SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker

[Clocker]

Wow, we still have some free speech in this country. The court ruled that "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

https://pjmedia.com/trending/breakin...ing-cake-case/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Wow, we still have some free speech in this country. The court ruled that "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

There cannot be true religious freedom whenever a person cannot, in good conscience, practice his faith in accordance with his objective Faith's long held traditions. I have never seen this as a free speech issue nearly as much as it is religious freedom issue.

[Tom]

Let them eat cake~!

If they can find a baker.

Win-Win.
No one should be forced to serve a product they find outside their beliefs.
And There are more than one bakery - go elsewhere.

No one's rights get violated.

The left will be mobilizing today.
Just as long as they BTOHH. (Bring their own Ho Hos)

[JustRalph]

The judges screwed it all up. The case sets no precedent in their ruling except one.

If you have to make the cake for the customer, then you have 1st Amend. Rights not to do it

If it’s a pre made cake, you gotta sell it to them.

That’s the way I read it

[Greyfox]

Thankfully the Supreme Court showed it still has wisdom and sanity with that decision.

[biggestal99]

Narrow ruling,

Here is what some of the opinion contained.

“Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

LOL. Gays can still be protected from discrimination.

Allan

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

If it’s a pre made cake, you gotta sell it to them.

How many conservative bakers have a pre-made gay wedding cake sitting in the shop?

The ruling is narrow, but a step in the right direction, as it recognized the state board ruling as being hostile to religious beliefs. Future cases can expand on that concept.

[Marshall Bennett]

Wonder if this means Gays will march in cake costumes?
Btw...just what does a gay cake look like?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

Wonder if this means Gays will march in cake costumes?
Btw...just what does a gay cake look like?

It looks the same as any other except it has a fruity flavor.

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Narrow ruling

The ruling was 7-2

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by wisconsin

The ruling was 7-2

Narrow refers to the scope of the finding, not to the vote. More on this at the end of the article cited in the OP.

[boxcar]

Illuminating article by the Christian Post. Here are several excerpts.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips on Monday in overwhelming fashion, saying that the state government's hostility towards his refusal to make a same-sex wedding cake violated the U.S. Constitution.

This seemed to be the key issue in this case and the reason why the SC ruled in the baker's favor. The leftists on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were openly hostile toward this Christian and the convictions of his Faith. In fact, they were so hostile they all but said that religious people aren't welcome to participate in Colorado commerce. (See below.)

"While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

The court reasoned that Phillips use of his artistic abilities to make a wedding cake carries a "significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs."

"His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor," the ruling explained. "Given the State's position at the time, there is some force to Phillips' argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful."

The court points out that Colorado law at the time gave the storekeepers "some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive."

The state flip-flopped on its position. Once gay marriage became law, it did a 180-degree turnaround.

... The opinion states that the commission showed a "clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."

"At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado's business community," the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy states. "One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe 'what he wants to believe,' but cannot act on his religious beliefs 'if he decides to do business in the state.'"

The opinion even stated that the "commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips' invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust."

"This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's antidiscrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation," the opinion states.

The court also stated that more evidence of "hostility" towards Phillips was shown by the fact that he received "different treatment" than that of the bakers with objections to making cakes that were deemed to have "anti-gay" messages.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/s...rce=newsletter

This open, shameless, unabashed hostility toward the baker goes to the heart of why I have long considered this case to be more about religious freedom than free speech -- although, obviously, both are closely connected. One Colorado commissioner even said straight up that the baker cannot act on his religious beliefs in Colorado. In other words, the baker cannot freely practice his religion upon which those beliefs are grounded.

This case is another classic example of leftist hypocrisy. The Left preaches incessantly about the practice of tolerance - yet, they had zero tolerance for this Christian businessman.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This case is another classic example of leftist hypocrisy. The Left preaches incessantly about the practice of tolerance - yet, they had zero tolerance for this Christian businessman.

They preach tolerance as long as you think exactly like them, liberal and hypocrite are two words that seem to be inseparable these days.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

They preach tolerance as long as you think exactly like them, liberal and hypocrite are two words that seem to be inseparable these days.

All but synonymous and redundant, I'd say.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

It looks the same as any other except it has a fruity flavor.

I gotta tell ya......I laughed really hard at that.......

And I’m a little embarrassed.......