yea,They'ed complain if you hung em with a new rope...ZachinCO":w91bjn11 said:and the left shouldn't complain.
Uh....No.True Grit Farms":140z8nnp said:The Supreme Court dropped the ball and tried to appease everyone. If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property. This case is a private property rights case and should of been pushed as such.
Washington Post called it a Narrow 7-2 ruling. :lol2:ZachinCO":30v1gu13 said:7-2 is a pretty solid decision and the left shouldn't complain.
It was Civil Rights vs Freedom of Religion case.greybeard":cti5cdi8 said:Uh....No.True Grit Farms":cti5cdi8 said:The Supreme Court dropped the ball and tried to appease everyone. If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property. This case is a private property rights case and should of been pushed as such.
Not on general principles anyway..or just on a whim.
But, religious principles merit a different and special consideration in American society due in part, to the 1st amendment. SCOTUS realized that had they sided with the customer, they would have violated the second part of this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The sad part to me is legal fees and 6 years of litigation when he was in the right all along.backhoeboogie":2e38q32l said:The wedding itself was not even being conducted in Colorado but out of state.
It seems to me the bakery was targeted.
True Grit Farms":3w4ym9gr said:If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property.
sstterry":1xu5v4qx said:True Grit Farms":1xu5v4qx said:If a business owner doesn't want to serve someone that should be their right as long as it's a private business on private property.
So Blacks or any other race can be excluded from businesses or restaurants? What if I just make them sit in the back or use a separate water fountain? Maybe I just don't want to serve any Jews?
I am not trying to pick a fight, because I agree with the ruling. But it is not as simple an answer as we would like.
Son of Butch":xtqjz73w said:The sad part to me is legal fees and 6 years of litigation when he was in the right all along.backhoeboogie":xtqjz73w said:The wedding itself was not even being conducted in Colorado but out of state.
It seems to me the bakery was targeted.
6 years of headaches and wasting money in defense of common sense, that one baker had to suffer for future benefit
to Nation because civil rights attorneys wanted to make a name for themselves.
He offered to bake them a cake or whatever baked goods they wanted, but that he did not do celebration decoration
on items offensive to his religious beliefs such as Halloween cakes and Gay marriage wedding cakes.
Easier to drum up emotional and financial support for lgbt rights than for Warlocks and Witches, so they pursued that route.
Son of Butch":2z3fn6pf said:Washington Post called it a Narrow 7-2 ruling. :lol2:ZachinCO":2z3fn6pf said:7-2 is a pretty solid decision and the left shouldn't complain.
He would sell them a pre-made wedding cake, or any other cake. He just didn't want to make a cake glorifying their gay wedding. He even tried to find another bakery to do it for them, when they refused the pre-made cakes.Bestoutwest":fn6v8drg said:Several interesting points from this article.
1) I like the wording of the ruling, speaks to moderation and unification of society instead of clear decisive "you're on my team vs. you're against me."
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy wrote.
2) Why would anyone turn down good money for work? Does he turn away adulterous lovers getting married? Does he make sure all those that he's making cakes for are virgins? If the bride has had an abortion?
3) Why not just give them the excuse "I'm too busy" and save yourself the headache of all this litigation?
4) What will this mean for the future?
But, I do believe some of the media referred to the ruling as a "narrow margin" which means how closely the justices lined up, not how narrow or how broadly the scope of the ruling was.hurleyjd":75y6f5oo said:"narrow refers to the ruling only covering a very narrow area of the law.
The ruling was about the baker not getting fair treatment from the state agency when they filed a complain against him, the SC never said that he could discriminate"
Above is a post from someone explaining why the decision was narrow.
greybeard":2eyp1iar said:But, I do believe some of the media referred to the ruling as a "narrow margin" which means how closely the justices lined up, not how narrow or how broadly the scope of the ruling was.hurleyjd":2eyp1iar said:"narrow refers to the ruling only covering a very narrow area of the law.
The ruling was about the baker not getting fair treatment from the state agency when they filed a complain against him, the SC never said that he could discriminate"
Above is a post from someone explaining why the decision was narrow.