Supreme Court revisits wedding cakes and same-sex marriages

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Wedding cakes and same-sex marriages are back before the Supreme Court: this time, justices are being asked to rule broadly that the 1st Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion shields conservative Christians from state civil rights laws.

Link to tweet

Supreme Court revisits wedding cakes and same-sex marriages
By DAVID G. SAVAGE
APR 11, 2019 | 5:00 AM | WASHINGTON

Wedding cakes and same-sex marriages are back before the Supreme Court, and this time the justices are being asked to rule broadly that the 1st Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion shields conservative Christians from state civil rights laws.

An Oregon couple who were fined $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for the marriage of two women have asked the justices to take their case. If the court does so, the new conservative majority could significantly change the law on religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. The justices could announce as early as Monday whether they will hear the case.

For nearly three decades, the court has followed a rule set down in a 1990 decision written by a conservative hero, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Rejecting a claim brought by Native Americans who smoked peyote as part of a religious ceremony, Scalia said that the Constitution’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion did not provide a shield against a “neutral and generally applicable law.” In the peyote case, two men had been fired for using an illegal drug.

But with conservative Christians now claiming their religious rights are under assault, the court’s conservatives have shown a renewed interest in the free-exercise clause.
....

David G. Savage has covered the Supreme Court and legal issues for the Los Angeles Times in the Washington bureau since 1986. He has covered the Senate confirmation hearings for all of the current justices. In addition to writing about the court’s work, he has written on the legal battles that have raged in Washington. He joined The Times in 1981 and was an education writer on the Metro staff for five years. He has degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Northwestern University.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. Conservatives are waging a LOSING battle.

People in this country have the right to practice their religion in any manner they desire WITHOUT Government interference. Nor shall the Government dictate how Americans worship.

We do not have the right to refuse service to people citing Religion as the reason. That is DISCRIMINATION as far as the law is concerned if a business can claim HARM and JUST CAUSE of that harm. In most cases, they cannot. In my husiness, I cannot turn clients away be they Muslim, LGBTQ, by race, etc. Why would I? Their religions and ways of worship is not my concern. Who you are is not my concern. Your needs for my service is the issue here.

Citing one's religious views in business to refuse service to paying customers is WRONG, period.

[spooky3]

2. +1 I wonder if anyone has asked them whether

They give all prospective customers a survey asking about ALL practices customers might engage in, to which the business owner objects. If not, how can they argue that their religion is the basis for their discriminating against LGBTQ customers?

[uriel1972]

3. Given the religious make up of the Supremes...

I wouldn't bet they would see it your way, even though I thoroughly agree with you.

[lambchopp59]

4. Oh my jeebus crackers

Oven at 350, ice the thing, stick the figurines on it and take the money already.
Here's my world's smallest violin playing "My heart bleeds that your stodgy self is so persecuted". God will forgive you if you just pray, and cry, and blubber and feel sorry for bigoted selves having to work for people who don't agree with your ancient sky spooks.