General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReligious Right Ecstatic Over Supreme Court Ruling On Baker Who Refused Wedding Cake For Gay Couples
The baker had argued that making a wedding cake for the gay couple would violate his religious beliefs and freedom of speech, and the case was seen as a major test of the Religious Rights effort to firmly establish in law the standard that a business owners religious beliefs trump nondiscrimination laws when it comes to LGBTQ people and same-sex couples. Religious Right leaders celebrated the ruling in favor of the baker even though the Court did not go as far as they had hoped.
The Court found that comments made by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission reflected disrespect toward the bakers religious beliefs, which violated his right to fair treatment in a way that reflected government hostility toward religion. So the Court ruled against the state without addressing the broader constitutional questions about nondiscrimination laws and business owners with anti-LGBTQ beliefs.
Anti-LGBTQ activists were ecstatic. God bless America. Glory Hallelujah, radio host and conservative warrior Wayne Allen Root declared. The American Family Associations Bryan Fischer called it a huge victory for religious liberty in our winnable war! Fischer, never one to treat LGBTQ people with respect, sneered at what he calls sodomy-based marriage. Matt Barber called it the biggest culture war game changer in decades, adding, It cannot be overemphasized what a historical win this is for #ReligiousLiberty and what a devastating blow it is to the homofascist #LGBTQ political agenda. Ted Cruz celebrated a major victory for religious liberty.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/religious-right-ecstatic-over-supreme-court-ruling-on-baker-who-refused-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/
I am so embarrassed to be breathing the same air as these fucking assholes. I hope they will get theirs one day.
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)that it wasn't a win for them by any means
hlthe2b
(102,379 posts)Certainly NOT faux news.
Initech
(100,104 posts)Igel
(35,359 posts)there are a lot resistant to the idea that this doesn't legitimize anti-gay discrimination in violation of public accommodation statutes.
Mirrors reflect. .tcelfer srorriM.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Talk about an overreaction ...
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)while this was not the victory they think it is, these bastards can take a slice and make a bakeries worth of loaves.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)roamer65
(36,747 posts)Hopefully the Roman Empire is revived through the EU and starts it up again.
If there is an Anti-Christ that eventually rules the EU, he/she has my full support for persecution.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)Not inside.
What they know is their side won 7-2
That the court said that Mr. Phillips was actually discriminated against by the evil lefty government
That the gay couple got nothing
That Mr. Phillips doesnt have to bake cakes for gay people
Is that the whole and actual truth? No.
Do they care? No.
They see this as a significant win for themselves as they see it as a both validation and vindication of their position and will empower them toward greater hatred and bigotry.
We can talk all day about a nuanced reading of the court opinion but it will fall on deaf ears and not change the news headlines by one letter.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)by acting like the decision is huge conservative victory, when it's nothing of the kind.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)To them it is a sign that god is on their side and trump is the new god. That is the only thing that matters. Their is very real discrimination and hate and vile that LGBT people while not gets in spades because of this ruling.
Kennedy hinged his entire ruling on a single comment by a single commissioner.
The statement in question was:
freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.
That statement is factual and historically accurate. More importantly is that Kennedy fails to substantiate how specifically that comment influenced the entire proceedings before the commission. There was no evidence presented that it did.
That isnt just my opinion, that is the written opinion of Justice Ginsburg:
Plus, as was stated in CO Appeals Court ruling:
Plus it was the contention of his lawyer that the couple could have purchased any pre-made cake that Mr. Phillips had made from the shelf but oddly they too were cakes he had made but the same closely held religious beliefs didnt apply to them.
How closely held could they have been then? Are not those cakes also made by him an extention of his speech?
Oddly there is no mention of him saying that to the couple at the time. It appears as little more than convenient out after the fact.
In the end this creates a very real world situation that gives religious zealots the green light to say and do what they want because they won today.
pnwmom
(108,996 posts)angrychair
(8,733 posts)Reference: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.amp.html
The point Im making. Go read the comments in the NYT article. Its fillex to the brim with an entrenched perspective that they were proven right in this case.
The victory is not hollow and its long term implications are very real, maybe not in the courtroom but in the real world.
pnwmom
(108,996 posts)to discriminate.
The decision wasn't optimal. But they got 7 Justices to agree that most discrimination against gay people is illegal. And that's a step forward.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)What they got was 7 justices to publicly buy into a weak and unsubstantiated conjecture posited by Kennedy that a single comment by a single commissioner somehow influenced the entire proceedings without a scrap of evidence to support it.
That isnt just my opinion, that is the written opinion of Justice Ginsburg:
So why would they would they agree to an obviously weak argument that wouldnt float in a law school classroom? I have no idea but I know enough to know that the whole things hinges on a massive exaggeration of what is otherwise a factual and historically accurate statement by that commissioner:
pnwmom
(108,996 posts)If they hadn't Kennedy might not have included the passage about the decision not extending to other situations.
Volaris
(10,274 posts)And they're letting FoxNews do the heavy lift of LITERACY for them.
As I understand it, the Court kicked it back down to Colorado State on a technicality, with instructions to 'do it again, DO IT EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, but next time don't be dicks about it.'
Not sure why anyone on our side is freaking out about it.
pnwmom
(108,996 posts)Or a ruling that says it was wrong to go after a particular cake baker in the way they did, in a SCOTUS case that sets no precedent.