-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
7 - 2
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
Good news as far as it goes, but if you read on, I don't think it is all good news.
Court says state panel violated baker's religious rights
* Ruling was 7-2, with 2 liberals joining 5 conservatives (Adds details on 2012 incident that triggered the case, Kennedy quote)
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
* Ruling was 7-2, with 2 liberals joining 5 conservatives (Adds details on 2012 incident that triggered the case, Kennedy quote)
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
Well, lets hope God uses if for good. It appears some good will now come out of this, and hopefully he can rebuild his business. This is definitely huge.
Sotomayer and Ginsburg.
Yep, if I had to guess, I'd guess those 2. Kagan's surprised me over the years.
Sotomayor is in over her head. Intellectually, she's not even on the same planet with the rest of them. She's just a weak minded leftist ideologue.
Actually, I think she's a step above Ginsburg.
At one time she was one of the most intellectually proficient Justices on the Court. But she has had cancer, with both radiation and chemo treatments, twice, and has a failing heart. Her health issues, along with her advanced age, have greatly reduced her cognitive abilities. Time for her to retire, before the grim reaper catches up with her.
Yeah, I'm going to disagree. I have no praise at all for her. I wasn't speaking of her health or cognitive abilities. I'm speaking of her integrity in upholding the constitution, and upholding God's purposes for government. She's a dictator, and a cruel one. Doesn't believe in protecting the innocent nor punishing the guilty. Her and Sotomayor don't respect the separation of powers. They legislate from the bench. They are both a disgrace.
Yes, but what SCOTUS said was that the commission was wrong in that there actually was free exercise of religion involved in the refusal to make the cake - the commission refused to even consider free exercise in this case. This ruling confirmed free exercise, and in the future, the baker will win every time with this court.
Typical Kennedy majority ruling, that's how he got it 7-2 by making it look like a special case - the thing is, the baker didn't have to bake the cake because that involves forcing somebody to bake the cake, i.e., forced labor.
Typical Kennedy majority ruling, that's how he got it 7-2 by making it look like a special case - the thing is, the baker didn't have to bake the cake because that involves forcing somebody to bake the cake, i.e., forced labor.
Good to see this decision today (even if the reasoning could have been broader), and I'm personally glad to see it was 7-2 rather than 5-4.
Explain weak minded
Actually the commission made disparaging remarks on his religious beliefs,and had acted differently in similar cases. They held that the baker’s argument that his work would be attributable to him and not the customer was false yet in previous cases where bakers declined making cakes with anti-gay themes, charges of discrimination by customers were not sustained
They lived in Massachusetts and wanted to hold a reception all the way over in Colorado?
They were trying to set Phillips up to bankrupt his business.
They lived in Massachusetts and wanted to hold a reception all the way over in Colorado?
They were trying to set Phillips up to bankrupt his business.
How?
I thought the bakers give free transportation within a certain radius,and anything beyond that is shouldered by the customer
They were living in Massachusetts and wanted to hold a reception all the way over in Colorado. If I read the article correctly, CO didn’t recognize same sex marriages at that time, but MA did. But after the SCOTUS shoved same sax marriage down our throats...
Why single out a Christian baker ~2,000 miles away?