Supreme Court Rules in Bakers Favor

[hurleyjd]

Judge Nap says "That the scotus got this wrong and just opened it up for discrimination in every shape and color" paraphrased here.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Judge Nap says "That the scotus got this wrong and just opened it up for discrimination in every shape and color" paraphrased here.

Good.

 

[sstterry]

If you read the Opinion, Concurrences and Dissent, it was much more narrow than it appears. They avoided the most volatile question, which is like Greybeard said, it is a question of Civil Rights v Freedom of Religion. It is clear that the Baker has "sincerely held" religious beliefs and I do not believe he should be forced to use his artistic talents in a way that would violate these beliefs. By the same token, we can't go back to the days of refusing service to people based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The ruling simply says that the Colorado Agency that imposed the fine did not consider his beliefs and in fact at some points mocked them. I agree with the ruling. As to the competing Constitutional protections, I don't have an answer.

As to the Legal Fees, I would be surprised if either of the Parties is paying these. Normally these types of cases are driven by outside groups that are footing the bill.

 

[greybeard]

Judge Nap says "That the scotus got this wrong and just opened it up for discrimination in every shape and color" paraphrased here.

May as well have been judge Judy or Perry Mason......
Let us know when Former judge Nap's media driven opinion and comment has any more sway over the highest court in the land than your's or mine.

 

[greybeard]

Normally these types of cases are driven by outside groups that are footing the bill.

Or nowadays, some type of internet crowd funding...

 

[Son of Butch]

According to the Washington Post, the Washington Capitals stomped Vegas in game 4 of the Stanley Cup last night 6-2.
I guess 7-2 would've narrowed their victory.

 

[Son of Butch]

had the gov't followed the constitution this never would have happened which just proves if it wasn't for the gov't
we wouldn't need them.

lol
well put.

Civil unions yes, gay marriage no. But the obvious correct answer isn't how case law works.
Case law is built on precedent which gradually skews justice from due North to several degrees off either to the
left or right. Once it is tipped it just continues dragging more and more in the direction of the first error.
The next thing you know, you have penguins at the North Pole because you are actually pointed to the South Pole.

 

[Jogeephus]

had the gov't followed the constitution this never would have happened which just proves if it wasn't for the gov't
we wouldn't need them.

lol
well put.

Civil unions yes, gay marriage no. But the obvious correct answer isn't how case law works.
Case law is built on precedent which gradually skews justice from due North to several degrees off either to the
left or right. Once it is tipped it just continues dragging more and more in the direction of the first error.

I agree. IMO, most of the problems we have today have resulted from when the constitution hasn't been followed to the letter. Churchgoers seemed fine when the government began requiring licenses so long as it benefited them through taxation or insurance coverage but once skewed it is no longer equality and this will come back and bite you in many directions.

Though I have my suspicions, I'd like to know why the couple chose that particular baker. Heck, if you watch any of the cooking shows on television finding a homosexual baker wouldn't be hard at all since they normally introduce themselves first by the sexual orientation and then tell where they are from. I guess its similar to being vegan. I don't believe a vegan can go through the day without telling the world.

On a side note, when I got married we hired a fella who was extremely lite in his loafers to decorate and do the floral arrangements. He did a jam up job as I knew he would but I don't know if this was discriminatory of me to hire him and not some straight guy who stood firmly in his loafers? Did I unjustly profile?

 

[Son of Butch]

Yes you did. Shoes have nothing to do with it. The tip off is bakers using the rear entry ovens.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Though I have my suspicions, I'd like to know why the couple chose that particular baker.

He had previously refused to make Halloween cakes because of his beliefs. He had previously refused to bake divorce cakes.

The couple was to be married in Massachusetts. They wanted this cake in Colorado, to transport all the way to MA - does anyone really believe that ? The baker was targeted because of his beliefs and convictions. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that I would buy a WEDDING cake from a private bakery, and transport it over 1700 miles. But that is the case and it has gone on way too long.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Civil unions yes, gay marriage no. But the obvious correct answer isn't how case law works.
Case law is built on precedent which gradually skews justice from due North to several degrees off either to the
left or right. Once it is tipped it just continues dragging more and more in the direction of the first error.
The next thing you know, you have penguins at the North Pole because you are actually pointed to the South Pole.

So why do gay folks get to be denied the right to marry?

According to the constitution:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

Civil unions yes, gay marriage no. But the obvious correct answer isn't how case law works.
Case law is built on precedent which gradually skews justice from due North to several degrees off either to the
left or right. Once it is tipped it just continues dragging more and more in the direction of the first error.
The next thing you know, you have penguins at the North Pole because you are actually pointed to the South Pole.

