Supreme Court rules in favor of Petitioner Masterpiece Cakeshop

No no and no.

Not at all.

you can say no but the opinion is clear.

Cakeshop was not given a fair hearing in colorado.


The margin is surprising. I thought it would be 5-4. Looks like 2 of the libs put aside their personal bias for a change.

Put a brave face on it if it makes you feel better. :laughing:

see a narrow opinion.


Actually, Kagan doesn’t have a bias on this issue She is known to support a position that the laws should not favor or disfavor religion.

I find that very surprising.

LOL. The State just needs to fix its anti discrimination law.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:too funny.

Under what context is the decision “narrow”. Does 7-2 classify as narrow?

Narrow refers to the legal reasoning, not the number of Justices.

Many 9 to 0 rulings are narrow.

1 Like

Bad person rewarded for being a bad person.

Clay V United States was extremely narrow and decided 8-0


i quickly read the decison
the decision says the bakery wasnt given a fair hearing and that some commissioners openly disparaged the bakeries religion.

One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs

another said I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimi-nation throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.

thats the reason the decision was overturned. and it appears to really only apply in this case not as a general precedent

1 Like

TIL. So in order words, to prevent future cases from relying heavily on this decision as precedence when the fact pattern varies wildly.

I do suggest that Colorado considering sacking the current commissioners and find commissioners who can act with a proper neutrality to religion. It is the behavior of the commissioners towards Mr. Philips that led to this decision today.


Religion is a shield for bigotry, so there is no acting neutral towards religion.

They’re all narrow decisions since half the SC are freaking Unconstitutional liberals!! And libs only bring it up when the narrow decision goes against them otherwise its “the letter of the law” and those that disagree can just shut up. In this particular case its “back at you” :roll_eyes:

1 Like

Right, needs to replace all commissioners and replace them with religious neutral commissioners
and rehear the case.