Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Merry Christmas from the bakers union | General | |||
Bad News for Conservatives, Good News for Americans | General | |||
OT bad news for most - good news for Harry | General | |||
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats | ASA | |||
More bad news for Bush, good news for Americans | General |