Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

www.reuters.com...

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.

Bake me a cake as fast as you can

So it is settled but it is not settled.

This opens up the courts to many possible scenarios that we will either have to work out for ourselves or wait another 5 yrs for more rulings and such.

Good. And if a muslim baker doesnt want to make a jeezus cake then thats ok too. This was a pub stunt in the 1st place and just wastes court time and money....plus needlessly ruins a persons life. a reply to: howtonhawky

a reply to: lakenheath24

It seems fairly simple.

No bake no pay

there is always someone needing pay and can do good job

IMO These this couple is guilty of attempted rape of our system

I am glad that the courts decided this way. I do respect the rights of people who are gay or transectional, but that does not mean I should have to bend over backwards to take their work if I am already booked up with work. This anti-discrimination is being abused in our society. It is dividing the people of this country, you do not have to be with us or against us, that does not apply. I have turned down lots of pushy people who wanted me to work for them, A gay person could say I was discriminating against them for being gay when in fact I don't like working for pushy people. When someone comes up and says they want something done and want it their way, I just did not write them an estimate if it did not meet my work standards or material standards. I tried hard not to put substandard materials into my building projects. Now, some of these people could sue me saying I was discriminating against them because they had different preferences. I discriminate against Jerks.

There's some confusion about them calling it a "narrow" ruling when it was 7-2. Apparently they meant the ruling is narrow in scope, because you can only use this religious objection to service in very specific circumstances. Still, sloppy wording by AP. A lot of people read that as it was a close vote. It wasn't. Just another # up in the rush to put something out as fast as possible without worrying about accuracy or intent.

a reply to: face23785

i agree
it creates a very interesting path foward

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.

Good
Even liberals Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan agreed that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was showing an unacceptable anti-religious bias. It may be a "narrow" ruling, but it wasn't a close one at all.

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.

It's a slippery slope either way they ruled. But keep in mind, they didn't rule that you can just blanket discriminate against anyone for any reason. If that same couple comes in and wants a cake for a birthday party, he's gonna have to bake it.

I look at it as the lesser of two offenses. Either way someone is being violated. If you force him to bake the cake, his religious freedom is violated, and he has no recourse. If he doesn't bake it, yeah they were discriminated against, but they can go get the cake somewhere else and still get married. One is a pretty final violation of your rights, the other one is just a minor inconvenience, like you say you can just say okay that guy's an asshole and go somewhere else.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I don't know if it's a religious bias. I think generally we don't want a society where people are shunning each other for who they are. Where does it end? Liberals and conservatives stop serving each other. We start wearing scarlet letters?

I get it and agree with the ruling but also find it absurd. But that doesn't matter I don't want to control people because they appear silly to me.

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.

a reply to: face23785

I get that. But can a scientologist not bake a psychiatrist a wedding cake?

Again I get it and agree with the ruling. Just disappointed in humanity. Frankly both parties in this case.

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.

Yup you don't have to serve a conservative in your bar in NY so whats the difference.

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: 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.

lol yep

it is narrow in scope because the ruling gives no guidelines for future rulings unless future cases are exactly the same as this one.

Meaning many may now try to discriminate and claim religion

originally posted by: mikell
Yup you don't have to serve a conservative in your bar in NY so whats the difference.

i am not sure if the scotus would agree

no religion is involved and no outline givin for future cases so it would have to be ruled on in a higher court

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.

really i do not know if that is legal.

if you sell epipens and are the only source for miles and miles then you may get your ass raided

this is why scotus steered away from giving parameters in this ruling

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.

there are always extenuating circumstances and our society loves to make the exception the new rule...

eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions

a reply to: howtonhawky

eta the win is narrow cause not much can be garnered from this ruling other than religious exceptions

It's a sin to wear brown shoes and I don't want my other customers or employees exposed to this heresy. btw, I don't have to explain my religious beliefs to you or anyone else.