Christian Baker Won

[HannahT]

The justices' limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

Sounds like Colorado is going to have to change some of their approaches.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a relief, making opposition to same sex marriage a crime is a affront to the first ammendment.

 

[NotreDame]

Sounds like Colorado is going to have to change some of their approaches.

Colorado apparently engaged in viewpoint discrimination, in violation of he free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.

I’m not shocked, given what transpired at oral argument, it was apparent a majority on the Court wanted an outcome in favor of the baker.

 

[RDKirk]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.

The justices’ limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.

Seven to two is not "narrow."

But this ruling seems to have hinged on "attitude" and not "rights." So we have to see what happens in similar cases that are before the court.

 

[HannahT]

According to the justices the law was: neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.

 

[HannahT]

Seven to two is not "narrow."

But this ruling seems to have hinged on "attitude" and not "rights." So we have to see what happens in similar cases that are before the court.

That's how I read it too.

 

[theQuincunx5]

This sounds like a reasonable outcome. The marketplace can effectively weed out the bigots.

But I am troubled somewhat by the precedent. The Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's established that individual businesses couldn't openly discriminate. I wonder if allowing people to randomly discriminate against classes of people will re-open the doors to other forms of class discrimination.

At any rate, it should be possible to drive anyone out of business for their bigotry this day and age. This could still be fine.

 

[NotreDame]

According to the justices the law was: neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.

Yes but more nuanced. Very more nuanced. Specifically, the Court found “hostility” toward a religious belief, which is not quite analogs to intolerant.

The other peg the decision rested upon was viewpoint discrimination.

 

[NotreDame]

This sounds like a reasonable outcome. The marketplace can effectively weed out the bigots.

But I am troubled somewhat by the precedent. The Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's established that individual businesses couldn't openly discriminate. I wonder if allowing people to randomly discriminate against classes of people will re-open the doors to other forms of class discrimination.

At any rate, it should be possible to drive anyone out of business for their bigotry this day and age. This could still be fine.

This decision doesn’t authorize the kind or type of discrimination you referenced above, the kind of the 50-60s, or against “classes of people.”

It’s a narrow decision.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Colorado law was excessive, even making the refusal to bake a cake a criminal act. There was all kinds of manditory sensitivity training endless follow up compliance. It would have definately drove him out of buisness, Colorado just went to far.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes but more nuanced. Very more nuanced. Specifically, the Court found “hostility” toward a religious belief, which is not quite analogs to intolerant.

The other peg the decision rested upon was viewpoint discrimination.

Mr. Philips has a viewpoint that a great many people consider repugnant. That doesn't mean they themselves are anti-religious bigots. My own church, and several others, filed amicus briefs in favor of Colorado.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This decision doesn’t authorize the kind or type of discrimination you referenced above, the kind of the 50-60s, or against “classes of people.”

It’s a narrow decision.

Agreed -- but we can expect similar cases to come up which will attempt to widen it... the door has been opened a crack; it'll be up to the courts to slam it shut when necessary.

 

[NotreDame]

Mr. Philips has a viewpoint that a great many people consider repugnant. That doesn't mean they themselves are anti-religious bigots. My own church, and several others, filed amicus briefs in favor of Colorado.

That’s edifying information but neither myself or the Court call or characterize anyone as “anti-religious bigots.”

And it doesn’t matter whether you or a multitude find any view “repugnant.” Again, edifying but irrelevant.

 

[LoAmmi]

Seven to two is not "narrow."

But this ruling seems to have hinged on "attitude" and not "rights." So we have to see what happens in similar cases that are before the court.

I believe it means narrow in scope not referring to the count for and against.

 

[FireDragon76]

Agreed -- but we can expect similar cases to come up which will attempt to widen it... the door has been opened a crack; it'll be up to the courts to slam it shut when necessary.

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

 

[cow451]

Balancing civil rights in such a diverse nation is quite challenging. Although I think the baker is a small-minded individual, the market place is such that it can sort this one.

It would be different if the ability to marry or obtain services were severely restricted. But there are plenty of bakers in stoned out Colorado to bake a cake.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not about the cake, it's about a person refusing to bake a cake based on moral and religious objections.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Mr. Philips has a viewpoint that a great many people consider repugnant. That doesn't mean they themselves are anti-religious bigots. My own church, and several others, filed amicus briefs in favor of Colorado.

Could you describe the repugnant attitude you are accusing Mr. Phillips of having and how you arrived at the conclusion that he had this attitude?

AFAIK The court did not accuse anyone of anti-religious bigotry. They simply reaffirmed the right of individuals to hold religious beliefs and the responsibility of government to refrain from punishing those individuals for those beliefs. The court made a very narrow decision in this case, by narrow meaning not that it was a close vote, but that it is not something one can expand out to include other situations that may seem similar but are actually somewhat different. What i assume the court ruled ( I haven't actually had the chance to read the opinion so forgive me if my assumption is incorrect) would be that an individual may refuse to offer a particular service if it can be shown that their religious beliefs conflict with the offering of that particular service. What the court certainly did not do was to say a business or an individual can claim that their religious beliefs give them the option of refusing to perform any services to a particular person based upon which identity group that person belong to. Had the baker refused to serve the plaintiffs at all, the decision here would have been very different. The baker only refused one service based upon that baker's religious objections to the service not based upon that baker's desire to not serve the plaintiffs due to their identity group. Had the plaintiffs been able to show that the baker's motivation was not truly a refusal to perform a particular service based upon religious belief but was actually a refusal to serve a particular person based upon group identity then, I would think it is a strong probability that the plaintiffs would have won. I would guess that the baker having offered to serve the plaintiffs in other ways than that one way he found religiously incorrect was a very large factor in deciding this case.

 

[theQuincunx5]

This decision doesn’t authorize the kind or type of discrimination you referenced above, the kind of the 50-60s, or against “classes of people.”

It’s a narrow decision.

So there's no way that anyone would use this decision to refuse service to any other groups of people? What if a baker felt that African Americans were bearing the mark of Cain and felt it was against his or her religious convictions to serve them?

Just curious how to circumscribe this decisions such that it wouldn't allow anyone to use it to expand the class.

Thanks.

 

[FireDragon76]

Colorado apparently engaged in viewpoint discrimination,

That's really what's repugnant about this ruling. Believing in the equal dignity of gay people is now just a "viewpoint".

Kennedy is talking out of both side of his mouth on this one.

So there's no way that anyone would use this decision to refuse service to any other groups of people? What if a baker felt that African Americans were bearing the mark of Cain and felt it was against his or her religious convictions to serve them?

Just curious how to circumscribe this decisions such that it wouldn't allow anyone to use it to expand the class.

Thanks.

It opens the door to every sort of crank to defy human rights law.