Good News for Bakers, et al
 

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'.

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

John H
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'.
.........


I just saw a portion of that. Too bad the bakers had their business damaged but this seems to be a victory for religious freedom, if not liberty in itself.

Delicious!

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

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.

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 11:11:56 -0400, 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'.

I think they are talking about the wording of the decision and how it
might be used as precedent, not the vote. I haven't had a chance to
read in tho.

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

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.

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 12:42:54 -0400, 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.

Prolly right!

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

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.

--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

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.

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.

I agree. There may well be another definition, but that's not the message being sent.

Good News for Bakers, et al
 

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...