TexasCHLforum.com

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

The ruling was narrow in application. That might be what they mean by using this terminology.

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".

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented

Two radical leftists who vote leftist above every other principle.

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.

Narrow refers to the implications (this case only, not others).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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/

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.