[Albert]

[center-img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b2/7b/4c/b27b4c4e3621799ac425389147c77a42.png[/center-img]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/baker-same ... -1.4690485

Victory.

[Finfinder]

5 years to get a 7 to 2 decision

[Pants-of-dog]

This does not surprise me. The US has previously decided that the religious beliefs of a fictional person (i.e. a corporation) outweigh the actual rights of actual people.

[Finfinder]

This does not surprise me. The US has previously decided that the religious beliefs of a fictional person (i.e. a corporation) outweigh the actual rights of actual people.

Why should you be surprised the US goes by it's constitution.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why should you be surprised?

The US goes by its constitution.

So you constitution says that fictional people are more important than real people?

[Finfinder]

So you constitution says that fictional people are more important than real people?

Try some fluoro carbon leader material for that troll set.

[Pants-of-dog]

Try some fluoro carbon leader material for that troll set.

Your emotional pleas are not an argument.

If a corporation is allowed to refuse service to a minority, this means that the minority person’s right to equal treatmwnt is being trumped by the religious rights of a corporation.

Corporations are fictional people. But according to the SCOTUS, these fictional people have religious beliefs that must be respected. Even if that means disregarding the rights of real people.

[Doug64]

People might want to take a look at the opinion here, before commenting on it.

Here’s from the synopsis at the beginning:

(a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.

(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.

So basically, the Court ruled that Colorado a) did not apply its own law evenhandedly, b) because it considered the baker’s sincerely held religious beliefs to be illegitimate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Did the couple buy the cake from Mr. Philips, or from Masterpiece Cake Ltd.?

This is not a frivolous question.

[Albert]

As far as I understand, basically this ruling says you can refuse gay people services on religious and philosophical grounds and the state can't force you otherwise. Humanity has won a great victory today. America still holds on to freedom! Down with progressive vile tyranny!

[Pants-of-dog]

If oppression of conservatives amounts to “not letting them exclude others” then you are not oppressed in any significant way.

[Zamuel]

So basically, the Court ruled that Colorado a) did not apply its own law evenhandedly, b) because it considered the baker’s sincerely held religious beliefs to be illegitimate.

Exactly. they wiggled out of making a decision in anyone's favor by condemning Colorado's procedure.

No experts have weighted in yet, but it seems to me that they have left the door open for reconsideration of the Gay's complaint by the state of Colorado, should they choose to do so.

Zam

[Albert]

It takes away their self determination and forces them to do something they do not want. That is oppression and tyranny, exactly what America was build to be against. US Supreme Court proved that it still holds on to the values of freedom.

[Pants-of-dog]

It takes away their self determination and forces them to do something they do not want. That is oppression and tyranny, exactly what America was build to be against. US Supreme Court proved that it still holds on to these values of freedom.

In other words, you want to keep the right to take away the self determination of other people and force them to do something they do not want, or else you are being oppressed.

Got it.

[Albert]

The state forcing someone to include someone is tyranny. This whole progressive narrative that everyone should be included, and that it should be forced that they should be included. Actually runs contrary to the founding principles of the American Republic and liberalism as well.

Example with Roseanne, people have a choice not to tolerate racist in their organization and they can fire them. Why are you not being inclusive and not tolerating racist? What if the state forced you to tolerate them? Would that be just?

[Doug64]

Exactly. they wiggled out of making a decision in anyone's favor by condemning Colorado's procedure.

I suspect this will be a case that is narrowly written but with wide impact, since it means any state not willing to require a baker to, say, produce a cake with swastikas will have to allow a baker to refuse to produce a cake for a gay wedding.

[Albert]

Actually I think we should force people to accept racist especially in places like New York city. Anyone found insulting racist or rejecting them service should be thrown in prison for "hate crime".

[Zamuel]

As far as I understand, basically this ruling says you can refuse gay people services on religious and philosophical grounds and the state can't force you otherwise.

Your understanding is abysmal Albert. The SC decision Say's noting about "Gay" people at all. It says:

"Phillips (the baker) was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case."

And it -FINDS- that he didn't get it. The state of Colorado dismissed his religious argument due to previous decisions, without considering it in detail. It leaves the whole issue of "Gay Rights" hanging in the breeze. It will all have to be done again. (several cases are already pending before the SC.)



Zam

[One Degree]

The court evaded the main issue because the logical answer is not acceptable for fear of civil rights violations.
Their decision did nothing to prevent either side from promoting new cases. I believe the Court should have drawn a distinction between ready made products and special orders.

[maz]

They had to take this retarded case all the way to the Supreme Court to figure out that these homosexuals were hostile to an individual because he was religious?

I wonder if these homosexuals had targeted the baker because he was Christian, because we have other incidents of homosexuals doing this to other businesses and trying to cause trouble for them.

I remember a few years ago watching a YouTube video of a homosexual man filming himself driving an hour and a half away to visit a Christian pizza shot and picking up like 10 pizzas for a gay wedding reception, and put it on YouTube just to mock the establishment.

***Edit***

I looked it up and found it.

How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After Being Tricked Into ‘Catering’ a Gay Wedding

When the owners of Memories Pizza—a small-town pizzeria in Indiana—were posed a hypothetical question about whether they would cater a gay wedding last year, the “intolerance” of their simple response that they would not resulted in a threat to burn down their shop.

They did not answer threats with threats, but continued to calmly explain that they would happily serve gay customers; they just didn’t want to be a part of the wedding. Of course, none of this mattered to those not interested in seeking the facts.

It now appears that a man ordered two pizzas from Memories Pizza, without stating his reasons (as is quite normal when ordering pizza), and brought them back to serve at his same-sex wedding. He recorded the event on video and claimed that Memories “catered” his gay wedding—without knowing it.

While the charade itself is sort of childish, it does hold several lessons for us. Let us first consider that, in response to the video, Memories owner Kevin O’Connor has…

Threatened to burn something down? Nope.

Called someone a bigot? Nope.

He’s actually not really too interested in the actions of his customer after selling him the pizza.

So what’s the point?

It is an undisputed fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships. Its owners did not deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or what he would use the pizza for.

Those truly seeking to understand the conflicts in the “wedding vendor cases” should study what happened here, for they will see that no one involved is interested in simply turning away customers based on how they identify sexually.

People are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as they have been doing for years.

They haven’t sought a fight; it has come to them.

They closed down just this past April.

The Indiana Pizzeria That Refused to Cater Gay Weddings Has Closed for Good

The tiny Indiana pizzeria that made national headlines in 2015 after declaring gay weddings couldn’t serve its cheese pies or breadsticks has officially thrown in the towel: The South Bend Tribune reports that a sign out front of Memories Pizza informs patrons that they’ve decided to close. The spot’s notoriety came in the run-up to the Supreme Court’s landmark gay-marriage case: Memories was one of Indiana’s first businesses to publicly refuse to cater gay weddings, precisely what LGBTQ activists feared would happen when then-governor Mike Pence signed the state’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Memories’ owners — Kevin O’Connor and his daughter Crystal — told press at the time that gay people were still within their technical rights to visit their eight-table restaurant in the 2,200-person town of Walkerton. But if the order was intended to celebrate a gay wedding, that would conflict with their Christian beliefs and they’d “have to say no.”

The O’Connors’ stance was met with such derision that the restaurant had to temporarily close.

They got death threats (one local high-school coach was fired for tweeting, “Who’s going to Walkerton with me to burn down Memories Pizza”), Walkerton police were put on constant Memories patrol, and the restaurant quickly became a conservative punching bag: It’s almost inconceivable, for instance, that anyone planned on Memories catering their same-sex wedding, but the O’Connors’ loud objections to the idea inspired at least one gay couple — two comedians — to trick the pizzeria into “accidentally” catering theirs anyway.