|
Tab Menu 1
The Newsroom FYI: News & Current Events, Political Discussions, etc. |
|
|
06-04-2018, 10:20 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
|
|
SCOTUS Rulings
The only thing I like about June is helping with VBS at church and reviewing SCOTUS rulings.
Mixed news today: "BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple for religious reasons."
While the vote was not close (7-2), the ruling was pretty narrow. SCOTUS ruled, ironically, that the CO civil rights commission violated the rights of the baker. However, the SCOTUS did not rule on the issue of the Baker's free speech or religious rights.
The ruling basically was due to the SCOTUS belief that the CO civil rights commission "showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."
"As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust."
"For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."
Here's where the next Christian baker may fail to win a SCOTUS case, if another is brought. The last part is important.
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
So this was a very narrow ruling. The SCOTUS did not side with the baker in that his religious beliefs allow him to refuse to serve gays. It appears the only reason SCOTUS sided with the baker is because the CO court and civil rights commission was overtly hostile to the baker's religious beliefs.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-111_j4el.pdf
Last edited by n david; 06-04-2018 at 10:23 AM.
|
06-04-2018, 10:21 AM
|
|
Not riding the train
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,541
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
I just added this to Esaias thread, but glad you posted this. I have been following this story and am glad for the outcome.
__________________
|
06-04-2018, 10:33 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 938
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Glad that the baker won, but the SCOTUS had to be sure to walk a tight rope. Can you imagine the can of worms that could be opened if SCOTUS did not include language that protects the rights of all citizens to participate in the free market? While we all enjoy religious freedoms, even those freedoms are tempered with the rule of law in order to keep our society from denigrating into all sorts of other forms of immorality. Think about the polygamous Mormons...
Last edited by BuckeyeBukaroo; 06-04-2018 at 10:42 AM.
|
06-04-2018, 10:42 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Gays shouldn't be mad at this ruling. If anything, they should be happy for Justice Kennedy's opinion and the statement included: "while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
This was a ruling based solely on how the baker was treated by the CO civil rights commission, not on whether or not the baker had a religious right to refuse service to gays.
|
06-04-2018, 10:46 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 938
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Think about the polygamous Mormons, the animal sacrificing pagans, the religious belief systems that would advocate violence (Islam)... there MUST be restraints on religious freedom in order to preserve order and for the common good of all citizens.
Last edited by BuckeyeBukaroo; 06-04-2018 at 10:54 AM.
|
06-04-2018, 11:07 AM
|
|
Not riding the train
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,541
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
Gays shouldn't be mad at this ruling. If anything, they should be happy for Justice Kennedy's opinion and the statement included: "while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
This was a ruling based solely on how the baker was treated by the CO civil rights commission, not on whether or not the baker had a religious right to refuse service to gays.
|
I am happy as I wondered how in the world the CO Civil Rights Commission could treat the Baker the way that they did. Big win!
It is a fine line that will have more litigation ahead.
__________________
|
06-04-2018, 11:11 AM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
I am happy as I wondered how in the world the CO Civil Rights Commission could treat the Baker the way that they did. Big win!
It is a fine line that will have more litigation ahead.
|
I hadn't followed this much, but when I read about the comments from the commission, it really blew me away. Had they not been so biased and hateful against the religious beliefs of the baker, I doubt SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of the baker.
|
06-04-2018, 11:53 AM
|
|
Not riding the train
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,541
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
I hadn't followed this much, but when I read about the comments from the commission, it really blew me away. Had they not been so biased and hateful against the religious beliefs of the baker, I doubt SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of the baker.
|
They were just hateful. Anyway, it is going to be a fine line between the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment. I see a lot of litigation still to come.
You can follow Alliance for Justice if you are on Twitter. They are reviewing the ruling and will post their view with a link on Twitter, more than likely.
