Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

The Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker on Monday in a closely watched case pitting gay rights against claims of religious freedom.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 7-2 decision, relied on narrow grounds, saying a state commission had violated the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom in ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, who had refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple.

“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

This is how that case turned out in the supreme court then. I support this decision, though I would have rather seen a broader opinion supporting freedom of speech. To paraphrase Austin Pederson, one of the Libertarian presidential candidates in 2016: "The Bill Of Rights protects an individual's right to be as bigoted as they want."

I am not anti-gay or homophobic at all really, but I don't think someone with religious convictions should be forced to support a philosophy that they disagree with. I also don't think that someone should have to cry religion to enjoy this right to refuse to serve an individual or group that they find distasteful. People should have this right of free expression, regardless of whether it stems from religious beliefs or not.

What do you think?

There's already plenty of threads on this today.

This is #4

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I am not anti-gay or homophobic at all really,

Okay?

but I don't think someone with religious convictions should be forced to support a philosophy that they disagree with. I also don't think that someone should have to cry religion to enjoy this right to refuse to serve an individual or group that they find distasteful. People should have this right of free expression, regardless of whether it stems from religious beliefs or not.

But the quote in your OP from the SCOTUS decision doesn't support your opinion. No bakery in Colorado is allowed to discriminated based on sexual orientation.

a reply to: manuelram16

a reply to: grey580

Uh-oh...Well I checked the breaking alt news forum thinking it would have been posted here, but from the sound of it perhaps I should have done a more thorough search. I was really planning to just post this and let it do its thing, so I'm not really inclined to find the other relevant threads and link them. I suppose the mods will do so if they shut this one down.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

My post from the other thread.

The ruling was a narrow ruling in that it only applied to this one case. They ruled in favor of the Baker solely on the grounds that the way Colorado's anti discrimination law was interpreted / applied was anti-religious.

The ruling does not apply nationwide (hence narrow) and only applies to this baker in this one case with these unique circumstances.

You cant violate a persons right to protect the rights of others.

Because the government of Colorado is responsible for enforcing said law the state violated the bakers right. The protections in the Constitution / Bil of Rights protect the individual from government action only.

I am of the opinion that all human interaction should be between consenting parties. When anyone tries to force another human being into a desired behavior I take issue with it as a form of ‘rape’.

Commerce or sex...both should be between consenting parties.

a reply to: Metallicus

Comparing discrimination with rape.

LMAO

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Metallicus

Comparing discrimination with rape.

LMAO

Pretending you have the moral superiority to force another human being into your desired behavior is wrong even if you think you have that right...you don’t.

a reply to: Metallicus

Moral superiority? The only moral superiority being pushed here is the Christian baker. Race and sexual orientation is not about morality.
Anyway, the baker broke the anti-discrimination law. If people don't like it, then they can vote the law away and have free market at it.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Metallicus

Moral superiority? The only moral superiority being pushed here is the Christian baker. Race and sexual orientation is not about morality.
Anyway, the baker broke the anti-discrimination law. If people don't like it, then they can vote the law away and have free market at it.

Clearly we won’t agree.

It is fundamental to my beliefs that no one should be forced to behave a certain way by another person or Government unless there is a crime against person or property. No crime was committed so Government shouldn’t be involved in dictating behavior.

Obviously you have different fundamental beliefs while mine are more Libertrian. Refusing to engage in commerce with someone is not a crime in my opinion.

a reply to: Metallicus

I've always said that let free market dictate and see how it goes.
Don't you think race, creed, religions, sex orientation and disability should be protected? Can we trust people?

Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.

Court sides with Baker

You lose.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.

Court sides with Baker

You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

Read the ruling. It is a narrow decision for this case and only this baker. The issue was how Colorado applied the anti discrimination law. The manner it was applied violated the constitu8tion and the bakers 1st amendment rights as being anti religion.

The ruling has no impact on any other states or pending litigation.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.

Court sides with Baker

You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.

You cannot trample on religion to force someone bake a gay cake, win win.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.

Court sides with Baker

You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.

You cannot trample on religion to force someone bake a gay cake, win win.

The baker disobeyed anti-discrimination law. Lose-lose.
If they don't like that law, then vote it away.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Another progressive attack on the Constitution destroyed, good job Supreme Court.

The baker didn't win.

Court sides with Baker

You lose.

He still can't discriminate. SCOTUS merely corrected the Commission.

So you lose twice.

You cannot trample on religion to force someone bake a gay cake, win win.

The baker disobeyed anti-discrimination law. Lose-lose.
If they don't like that law, then vote it away.

Supreme Court says he don't have to bake no gay cake.