Deranged Rhino Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 (edited) 7-2 ruling... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf Edited June 4, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: 7-2 ruling... Will have to parse the language but this seems like a win on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 What about the butcher and the candlestick maker? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 4, 2018 Author Share Posted June 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Will have to parse the language but this seems like a win on its face. It does. 7-2 is a beat down. They got Breyer and Kagan to join in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 you really cannot force a private business to perform a task they don't want to, especially if the client is free and unhampered from going to dozens of other suitable options immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Well, it looks like you can't always be made to care. Well done, SCOTUS. What's particularly funny are the headlines ABC and NBC...Court sides with baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake. Can you make a gay wedding cake? I thought it was born that way. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 7-2 is a "narrow win" according to yahoo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=844b7296-50a4-11e5-8d53-fa163e2c24a6&.tsrc=notification-brknews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 at least 2 of the majority have rarely, if ever, sided on the side of practical common sense until this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 What if the gays decide they are above the law, just like the president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: What if the gays decide they are above the law, just like the president? They go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, BringBackOrton said: They go to jail. Just like the President ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, KD in CA said: 7-2 is a "narrow win" according to yahoo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=844b7296-50a4-11e5-8d53-fa163e2c24a6&.tsrc=notification-brknews Narrow in its scope, which is why Kennedy got 6 justices to side with him instead of 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, KD in CA said: 7-2 is a "narrow win" according to yahoo: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=844b7296-50a4-11e5-8d53-fa163e2c24a6&.tsrc=notification-brknews Narrow refers to scope, apparently. I am sure the headlines lacked punctuation so the typical person who didn't read past them would assume a squeaker at 5-4. I think this is saying Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's civil rights based on religion. At some point they are gonna have to make a decision as to whether or not artists (or anyone) can be forced to work for someone for any reason (religion, I don't like you, you smell, etc). I have no idea how this was argued though... a violation of the baker's civil rights on freedom of religion? If so, not the place for the "you can walk in and buy anything off the shelf, but you can't make me design something for you" ruling. Edited June 4, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 17 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: Narrow in its scope, which is why Kennedy got 6 justices to side with him instead of 4. 2 of them wouldn't agree that today is Monday, the way they usually reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 "Kennedy added: “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.”" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, row_33 said: 2 of them wouldn't agree that today is Monday, the way they usually reason... Indeed. Ginsburg and Sotomayor have given up on even the appearance of the political neutrality that jurists should aspire to. The open contempt that the CCRC showed towards the baker's religious objections speaks for itself; the man never got a fair shake until he was granted cert by the USSC. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 4, 2018 Author Share Posted June 4, 2018 Here's the opinion... linking it in the OP too: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 It's a shame that this had to go to the SC. Lower courts should have come to the same conclusion, but lawyers don't have to look far in the lower courts for activist judges that are in their corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 12 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: Indeed. Ginsburg and Sotomayor have given up on even the appearance of the political neutrality that jurists should aspire to. The open contempt that the CCRC showed towards the baker's religious objections speaks for itself; the man never got a fair shake until he was granted cert by the USSC. hopefully Trump doesn't appoint a stalking horse Dem, like a Souter, who sides with liberal and baseless views 99.9% of the time unexpectedly It would be great if a Dem nomination suddenly went pro-life upon assuming the SC, we are owed about 6 of them... 8 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: It's a shame that this had to go to the SC. Lower courts should have come to the same conclusion, but lawyers don't have to look far in the lower courts for activist judges that are in their corner. sending a message is more important than justice and common sense the best solution currently is the forced baker puts an ad in the local paper announcing all proceeds from this upcoming nuptuals will be donated to an emergency pregnancy center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: hopefully Trump doesn't appoint a stalking horse Dem, like a Souter, who sides with liberal and baseless views 99.9% of the time unexpectedly It would be great if a Dem nomination suddenly went pro-life upon assuming the SC, we are owed about 6 of them... Recent Republican presidents not named George W. Bush and Donald Trump have an awful track record when it comes to that. Based on his Gorsuch pick I don't think Trump would make the same mistakes Reagan and H. W. did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts