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

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.

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...

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.

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.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

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.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

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.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

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.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

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. :ohplease

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

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

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

There is no solution, no "middle ground" that will work to satisfy everyone.

The only thing that matters in the end is that God's Truth is promoted. The farmer doesn't worry about being "fair" to the chaff. "Oh, but what if the chaff gangs up on his wheat and turns the tables?" Well, must have been because the farmer wasn't paying attention to the state of his crops...

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

amen :nod

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

I have to share my thoughts on this because I have mixed feelings.

First, I don't believe any non-profit church or religious 501(c) organization should be forced to participate in or facilitate anything that goes against their religious beliefs. Not under any circumstance.

However, if one is incorporated as a for profit business LLC that serves the general public, I'm hard pressed to justify any form of discrimination based on civil statutes governing discrimination. Imagine if your favorite "Christian" bakery refused to sell you a wedding cake because you're Apostolic, and they "don't do cult weddings". Why is your money not good enough to purchase your favorite kind of cake for your wedding simply based upon your religion? Where is your right to do business with legal tender in a free market? Should they be able to deny you that right, based only on your religion?

Now, if the bakery was a business that catered strictly to private and registered "Christian" members who subscribe to their goods and services, I can see them having a right to turn away anyone based on not being "members" holding Christian principles.

To not enforce some standard of non-discrimination, as it relates to businesses that serve the general public, could open a Pandora's box of everyone discriminating against everyone else over various religious convictions or individual convictions relating to religion.

http://starecat.com/content/wp-conte...er-9-clerk.jpg

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

It's pride month here at work, and in the monthly newsletter there are pics of girly looking guys and butch looking girls, I'm wondering when it's going to be Christian appreciation month.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

lol

You mean a sinful world is acting like... a sinful world? My stars! LOL

Let it go. Don't let anything disturb your peace. The world will be the world. Just focus on being a loving light to a lost world desperately looking for love in all the wrong places.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

No. I wasn't being sarcastic in the examples Isited. Those are just the three most egregious practices of religion that I could think of that must remain outlawed for the good of our society.

If I try hard, I can thinK of more exampled AND none of the examples I listed are far-fetched.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

I am not looking for government to protect my religion, but by God's Grace, we live here and we are free. I do think there is a place for government to protect our human society from destructive and immoral religious practices.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

I do agree with you on that, perhaps my nearly ancap view can be a little restraining. I think we need to be careful with statements like ...."protect our human society from destructive an immoral religious practices"....
There are sheep that think we are destructive and immoral. The snowflakes we mock now, may be in power shortly. Hand them too much...and its off with our heads. They do seem to exibit an odd procivity to cog-dis....in that they will scream for the rights of some that toss gays off a roof, but will grill a christian baker in his own over for a refusal of service.
For this reason I seek as little law, and as little gooberment as is absolutely neccessary- allowing the non- agression principle as the primary directive for governance.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Here's the thing, if they had come in to buy a pre-made cake and just decorated it themselves, there wouldn't have been an issue. That they wanted a new cake made to their exact specifications, means they're asking the owner of the business to use their artistic talent, in order to make something that celebrates a lifestyle which is in direct opposition to said owners beliefs.

Imagine going to a Muslim or Jewish bakery and asking them to make a cake with a pig on the top, and writing "I love bacon" around it. Shouldn't they have the right to refuse that, due to their dietary and religious beliefs? This case is no different. They weren't asking them to just sell them a cake, they were asking an artist to use their talents in violation of their beliefs. That's why this is wrong.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

We choose how to look at things. It's a choice. Don't let anyone tell you how you must view or respond to life. Me personally, I'd sell them the cake. As a Christian baker, I'd strive to make them the best cake ever. An example of Christian craftsmanship. I'd show them love and human to human respect. Yet all the while I was making it, I'd pray that God move in their lives and do what He must to help them change their direction in life. I might even weep for their souls while decorating it. I'd not feel it was a celebration of their lifestyle. I'd see it as my service to the lost. I might even invite them to church.

Jesus was a carpenter. It wouldn't be unimaginable to think that at some point the Romans contracted Him to make crosses.

Remember when being a Christian was more than being political? More than a protest, an outrage, a social agenda? Why do Christian business owners choose to identify their businesses as "Christian"? It used to be to express their desire to serve the community with excellence, tenderness, and grace. Now, it's almost like the business is merely a means to serve self and one's politics. We're actually allowing our politics to become our religion.