Quote:
AFJ: Cakeshop Ruling Makes It “More Important than Ever” to Fight Discrimination
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 4, 2018 – Following today’s 7 to 2 Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the Court ruled narrowly for the bakery that refused to serve a same-sex couple, AFJ President Nan Aron released the following statement:
“Although this ruling is disappointing, it is important to remember that it is based on circumstances specific to this one case and does nothing to change critical legal rights and protections against discrimination. In fact, we were pleased to see that the rights of LGBTQ people to fair and equal treatment are emphasized in several portions of the ruling. This ruling does not open the door to rampant discrimination as some had feared. What it will most likely do, however, is open the door to extensive litigation aimed at determining how anti-discrimination protections will function in the face of challenges on religious grounds. That’s why it is more important than ever that our laws catch up with our values. We must defend and extend anti-discrimination protections so all of us can take our rightful place as full participants in our society.”
https://www.afj.org/
|
__________________
Last edited by Pressing-On; 06-04-2018 at 11:58 AM.
|
06-04-2018, 01:06 PM
|
J.esus i.s t.he o.ne God (463)
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,806
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo
Can you imagine the can of worms that could be opened if SCOTUS did not include language that protects the rights of all citizens to participate in the free market?
|
The issue wasn't with them baking the cake, it was with participating in the ceremony (via decorating the cake for the "wedding"). Why should the baker be forced to give up their rights and religious freedoms, just because they have a business?
Ultimately, this wasn't an attack on this baker, it was an attack on Christianity. Don't believe me? Go check out the Steven Crowder video (normally can't stand the guy, but he does make some good points) where he pretends to be gay and goes around to Muslim bakeries asking them to bake him a gay for his "marriage". Not one of them would do it, and constantly referred him to other places.
Why is it we've never heard of a Muslim bakery getting sued for not baking a cake? A real head scratcher, that is.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist
Sometimes hidden dangers spring on us suddenly. Those are out of our control. But when one can see the danger, and then refuses to arrest , all in the name of "God is in control", they are forfeiting God given, preventive opportunities.
|
|
06-05-2018, 09:06 PM
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 467
|
|
Re: SCOTUS Rulings
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo
Think about the polygamous Mormons, the animal sacrificing pagans, the religious belief systems that would advocate violence (Islam)...
Was this sarcasm? If not please read on....
Specifically to this
....there MUST be restraints on religious freedom in order to preserve order and for the common good of all citizens.
|
There must remain as little restraint on religion as possible. If you are counting on the red, white.and blue to maintain the liberties we have to meet, to express Christ's love and value, to teach our children the way that is narrow, then you place a very precious trust in the hands of some verifiable nutcases. Rome already seems to be rearing an ugly horn from the midst of the EU. This horn will allow any religion that aligns with it, to flourish. All real God fearing thought will be as faint and welcome as actual free speech is on our college campuses already. A few snowflakes amount to some fun and a day off, many for a long time can cause inconvenience, a storm if them with thunder and wind can bring catastrophe. I feel we are at the beginnings of the storm, this pope supports the snowflakes, this cannot bode well for the beleivers in the message of the Apostles- other than to solidify in our minds the fact that prophecy is true.
I dont care if its Wika that refuse to bake cakes, they deserve the right. Not because of any of any agreement with them, but because they are (wrong or not) a religion. A beleif system that beleives in a higher power. It was protected under the original negative rights assigned to gooberment as fences where it should not infringe.
I sincerly beleive that unless a great many are worn out by the continual whinning from our fringe of leftest victimization of literally everyone except good hard working, and God fearing folk. Then it is likely infringement will begin with those they see as marginal, and a threat. If they go after Wika they think they are a threat. As with many other programs done according to the book of Saul Alinski (spelling might be wrong)...this will appear sound and moderate to those not Wika....Until that is they start on the Baptists.....or more likely on the WPF or UPC, being smaller, seen as fringe organizations. Therefore I disagree with the MUST be restraints
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 AM.
| |