7-2 Ruling it does not look good for those wanting custom cakes.
- Thread starter Terps
- Start date
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
You didn't read it, even the syllabus. They didn't get to whether baking a cake is expression protected by the first amendment and whether the public accommodation law infringes on it. All they said was the commission/ALJ infringed Masterpiece's rights by being dismissive of their religious views when they ruled against them.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
travisw
Well-Known Member
@Terps Kennedy sided with your baker. He's on your side. You get that right?
He has reliably issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005. In his first term on the court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the time—more than any other justice.
As to hoping Ginsburg dies soon, I've seen pictures of you, you big fat bastard, she might out live you.
Terps
Well-Known Member
You can try and sugar coat it a all you want but the fact of the matter is they set precedent and that's all that matters in eyes of the law
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
You are wrong. The Court absolutely did not set a precedent that, as you said, "you can not dictate to an artist what they have to make." All the Court said was Masterpiece didn't get a fair hearing because the State violated it's "duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. [...] The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that re- quirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same."
There was no opinion about whether or not the government can force someone to choose to be either a commercial baker or someone who can refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple. Maybe it can but we will all have to wait for another case to find out. The Justices used their SCOTUS Aikido to resolve the case without making the landmark decision everyone wanted. That's what they usually do, resolve the case in the narrowest way possible.
Try reading the opinion, it's written in English. You might also want to look up "strict scrutiny."
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Terps is not real bright.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"our bigoted vision is so unpopular that we will stack the courts instead of passing our bigotry into law through normal processes!!!!"
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
page 9
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 applica- ble public accommodations law. See Newman v. Piggy Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (196(per curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572 (1995) (“Provisions like these are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments”).
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No they didn't. They even explicitly said so.
You know that bakery has long since gone out of business, right? Turns out years of bad publicity for the bigot running the place had consequences.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You assume he can read, against all evidence to the contrary.
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
Rats, I wanted him to make me a bible-themed cake of Lot fucking his daughters
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Lot actually did not fuck his daughters, but he did offer them up to be gang raped by a violet mob of men...according to the bible
Your cake could show Lot pimping out his virgin daughters. That Sir would be biblical
Ripped Farmer
Well-Known Member
Elections matter and Right wingers have stacked the court with bible thumpers. Of course, Trumpers get upset when their sensibilities are disturbed by art or even a pointed bumper sticker. But that's completely reasonable to them.
I love when people are so angry they put their feels on their vehicle. No one cares and they will vote trump again even if only to spite the haters.
Not letting that guy merge. Damn they lost again.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
voting for Trump in most average peoples case is voting against yourself.
If you do not pull 6 figures a year it is down right ignorant. You might spite the haters, but in turn you are fucking your self
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Don't confuse Terps with facts, he's celebrating that hate won and your raining on his parade.