Early summaries of the decision indicate that the Colorado commission that enforces the law was prejudiced in their approach to this particular incident, and it's not overturning the Colorado law.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
USA Today started with "A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple."

My guess is the editor was crying while writing the headline.

I mean when you are an editor writing to a 5th grade reading level and the only reason your newspaper is afloat is hotels buy it for each of their guests, who in turn use it to fill up their waste baskets... you'd be crying too.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JALLEN

Still a narrow ruling in my mind if it's based on religion-only.

Point missed!
Colorado can make this baker bake a cake if they keep their mouths shut about his religious objections.

Colorado took the position that the customer determines the message. However, they took the opposite position when they ruled for the baker in cases where an anti-gay message was requested.

It seems Colorado is stuck. The baker can't say "No" and, at the same time, the baker can say "No." I wonder what would happen if one of the anti-gay cake cases comes up again.

As memory serves, the baker in this case was willing to sell any cake in the store, and to put the inscription what they wanted on it. He drew the line as the request was to design and create the wedding cake from the beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by hile:
I am happy to see Kagan siding with the majority here. I'm honestly surprised Sotomayor did not. I wasn't surprised when I saw that Ginsburg authored the dissent.

Sotomayor and Ginsberg were easy to guess then I heard 7-2. Very easy.

A yet on a side note > you can COUNT on the drive by media and libs saying if you agree with the decision >>> YOU HATE GAYS.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Point missed!

Colorado can make this baker bake a cake if they keep their mouths shut about his religious objections.

If the baker refuses based solely on religious grounds, how could Colorado, or any other government entity, keep its mouth shut about his religious objections?



.

They need to keep their mouths shut about their objections to his objections.

Narrowly decided, but perhaps a “shot across the bow” to government entities to refrain from statements and behavior that are overtly anti-religious liberty. That would be very good.

JUSTICE for the Christian Cake Baker! Supreme Court Rules Colorado Was Unfair and Hostile

Townhall.com
Marina Medvin

A bakery owned by a devout Christian, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd, owned by Jack Phillips, was sued by a gay couple that intentionally targeted this business due to the owner’s religious beliefs.

Back in 2012, a gay couple asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd to bake them a cake for their gay wedding. Jack Phillips, the baker, advised them that he cannot do that because gay marriage conflicts with his religious beliefs and that he felt that baking the cake is a type of endorsement. Instead, he offered to sell the gay couple any pre-prepared goods from his bakery.

The couple anticipated this answer, as the baker was known for this practice. They sued him, asking the government to force the baker to bake their cake.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission agreed with the gay couple. And they did more than that. They publicly mocked Christianity and the baker. They showed complete lack of impartiality and an unquestionable bias.

Colorado Civil Rights Commission at one point called Christianity “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” The Commission simultaneously favored the homosexual beliefs of the gay couple. Phillips was entitled to neutral and respectful consideration, which he did not receive.

Six years after the initial incident, the Supreme Court has finally ruled in favor of the baker and chastised the Commission for their unquestionable bias.

The Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, explains that the baker’s freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are protected by the First Amendment and that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was constitutionally required to consider the case with religious neutrality but failed to do so.

“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote, as he reversed the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

“To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.” But the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not fairy review Phillips’ position. They were unfair to the Christian, publicly hostile to him and the religion, and biased in favor of the gay couple, Kennedy explained.

Important to take away from this decision is that the court recognized the legal interests of the gay couple and stated that businesses cannot deny selling all goods and services to protected groups.

“… if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

Phillips’ case is different, Kennedy wrote, because he was asked to use “his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation,” which is narrower in scope and specifically invokes the First Amendment.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, both Christians and gays received protection from the Court for their beliefs. This decision was fair and balanced in its analysis, protective of all.

Freedom of speech, freedom of sexuality, and freedom of religion remain protected in America.

Link

that is awesome news...

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
USA Today started with "A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple."

My guess is the editor was crying while writing the headline.

I mean when you are an editor writing to a 5th grade reading level and the only reason your newspaper is afloat is hotels buy it for each of their guests, who in turn use it to fill up their waste baskets... you'd be crying too.

7-2 is divided? how about 8-1 or 9-0

USA - the toilet paper of newspapers

and yes, that's sometimes unfair to the toilet

Any chance that the Colorado civil rights commission will see some disciplinary action, personnel retraining, further over sight?
It seems to be pretty common for these commissions to operate as though on a crusade for progressiveness, and although often wrong I have yet to see any repercussions for ruining people's lives.

How would this decision apply/not apply to a vaguely analogous situation of not wanting to rent an apartment to a gay couple ?

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise
Clause.

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."


Link to decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...7pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

I read through the whole thread up to this point. I need help understanding.

The baker won his case because of the demonstrated bias of the commission and not because the baker has the right of free speech or religion???

I thought the baker's argument was his right to free speech?

This is a good decision that the baker won but this isn't a very good decision because it was based on the commission's actions?

Are you saying this doesn't protect any other baker, let alone wedding photographers especially if the local commission keep silent about their prejudices? How about churches that rent out their buildings for weddings?

I'm confused.

Thank you for the clarification. I mistook the concurring opinion in the brief. Breyer should still retire

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Kagan & Breyer were the two in dissent. Kagan should’ve recused herself due to her “orientation”and Breyer? Just retire...

KENNEDY, J.,delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C. J.,and BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined.

GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO,J., joined.

THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.

GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Multibillion dollar marketing opportunity:

Some national bakery chain needs to market little rainbow-frosting cupcakes, called "Gay Cakes".

How about "Gay Twinkies" ? LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise
Clause.

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."


Link to decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...7pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

I read through the whole thread up to this point. I need help understanding.

The baker won his case because of the demonstrated bias of the commission and not because the baker has the right of free speech or religion???

I thought the baker's argument was his right to free speech?

This is a good decision that the baker won but this isn't a very good decision because it was based on the commission's actions?

Are you saying this doesn't protect any other baker, let alone wedding photographers especially if the local commission keep silent about their prejudices? How about churches that rent out their buildings for weddings?

I'm confused.

Your analysis is correct. This is actually a very weak and narrow decision. It is a victory for the bakery in this case, but I wouldn't call it a victory for the First Amendment (speech or religion).

As they usually do, the justices decided the case on the narrowest possible grounds and avoided dealing with the difficult constitutional questions. That's just how they work.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
As they usually do, the justices decided the case on the narrowest possible grounds and avoided dealing with the difficult constitutional questions. That's just how they work.

Better they take this route rather than being open to accusations of writing their own laws. That would be, and has been, way too progressive. I'm guessing they didn't think this was worthy of being called a constitutional question, so we'll have to wait for a cleaner case.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
How would this decision apply/not apply to a vaguely analogous situation of not wanting to rent an apartment to a gay couple ?

I think they went out of their way not to give any guidance on that topic, which is why some are calling this a 'narrow' decision.

The baker didn’t bake the cake, and does not have to comply with the Colorado Civil Rights order to monitoring, training, reporting etc. They can’t make him because of the commission’s expressed hostility to his religious views.

Kind of like Trump’s comments about Muslims are clouding the immigration policy.

I expect this baker will now be the target of vile hatred from those who preach tolerance, if he hasn't already.

Tolerance

Of course he got a full does of leftist tolerance some time ago.