SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[DesertBerean]

OK, this is weird. CNN says it was a "narrow ruling", and "6 - 2". Even that can't be called a "narrow ruling".

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objections.
The ruling was 6-2.

Since the article says it's subject to change, I'll add a screenshot.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28094[/ATTACH]

It's the Dan Brown syndrome!

[One Bad Pig]

This story is just breaking:

Source: Supreme Court rules in favor of baker who denied same-sex couple a wedding cake

The Supreme Court rules narrowly for the Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake.

The clash at the high court pitted baker Jack Phillips' First Amendment claims of artistic freedom against the anti-discrimination arguments of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the two men Phillips turned away in 2012.

This is a developing story and will be updated.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

This is just poor writing; the language implies a 5-4 ruling. The ruling is narrow in scope, but that's often the case with USSC rulings.

[Yttrium]

I'm disappointed... in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. If they had just ignored the baker's religion and stuck to the discrimination against gays, they would have provided an interesting and influential case. Instead, they ruined it by attacking the baker's religious beliefs.


So I count this as a win for religious freedom.

[seer]

I'm disappointed... in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. If they had just ignored the baker's religion and stuck to the discrimination against gays, they would have provided an interesting and influential case. Instead, they ruined it by attacking the baker's religious beliefs.

No, they were openly hostile to religious views. See my quote from Kennedy...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post548224

[Sparko]

source

As some of us have been saying, this goes to "artistic freedom".

That was me. I was the one arguing that point. I bet the supreme court was reading my posts on the topic here on tweb and it helped them make the right decision.

I expect Carp to come in here at any moment begging for forgiveness for daring to question my supreme court level intellect.

[seer]

I expect Carp to come in here at any moment begging for forgiveness for daring to question my supreme court level intellect.

[Sparko]

OK, maybe so, especially from this paragraph....

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand with the justices holding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

Except nobody has been arguing that a business can refuse to serve gay people and that the bakeries have also said that they would be fine with serving off the shelf cakes or cakes for other occasions like birthdays. I think Roy found one baker in some dinky case that refused to even bake the cake much less decorate it.

So since the decision covers religious freedom of creative artwork, that is not "narrow" at all, that pretty much everything people have been asking for. The only similar cases that would not include artistry was the wedding venue case, where some Christian place refused to allow a gay couple to be married there, and one caterer that refused to cater a gay wedding.

[seer]

Another win today...

.

The American Civil Liberties Union has brought numerous lawsuits against the Trump administration on behalf of illegal immigrant teenagers seeking abortions, arguing the government is obligated to provide the young girls with the operation. The lower courts have handed victory after victory to the ALCU, which have allowed the girls to receive abortions, despite government objections.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...clu-objections

[seer]

Except nobody has been arguing that a business can refuse to serve gay people...

I was...

[rogue06]

That was me. I was the one arguing that point. I bet the supreme court was reading my posts on the topic here on tweb and it helped them make the right decision.

I expect Carp to come in here at any moment begging for forgiveness for daring to question my supreme court level intellect.

A pirate as a "friend of the court"?

The mind boggles

[Yttrium]

No, they were openly hostile to religious views. See my quote from Kennedy...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post548224

I'm not sure how that contradicts with what I said...

[rogue06]

This is just poor writing; the language implies a 5-4 ruling. The ruling is narrow in scope, but that's often the case with USSC rulings.

It is very rare for them to issue a wide-ranging, sweeping opinion. Usually they're very narrow in scope.

[Littlejoe]

Except nobody has been arguing that a business can refuse to serve gay people and that the bakeries have also said that they would be fine with serving off the shelf cakes or cakes for other occasions like birthdays. I think Roy found one baker in some dinky case that refused to even bake the cake much less decorate it.

So since the decision covers religious freedom of creative artwork, that is not "narrow" at all, that pretty much everything people have been asking for. The only similar cases that would not include artistry was the wedding venue case, where some Christian place refused to allow a gay couple to be married there, and one caterer that refused to cater a gay wedding.

The bolded part is why my church has voted to stop renting out our church facilities to non-church members. We do not want to be sued by the gay couple who wants to rent our church for their wedding. (There are many "Wedding Chapels" to rent in my area)

[seer]

I'm not sure how that contradicts with what I said...

I'm just adding to it...Like "no" there is more...

[Joel]

Reading the Opinion of the Court, I came across this:

When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion. This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-111_j4el.pdf