Not the best approach here, and not very tolerant.
It was correct ruling after reading it through. And the fact that they keep it narrow as they did was also correct decision.
But it should have been 9/0.
All opinions are not worthy of protection or respect
Who says we need to be tolerant of bigotry
Hereās the crux of the matter and why this decision is narrowly tailored:
The Stateās interest could have
been weighed against Phillipsā sincere religious objections in a way
consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly
observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some
of the commissionersā comments were inconsistent with that requirement,
and the Commissionās disparate consideration of Phillipsā
case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.
Had the commissioners acted in a neutral manner, their decision would have held. Given that, I suspect that now that gay marriage is recognized in Colorado (and in every state), if a baker tries to act in a similar manner that they will not prevail.
2 Likes
Reading Ginsburgās dissent now; will post thoughts once Iām done.
Your putting a lot of people in your box of bigotry. As an atheist myself, I donāt find it very constructive.
4 Likes
Except for the fact that baking a wedding cake doesnāt go against their religious beliefs.
This case is about bigotry. Donāt let people hide
Iāve found over the years that āSomeā people need religion, to have faithā¦itās what keeps them grounded, to prevent themselves from going over the edge.
Stick to narrowly defining who is truly being a bigot and stop putting everyone who believes in their god of choice. Itāll serve your argument much better.
1 Like
Iāve always thought that it was to reconcile mortality. But thatās just my personal opinion.
Where did I use the word respect? You do not have to respect their opinion. You do need to protect peopleās treatment under the law to a fair hearing even when they have unpopular opinions/beliefs. Otherwise itās might makes right.
This case was ruled very specifically. After reading the summary provided, I think it was the good ruling, myself.
Which is the beauty of itā¦youāre allowed to have your opinion and beliefs. 
Wouldnāt have it any other way.
1 Like
No, itās not. Itās about Colorado screwing up a decision by violating neutrality.
After reading Ginsburgās dissent and Kaganās concurrence, I canāt help but to concur as well. Colorado screwed up. From Kaganās concurrence:
The Court limits its analysis to the reasoning of the
state agencies (and Court of Appeals)āāquite apart from
whether the [Phillips and Jack] cases should ultimately be
distinguished.ā Ante, at 15. And the Court itself recognizes
the principle that would properly account for a difference
in result between those cases. Colorado law, the Court says,
ācan protect gay persons, just as it can protect other
classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and
services they choose on the same terms and conditions as
are offered to other members of the public.ā Ante, at 10.
For that reason, Colorado can treat a baker who discriminates
based on sexual orientation differently from a baker
who does not discriminate on that or any other prohibited
ground. But only, as the Court rightly says, if the Stateās
decisions are not infected by religious hostility or bias. I
accordingly concur.
As she says earlier in her concurrence:
In refusing that request, the
bakers did not single out Jack because of his religion, but
instead treated him in the same way they would have
treated anyone elseājust as CADA requires. By contrast,
the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake
that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.
In refusing that request, Phillips contravened CADAās
demand that customers receive āthe full and equal enjoymentā
of public accommodations irrespective of their
sexual orientation. Ibid. The different outcomes in the
Jack cases and the Phillips case could thus have been
justified by a plain reading and neutral application of
Colorado law.
Let freedom ringā¦
1 Like
Itās what happens when goverment isnāt neutral. Government must remain neutral at all times.
No exception.
Ginsburg makes the argument that the commissionās violation of neutrality isnāt a valid basis for refersal because there were other layers in the decision making process. I donāt think she makes a compelling argument because the violation of neutrality taints the entire process.
