Good News for Bakers, et al
 

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:05:54 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-4, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:30:37 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 11:11:58 AM UTC-4, John H wrote:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02143b7ce938a

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who
refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s handling of the
claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the
commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

I wonder how 'narrow victory' is defined? Seems like a 7-2 decision is far from 'narrow'.

In the Supreme Court, 7-2 is a slam dunk.

===

They are talking about "narrow" in a legal sense, meaning that their
judgement does not necessarily apply to other similar cases that have
different circumstances.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await
further elaboration in thecourts, all in the context of recognizing
that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue
disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay
persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
market,� Kennedy said.

In other words, it all depends.

Yeah, I read somewhere else that it was a narrowly defined decision that can not be used in a more broad sense in other cases. It was the wording this article used in its first sentence, "narrow victory", which falsely conveys that the victory itself was narrow, not the decision and its implications. They don't even define or
use the word "narrow" again in the article. It's either accidental or intentionally misleading journalism, IMO.

We have had other discussions here about headlines that did not
reflect the facts in the article. I suppose it should be noted the guy
who writes the headline is seldom the guy who wrote the article. The
headline is just to grab your attention and I often wonder if that
headline writer read the article themselves.

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:34:11 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 6/4/18 1:11 PM, justan wrote:
John H. Wrote in message:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02143b7ce938a

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who
refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s handling of the
claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the
commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

I wonder how 'narrow victory' is defined? Seems like a 7-2 decision is far from 'narrow'.


Well dem folks caint have their cake and eat it too. Seems to me
the Huffington Post is on the side of right in this matter.




D'uh. The court didn't rule on whether the bakery had the right to
discriminate. It ruled on the process the Colorado commission followed.
That's where the "narrow victory" posit comes from...

It does signal that this court is respecting the rights of people who
hold strong religious beliefs and may indicate a change from the
Warren court that started the movement that we had a freedom FROM
religion.
Kennedy said Phillips the baker “was entitled to a neutral decision
maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious
objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in
which this case was presented, considered, and decided.�
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay
marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of
expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to
which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First
Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is
neutral toward religion,"


Thomas also wrote that Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for
same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he
believes his faith forbids,� violates his First Amendment rights.
So they have said you have a first amendment right for religion, not
to be protected from it.