assume they specifically wanted it for their honeymoon and said so.) Can the hotelier decline to give them that room? Any room?

 

Their decision was not based on any religious convention,had nothing to do with Christianity.

 

A private business owner should be permitted to make such decisions even if the are dumb.

This decision was a step in the right direction but much more is needed to overturn the ludicrous notion that private business serves the public.

 

They should be able to deny it as they see fit yes.

It is not properly a question of should we let them deny it the question should be how do we justify violating their rights to do so?

 

Eh, I don't know. Scalia, Breyer, and Kagan were quite close on a personal basis and occasionally voted alike. And even Scalia and Ginsburg voted alike on some Fourth Amendment (searches and seizure) cases.

The whole "left versus right" on the court is overstated. Most of their cases aren't sensational and they are unanimous in many of the boring cases (antitrust, commerce clause, taxation. water rights.) It's just in terms of abortion and discrimination cases that they hotly diverge and everybody goes nuts.

 

Define what is normal people. I do not find religious zealots who hide their discrimination behind religion very normal.

 

Well that's YOU.

 

You are misrepresenting the facts. This baker never said be would not sell them or any other gay persons a stupid cake.

 

What was he hiding? He was quite upfront about refusing to design a cake celebrating their marriage.

 

Suppose a gay couple wanted a fun cake cebrating their anniversary and wanted the baker to depict one of them giving "the old in-out" in the posterior of the other?

 

You are right, what were those uppity African Americans doing staying at the Woolworth's counter, they should just stay away from where they are not wanted.

Listen this has nothing to do with religion, it was always about discrimination. If these "Christians" were so devout, do they refuse cakes with special messages for 2nd weddings. Because when you see what the bible states about divorce it is a lot more comprehensive than about homosexuality. There are several versus against divorce, 10 times against anything written about sexuality, but I did not see him refusing cakes for anyone who has been divorced. Its because they are not "Christians", they just hate, and mask it behind religion. I am not gay, I am religious, and I know this is slippery slope of what someone can do now, because they have freedom of religion. Why not let those cult leaders in Utah marry 18 little girls no older than 15, because according to them, they are doing gods will.