but it can be used to sort out the Christian haters from those who actually suffer some loss from not having their wedding cakes baked.
A full reading of the opinion basically reinforces that bakers in states with public accommodation laws that protect same-sex couples cannot refuse to bake wedding cakes for those couples if they would bake a cake for a hetero couple’s wedding (not accounting for differences in messaging). The state, however, must not violate neutrality in order to rule in this manner. This decision more or less gives them a playbook on how to go about these cases.
apparently the SCOTUS believes it was about bigotry against religion.
It’s the law of the land. Live with it, Lib.
2 Likes
and if the SCOTUS finds that the next cake baker was targeted -even by the supposedly offended couple - for his religion, today’s ruling is relevant.
The couple’s reasoning has no bearing on the case. The only thing that matters is the state’s neutral application of public accommodation laws.
Should there be laws against being a bigot?
You’ll find those difficult to enforce.
so you say.
If the state is aware - or should be aware from due diligence - of the couple’s intent to harm or coerce the cake baker instead of taking advantage of other providers, then the state has an obligation to call out the bigotry against the religion by the couple. If the state does not do that, well buddy… we are smack dab in the center of this case.
It’s actually not the law of the land.
They didn’t make a general ruling about public compaction laws…they simply said Colorado’s commissioners didn’t act to apply them in a neutral fashion.
and THAT is the law.
So all a cake baker has to do is show that the state was hostile… or negligent in identifying the REAL reason that cake baker was chosen, namely punishment for one’s religious beliefs… then this ruling applies. It is the law of the land.
That’s what I got from it too. They hammered the Commission.
libs twist and bend and contort to try to say they won this case.
sorry libs. seven to two.
That has not been determined. You probably will need a completely new case for that one. This ruling was about the government’s behavior.
you apparently didn’t get a vote. But Ginsburg represented you. So eat your peas.
so was my post.
Just like a Jewish person should not be force to bake a Nazi cake.
Not a relevant scenario.
1 Like
.>
What Gresham bakery was that? We know it wasn’t Sweetcakes by Melissa, the reason for their closing their storefront was lack of customer when people stopped buying their product. As a matter of fact the attorney’s for Sweetcakes is the Alliance Defending Freedeom who doesn’t charge for their work in taking the case.
Oh - and they made a profit in the case raising over $500,000 in go-fund me like sites with a fine of $130,000. That’s $470,000 profit.
.>>>>
with reference to the thread focused on evolution…
It does not seem to have impeded our development. And it has even been instrumental in preserving - if not outright invention- of the methods by which atheists can propagate their views to others. The first book produced with movable type was not some atheist philosophy book. And you will find no shortage of hospitals and universities started under religious benefactors too.
unlike the implication in some post someone sent me in the past few days… religion is not a dead weight on man’s development.
That’s because the court didn’t decide the issue, they reversed because of bias by the CO Civil Rights Division.
This was a narrow ruling.
.>>>>
why not? The hostility of gay activists against fundamentalist Christians is well known and - if one has a team of lawyers - could be documented and proven in court.
