AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 8347
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#1

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:45 pm


BREAKING: Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn’t make same-sex wedding cake.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3440
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#2

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:54 pm

The ruling was narrow in application. That might be what they mean by using this terminology.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 8347
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#3

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:06 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:54 pm
The ruling was narrow in application. That might be what they mean by using this terminology.
The headline was just liberal political spin. The issue was a narrow issue, religious freedom. Therefore, the ruling would be inherently "narrow".

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 8347
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#4

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:21 pm



bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#5

Post by bblhd672 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:30 pm

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented
Two radical leftists who vote leftist above every other principle.

User avatar

Allons
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:03 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#6

Post by Allons » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:31 pm

Call me crazy, but I would not want someone making any type of FOOD! for me that did not want too. No telling what they would do to it. You dont want to make my cake ,ok thank you move to the next baker. This lawsuit was money wasted.
EDC'S: Dan Wesson CCO, CZ-P01, CZ-P10C, CZ-P07, XDS-45 MOD 2
Home Defense: Mossberg 930 SPX
NRA Member
US Army 1988-1999
Image

User avatar

chamberc
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Las Colinas

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#7

Post by chamberc » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:32 pm

Narrow refers to the implications (this case only, not others).
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
LTC since 2000
http://www.texas3006.com

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#8

Post by G26ster » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:33 pm

My first thoughts were how can 7-2 be narrow. However, as I read and hear, the "narrow" refers to the fact that it applies to this case only as the court found that the Colorado commission was biased against the plainif due to their "asserted hostility to religion." The ruling was deemed "narrow" as it did not address the rights of individuals to decline services "in all cases" based on religious beliefs. The court basically sidestepped that issue.

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 8347
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#9

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:45 pm

For those that think the decision so "narrow", do you think the decision wouldn't apply to a Muslim baker when a customer requests their cake be made with pure vanilla extract, pork lard, Christian theme or a gay couple on it?

How about a Jewish kosher deli that someone demands they make them a non-kosher meal?

The decision supports religious liberty. The "narrow" narrative is just liberal political spin in my opinion to try to convince people this decision doesn't apply to other situations.

It's not about any one religion. This decision effects all religions and the liberty to observe one's religious standards and beliefs.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3440
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#10

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:52 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:45 pm
For those that think the decision so "narrow", do you think the decision wouldn't apply to a Muslim baker when a customer requests their cake be made with pure vanilla extract, pork lard, Christian theme or a gay couple on it?

How about a Jewish kosher deli that someone demands they make them a non-kosher meal?

The decision supports religious liberty. The "narrow" narrative is just liberal political spin in my opinion to try to convince people this decision doesn't apply to other situations.

It's not about any one religion. This decision effects all religions and the liberty to observe one's religious standards and beliefs.
The court ruled that the commissions decision against this baker was invalid because they displayed bias (in comments during the arguments, I believe). So no, I don't think that this decision automatically applies to any other cases. But then again, IANAL. If you are, then I defer to your legal opinion.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Syntyr
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#11

Post by Syntyr » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:08 pm

Allons wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:31 pm
Call me crazy, but I would not want someone making any type of FOOD! for me that did not want too. No telling what they would do to it. You dont want to make my cake ,ok thank you move to the next baker. This lawsuit was money wasted.
This was all about targeting this baker. There are numerous other bakers who would have gladly done this for them. They were out to get this guy.
Syntyr
Happiness is two at low eight!


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3440
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#12

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:14 pm

Allons wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:31 pm
Call me crazy, but I would not want someone making any type of FOOD! for me that did not want too. No telling what they would do to it. You dont want to make my cake ,ok thank you move to the next baker. This lawsuit was money wasted.
:iagree:

If I'm upset with anyone preparing or handling my food / drink, I tell them after they have delivered, not before. If someone dislikes me, for whatever reason, the last thing I want is for them to make me something to eat.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#13

Post by PriestTheRunner » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:16 pm

IMO it sets the precedent that commissioners or any other voted or appointed persons need to treat all religions or non-religions equally before the law. It specifically cited evidence of a double standard in the commission's actions based in the religious identity of the subject at hand.

While this was made plainly apparent by the disgusting comments of the commission, it still applies in all situations if bias can be proven or shown. So yes, it is a win for religious liberty despite how the left tries to spin it.

It makes a great foundation for others to stand upon when (as an example) a homosexual couple demands to use a dissenting owner's wedding venue.... Or commission a painting, or really many other similar situations where the right of the individual should be to say no.

I also think it takes a step in the right direction towards establishing protected classes, and a second level of classes that are only protected in some ways but not all ways based on an individual's liberty not to partake in specific circumstances or actions regarding that 'protected class'.

User avatar

J.R.@A&M
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#14

Post by J.R.@A&M » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:20 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:45 pm
For those that think the decision so "narrow", do you think the decision wouldn't apply to a Muslim baker when a customer requests their cake be made with pure vanilla extract, pork lard, Christian theme or a gay couple on it?

How about a Jewish kosher deli that someone demands they make them a non-kosher meal?

The decision supports religious liberty. The "narrow" narrative is just liberal political spin in my opinion to try to convince people this decision doesn't apply to other situations.

It's not about any one religion. This decision effects all religions and the liberty to observe one's religious standards and beliefs.
That is the point in David French's latest column: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ ... y-victory/
“[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.” Life and Times of Frederick Douglass

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 8347
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: AP considers 7-2 a narrow decision

#15

Post by mojo84 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:29 pm

J.R.@A&M wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:20 pm
mojo84 wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:45 pm
For those that think the decision so "narrow", do you think the decision wouldn't apply to a Muslim baker when a customer requests their cake be made with pure vanilla extract, pork lard, Christian theme or a gay couple on it?

How about a Jewish kosher deli that someone demands they make them a non-kosher meal?

The decision supports religious liberty. The "narrow" narrative is just liberal political spin in my opinion to try to convince people this decision doesn't apply to other situations.

It's not about any one religion. This decision effects all religions and the liberty to observe one's religious standards and beliefs.
That is the point in David French's latest column: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ ... y-victory/
I had not seen that. Thanks for posting it. I'm not a lawyer and I do not know if David French is but I believe he hit the nail on the head. My opinion remains it is not nearly as narrow as the liberals want us to believe it is. Some can fall for their narrative but I will not be one of them.

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”