It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views.
originally posted by: luthier
I tend to agree with this concept but on the same hand find it a slippery situation. Can I not serve a liberal, a black, a trump supporter? Ultimately I feel it is freedom but on the other hand moronic business practice.
Also why would you force someone to serve you if they are biased towards you? Write an article explaining the situation and let the public decide, lots of people know gay people or have relatives so maybe they would choose to do business elsewhere.
I think maybe a religious business classification would be good. People can know upfront when applying for the job or services if these people don't serve certain people or want to give their gay partners Healthcare.
To me those are bizarre concepts but I don't like the idea of thought police either.
originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: howtonhawky
Do you know what Narrow means? 7-2 is not a narrow Victory... The Supreme Court ruled overwhelmingly for the baker.
originally posted by: mikell
Yup you don't have to serve a conservative in your bar in NY so whats the difference.
originally posted by: olaru12
If someone comes into my shop wearing brown shoes, they will politely be asked to leave, and if they don't, I'll sic the dog on em.... I don't need a reason, it's my store, I pay the rent, bills, taxes etc.
originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: howtonhawky
The article title is wrong, 7 out of 9 judges agreeing with the baker, is not a win by a narrow margin.
Do you remember the TV show 'Cake Boss'. On several episodes they denied baking cakes that were sex organs and the like.
The big picture is that no one should be forced to do something they do not agree with, unless they are hired by someone else and they do not quit. We are each unique and make the rules for ourselves.
eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions