Posted on Jun 4, 2018
Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple
1.24K
10
4
4
4
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
Actually, I credit some smart lawyer for this decision. I heard an interview with the baker a couple days ago and was mystified by his insistence that he wasn't denying service to anyone, but rather was denying to serve an event. That's what SCOTUS picked up on and agreed with. No, the decision does not alter any law or precedent barring business owners from denying service as a form of discrimination against any class or category of person. It does permit people to act in good conscience in refusing to participate in or contribute to events and causes that are abhorrent to them. In other words, people have rights, events don't.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Unfortunately, the ruling, as I read it and as it has been interpreted in the media (and written to by Justice Kagan), is pretty specific to this case and has little broader impact … with the ruling dependent on the religious bias against the business owners by a commissioner. In short, the justices ducked the larger issue and left it for another day.
I quite understand the baker's position. He's quite willing to sell his products to anyone … but is unwilling to create a custom product (wedding cake) for an event that violates his religious convictions. Absent any argument to the contrary, one has to assume his religious convictions are truly held … whether one agrees with them or doesn't.
Regardless, I don't see this ruling as a threat to businesses serving LGBTQ and whatever letters I've forgotten in general or even for specific events. In the words of the court, the broader issue "must await further elaboration."
I quite understand the baker's position. He's quite willing to sell his products to anyone … but is unwilling to create a custom product (wedding cake) for an event that violates his religious convictions. Absent any argument to the contrary, one has to assume his religious convictions are truly held … whether one agrees with them or doesn't.
Regardless, I don't see this ruling as a threat to businesses serving LGBTQ and whatever letters I've forgotten in general or even for specific events. In the words of the court, the broader issue "must await further elaboration."
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - No disagreement there. Holds true for both the leftist media … and the rightist. According to the left, this ruling means the end of life as the LGBTQ community knows it. According to the right, this ruling means the same thing. Neither is accurate reporting. Both are pandering to their base.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next