# SCOTUS: 7-2 in Favor of Baker Who Refused Gay Wedding Cake



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Media calling it a "narrow win."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/breaking-supreme-court-rules-7-2-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-gay-wedding-cake/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/wow-media-calls-supreme-court-7-2-decision-in-favor-of-christian-baker-a-narrow-win/


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Half mast.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

why are some conservatives disappointed in this decision - What do you expect?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Illini Warrior said:


> why are some conservatives disappointed in this decision - What do you expect?


The disappointment likely comes from the decision by SCOTUS not to address the larger issue. They did not want to answer the question about whether a religious belief is sufficient to "discriminate" against a potential patron of the business.
What they decided in this case was that the business owner's religious beliefs were ignored by the commission, and even treated with hostility at times, which government is absolutely forbidden from doing. Religion should be treated with complete neutrality. Because his religious freedom was violated, SCOTUS overturned the ruling and said he did not have to bake the cake.

Now, once another case comes up later concerning a florist who did not provide flowers for a same-sex couple, perhaps they will address the larger issue then.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> Half mast.
> 
> View attachment 79106


Please tell me this was a real reaction to the ruling.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

From AOL:
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.

It was called it "a narrow victory" in the headline, then they added an irrelevant point. The court did not give "definitive" guidance on any future case.
[When the future case gets there, then they will give guidance. Please tell me, that the media comprehends something that simple. Because they sound like they are stupid. Wishful thinking maybe?]

*"But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views." ** {PS: this decision is as definitive as it can get, it was a hard rejection of the Colorado Civil Rights **position**, and tactics.}*
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...in-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute/23450400/

*Slam Dunk For The Good Guys!*


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> The disappointment likely comes from the decision by SCOTUS not to address the larger issue. They did not want to answer the question about whether a religious belief is sufficient to "discriminate" against a potential patron of the business.
> What they decided in this case was that the business owner's religious beliefs were ignored by the commission, and even treated with hostility at times, which government is absolutely forbidden from doing. Religion should be treated with complete neutrality. Because his religious freedom was violated, SCOTUS overturned the ruling and said he did not have to bake the cake.
> 
> Now, once another case comes up later concerning a florist who did not provide flowers for a same-sex couple, perhaps they will address the larger issue then.


Don't hold your breath


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

good that it was 7-2 . However to narrow will not apply to others case. We will see.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> The disappointment likely comes from the decision by SCOTUS not to address the larger issue. They did not want to answer the question about whether a religious belief is sufficient to "discriminate" against a potential patron of the business.
> What they decided in this case was that the business owner's religious beliefs were ignored by the commission, and even treated with hostility at times, which government is absolutely forbidden from doing. Religion should be treated with complete neutrality. Because his religious freedom was violated, SCOTUS overturned the ruling and said he did not have to bake the cake.
> 
> Now, once another case comes up later concerning a florist who did not provide flowers for a same-sex couple, perhaps they will address the larger issue then.


until another of the liberal judges are replaced - this is about all you can expect - it's favorable as expected but with the court mix you can only expect lukewarm decisions ...

SCOTUS won't be agreeing with the bullcrap 9th District court cases - but don't expect some kind of heavy duty scolding


----------



## Lowtechredneck (May 7, 2018)

About time those panty-waist liberal weiners up there did something useful.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

Oh great. I suppose this means my lawsuit against the local halal market for refusing to sell me bacon is going to fall flat. :vs_unimpressed:


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

The SCOTUS can only rule on what was presented to them.. Maybe they felt this was the best answer for this case.


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

America now in conflict between religious liberty and court's decree on gay marriage...

https://yellowhammernews.com/justic...us-liberty-and-courts-decree-on-gay-marriage/

Justice Thomas called it!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

But but it was a narrow victory lol...


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

I saw the couple on the news last night. They were holding hands and saying, _"Oh, we cried when the baker refused to make us a wedding cake."_ :vs_sob::vs_sob: Give me a break.


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

Annie said:


> I saw the couple on the news last night. They were holding hands and saying, _"Oh, we cried when the baker refused to make us a wedding cake."_ :vs_sob::vs_sob: Give me a break.


I saw that too... what a pair of fruitcakes. I needed a good laugh!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

Annie said:


> I saw the couple on the news last night. They were holding hands and saying, _"Oh, we cried when the baker refused to make us a wedding cake."_ :vs_sob::vs_sob: Give me a break.


Where anyone with 1/4 of a brain would have just found another bakery. They only turned this into a shitstorm because it's not about equality, it's about obtaining elite status and then punishing anyone who is not completely accepting of their chosen lifestyle.


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

patrioteer said:


> Where anyone with 1/4 of a brain would have just found another bakery. They only turned this into a shitstorm because it's not about equality, it's about obtaining elite status and then punishing anyone who is not completely accepting of their chosen lifestyle.


Because you just know there is a gay cake baker who can't wait to bake more fruitcakes!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

patrioteer said:


> Where anyone with 1/4 of a brain would have just found another bakery. They only turned this into a shitstorm because it's not about equality, it's about obtaining elite status and then punishing anyone who is not completely accepting of their chosen lifestyle.


Fr Martin said, "at the back of every sin is pride." It's the pride that says, 'I will not serve God', and 'I won't submit'. Isn't it so ironic that the LGBQ has these "Pride Parades?. Isn't it interesting that they use the rainbow--a symbol of God's promise after the flood--as their symbol, as if to mock Him? I don't think any of that's an accident, I think all it's got the mark of the goat.

God's mercy on them and I hope they get the grace of right thinking.


----------