So why do gay folks get to be denied the right to marry?

According to the constitution:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So I guess we need to throw out all of the gun laws then, since they all interfere, and limit my life, liberty, and property.

 

[M-5]

the constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is binding a woman to a man and the government found a way to tax it. The queers can do what ever they want . Marriage is between a man and woman.

 

[Bestoutwest]

the constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is binding a woman to a man and the government found a way to tax it. The queers can do what ever they want . Marriage is between a man and woman.

The problem is, though, that those who are married are afforded certain rights that those who aren't are denied. That's where the problem lies. I don't care what you call it, make the rights equal and then there wouldn't be a problem. Also, if you were to take away a church's right to be non-profit, you'd solve a lot of the animosity that goes along with denying the right of marriage to one group and not another. I think, after this ruling, that if a church declared itself as "for profit" there wouldn't be much one could do if they decided to deny performing a marriage ceremony b/c it would be based on the grounds of religious freedom. That way, if a pastor felt deeply enough about it to refuse to do it, they'd be OK.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Our pastor won't marry any queers, he might show them his pocket pistol that he carries though.

 

[Jogeephus]

the constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is binding a woman to a man and the government found a way to tax it. The queers can do what ever they want . Marriage is between a man and woman.

The problem is, though, that those who are married are afforded certain rights that those who aren't are denied. That's where the problem lies. I don't care what you call it, make the rights equal and then there wouldn't be a problem. Also, if you were to take away a church's right to be non-profit, you'd solve a lot of the animosity that goes along with denying the right of marriage to one group and not another. I think, after this ruling, that if a church declared itself as "for profit" there wouldn't be much one could do if they decided to deny performing a marriage ceremony b/c it would be based on the grounds of religious freedom. That way, if a pastor felt deeply enough about it to refuse to do it, they'd be OK.

I disagree. Seperation of church and state ruins that argument. What would be simpler is to get the government out of the marriage business. It should be of no concern of theirs whether you are married or not. Not on your taxes, not on your insurance not on anything. Each person is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the government and no special treatment should be afforded anyone. This includes marriage and other things like affirmative action or quotas that give special priviledges to certain people. Is this not in itself discrimination since you are giving an unfair advantage to one group over another?

 

[sim.-ang.king]

Why not leave it up to the states, since they are the one's that write the marriage certificate and collect the tax?
Which if I remember correctly a near majority of states didn't consisder gay marriage as a legitimate form of marriage.
They also have the right under the 10th amendment to do so.

Oburgerfell was a over reach by the federal government, and the states should have never followed the courts decision.

 

[greybeard]

Also, if you were to take away a church's right to be non-profit, you'd solve a lot of the animosity that goes along with denying the right of marriage to one group and not another.

I have zero animosity regarding this..none, nada, never have either.
Why is there animosity over this and from who exactly, does it come from?

 

[Bestoutwest]

the constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is binding a woman to a man and the government found a way to tax it. The queers can do what ever they want . Marriage is between a man and woman.

The problem is, though, that those who are married are afforded certain rights that those who aren't are denied. That's where the problem lies. I don't care what you call it, make the rights equal and then there wouldn't be a problem. Also, if you were to take away a church's right to be non-profit, you'd solve a lot of the animosity that goes along with denying the right of marriage to one group and not another. I think, after this ruling, that if a church declared itself as "for profit" there wouldn't be much one could do if they decided to deny performing a marriage ceremony b/c it would be based on the grounds of religious freedom. That way, if a pastor felt deeply enough about it to refuse to do it, they'd be OK.

I disagree. Seperation of church and state ruins that argument. What would be simpler is to get the government out of the marriage business. It should be of no concern of theirs whether you are married or not. Not on your taxes, not on your insurance not on anything. Each person is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the government and no special treatment should be afforded anyone. This includes marriage and other things like affirmative action or quotas that give special priviledges to certain people. Is this not in itself discrimination since you are giving an unfair advantage to one group over another?

No, my argument is the same as your argument. If you give everyone the right to the same rights that I'm afforded through my marriage to my wife, now it just becomes a ceremony that is the backbone of this argument and the government is out of it. Take away their tax free status and they're able to discriminate, like the baker, against whomever it is that they see fit b/c it's religious liberty.

 

[Jogeephus]

Its close but not the same. Separation of church and state is an important principle this country was built on and if you strike this then you are paving the way for Sharia law to one day be implemented in this country. The way I see it we should keep it simple and make the decision whether marriage is a holy covenant between a man and a woman and a Deity or is it something the government controls?