SCOTUS makes correct ruling on Colorado baker...
- Thread starter Steven15
- Start date
Just googled it after seeing the TI post
NPR Headline:
In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Decides In Favor Of Baker Over Same-Sex Couple
In the article:
The court ruled by a 7-2 vote
NPR probably thinks Clemson lost a tight game to Vanderbilt last night
NPR Headline:
In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Decides In Favor Of Baker Over Same-Sex Couple
In the article:
The court ruled by a 7-2 vote
NPR probably thinks Clemson lost a tight game to Vanderbilt last night
I probably agree that there shouldn't be a law against it. The baker can do what he wants.
Doesn't change the fact he's a bigot.
Doesn't change the fact he's a bigot.
It's a rather narrow win for the baker based on the specific facts of the case, namely hostile comments from the CO civil rights commission that showed animus toward religion despite the neutral, generally applicable language of the CO law. The case doesn't pronounce a new, broadly available right to refuse service in violation of state civil rights laws.
The narrow holding is why two left leaning Justices joined to make it a 7-2 decision. Given what was at stake in the case (gov compelled expression v equal civil rights), I think the decision produced a reasonable outcome.
The narrow holding is why two left leaning Justices joined to make it a 7-2 decision. Given what was at stake in the case (gov compelled expression v equal civil rights), I think the decision produced a reasonable outcome.
That's not what narrow means in this context. Narrow means the holding is more or less confined to the particular facts of this case.
A bigot or something he believes is wrong? Big difference.
Sort of depends. "I believe that blacks and whites marrying is wrong". "I believe that women aren't capable of being managers". "I believe black people shouldn't be allowed to go to college." Bigotry or just believing something?
Or just strong to his/her religious beliefs? No more of a Bigot than say Obama who makes decisions based on the color of his own skin.
Not an attorney but I think this is correct. In my non lawyer thinking I believe SCOTUS has made a distinction between service that must be provided to anyone who comes into a bakery versus requiring the baker to enter into a contract.
Interesting take, but that's not a distinction SCOTUS drew in this case. The baker won because the Court found the Colorado civil rights commission applied a neutral law with hostility toward religion.
*For the record, I am a lawyer.
My understanding is the Court believes Colorado demonstrated malice towards the baker's religion in their pursuit of the case. Had Colorado only said "our law says that you cannot discriminate in this way against homosexuals and we're taking you to court" we would have had a different sort of ruling from the Supreme Court.
that doesn't mean what you think it means. the decision is "narrow" because it applies to a narrow set of circumstances, not because of the percentage of justices that concurred.
Show me in the Bible where it states blacks and whites marrying is wrong?
Oh so since this is a "sincerely held religious belief", it's immune from being considered bigoted? I guess Radical Islamic Terrorists can't be judged by us because they really really feel that way. And that we shouldn't be critical of the theocratic governments that force women to cover themselves and don't allow them to drive. Or is it really only Christian beliefs that should be sacred?
It is interesting how staunchly Christians are entrenched in this belief yet would likely hardly bat an eye for a 300 pound drunk gorging down tons of Taco Bell. Some consistency would be nice IMO
I can’t comprehend being concerned with what other people are doing with the obvious caveat that it doesn’t harm others .
Democrats will certainly be triggered by this. Another loss for the liberal agenda. Getting very close to gamecock territory.
okay, and what he believes is right is bigoted.
i'm sure white supremacists sincerely believe that what is right is a white ethnostate, but that doesn't make it any less bigoted.
Exactly right. Also, who would want a cake from a place that doesn't want to bake it for you?
Those of who wishing for some attention.
He just did not want to prepare them a cake, comparing the baker to governments that force women to cover themselves is not comparable. This baker just asked that they have someone else prepare the cake.
I appreciate your consistency with being a tool. If you'd read any of the numerous comments in this thread, you'd see that the ruling was very narrow and said that Colorado was not neutral in their application of the law.
Also if you can't figure out the ways "sincerely held religious beliefs" can be used to do things that none of us want, you haven't thought very hard about it. There clearly must be limits to religious exemptions.
No different than being told it is okay imo.
Biggest thing is that HIS business should be allowed to operate as HE sees fit.
Whats next? Government gonna tell Chic-fil-a they have to open on Sunday?
If there was no one else to make the cake would it still have been ok?
EDIT: The OP's implication was that it's ok to have this belief because it's in the Bible and sincerely held. It was not that the baker's behavior was acceptable because he's a baker or that there were other bakers.
Yes. Its not a religious thing to me. Nor is it a race thing. Its freedom to operate as desired.
As a hypothetical, let's say the Mormon church came out and said that all Mormons should refuse service to all non-Mormons in Utah. Utah is now almost uninhabitable to non-Mormons. I appreciate your logical consistency but do you not feel there are some dire practical concerns here?
Can of worms here. What if two dogs want a cake? And both are good boys?
No. It would sort itself out. We both know most businesses will fail if using harsh practices. I say let them fail.
I'm just not big on gov't micromanaging small business practices outside of the tax code.
Didn't the baker sell to several other gays? I think the distinction of making/creating something specifically against ones beliefs and selling is critical.