If a Muslim or Jewish baker did the same, I'd feel the same. A cake celebrating pork? It's not pork. It's just a cake. They are paying for the expression, they will own it, not the baker. It's not being made as a favor, or on account of the baker's desire in any way. It's business. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake with a swine on it, limit designs, no specialty cakes. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a sinful weddings, they can choose not to do any wedding cakes. One can stick to convictions without descrimination.

Where does it end? A medic refusing to do CPR on a gay man because such are worthy of death?

We're a society. We're America. There has to be some measure of common sense and civility, or our society will only continue to fracture until we crumble into civil chaos.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Leave it to Aquila to jump to the highest levels of hyperbole, in order to stretch his "point" until it breaks from reality. :ohplease

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Yep.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Thing is, what he is talking about wouldn't be that far of a stretch from reality if we did have a Constitution and a system of laws intended to govern a PLURALISTIC society.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

I can agree with the sentiment, just not the idea there should be a law for it.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

It is a stretch, when I'm talking about artistic expression and he jumps straight to homicide. :foottap :smack

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

It can happen and this is why we need a balanced system of laws so that basic human dignity is protected and immoralities committed in the name of religion are stymied.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

There's already laws against homicide! Why do we need yet more laws? What is with the left and wanting more and more laws, when we already have laws that deal with the problems which often aren't enforced currently anyway?!

You also keep skipping over the hyperbolic jump from artistry to homicide. :smack

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

The question was, where does it end?

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

I only went to the extreme after asking, where does it end?

Where is the line?

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Besides, aren't wedding cakes originally based on a "pagan" practice? LOL

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

No, I think you went to the extreme when you talked about eating cheerios naked with your not-wife. :smack

This was you being hyperbolic and not even addressing the very issue I brought up. Like a typical leftist, you want to control the dialogue and the narrative, and don't want to address a comment that actually contains a valid counter-point to yours.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

The SCOTUS gave us a little hint of how they might rule in a "fair" case.
However, they took the easy way out which was provided for them by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The hint came in where they were talking about compelled speech. If the store was selling tires, which were already made and just waiting to be sold, then there would have been no reason (except for discrimination) to withhold the sale/service.
However, since the cake was still to be made and it would be uniquely created, it would be compelled speech to force Jack to do something against his religious code.
Sort of like hiring a group of Orthodox Jewish Musicians and forcing them to sing Christian Songs.
I would suggest all of you go and read the SCOTUS transcript of this case.
It is not that long and is rather interesting.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

It's not just homicide with which we have to be concerned about-- but will you please explain again your "artistry" slant?

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. "Anarcho capitalism" is a form of idolatry, as it seeks to dethrone God from His rightful place as Supreme Magistrate over all others. King of kings and Lord of lords, and all that.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

*sigh*

Gee, I'm so glad people take time to read a thread before responding.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Aaaaaand…. you just went personal. This forum needs to be regulated, I mean, where's the admin? I pray you do know, more people down through history have been married without a statist marriage license than with one. So, I guess me and my "non-wife" are in good company. :thumbsup

Of course, statists like you typically think the state must legislate every human decision known to man...unless it gives you the power to discriminate.

And I've provided plenty of links, references, etc. pointing to this growing trend in conservatism. Of course, you don't believe God alone unites a man and woman. You believe He needs Caesar to unite a man and woman. That's what these conservatives are standing against.

Ummmm… go back and read my responses. I shared my concerns with what you posted. I only asked, where does it end? Aaaaannnnd…. you still refusing to answer, in addition to going personal.

And no matter how logical any question is asked from this point, you'll obsess over eating breakfast naked and a hyperbolic statement to keep from having to have actual dialogue.

I expected you to laugh at my question about a medic refusing to treat a gay person, and then answer the question. Not go personal.

I think if I ever own a business... no Apostolics will be served because you guys have become utterly offensive to my sensibilities. You guys have turned the entire movement into a den of vipers where friendly conversation of differing views cannot be had. I took a few days away from this place and talked with rational people. Not all agreed with me, but they were far friendlier than so many here. I think I'll leave for another few days. No biggie. I'm weening myself off this place. No decent conversation can be had anyway.

Oh well, I expected a rational conversation. I was wrong again.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9nldpbRjX1qesugk.gif

https://media3.giphy.com/media/TQg9Yt3rpzjP2/200.gif

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Yep, clearly you've become the very example of balanced maturity in adult discussion.


https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKW...MZi/source.gif

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

A - I think you are responding because you feel you were personally attacked.
And it is a little over the top response.
Well, no, it is a lot over the top.
Sort of like the "shaking the dust of this forum off my feet" response.

Re: SCOTUS Rulings
 

Irony: Dude "going personal" right after complaining about someone "going personal" against him.