In a win for religious and small business management freedom, the US Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of a Christian baker from Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple due to religious reasons. The decision came back 7-2 and found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission improperly handled Jack Phillips case claiming they were showing hostility to his religious practice. By doing so, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that his first amendment right to freedom of religion was being abridged.
The case itself has not clearly provided a precedent for cases like this, however. As per now, anti-discrimination laws that seem to violate religious practices are still held on a case by case basis as far as the highest court in the land goes. Colorado has an anti-discrimination law that prevents any business from refusing service on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. By refusing to bake a cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012, Phillips found himself on the wrong end of that statute.
Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, liberal justices, joined the five conservative justices of SCOTUS in the ruling which was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
<blockquote>“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote, referring to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” Kennedy said.</blockquote>
21 of the 50 states have anti-discrimination laws that specifically protect homosexuals.
Source:
Twitter: #religiousfreedom
Its a crazy world we are seeing, as the liberals will do anything to "protect" their so called minorities.
Here's how I see this playing out the other way.
The Christian bakers get forced to bake a cake for a queer wedding. The fags or lesbos decide the cake wasn't "good" enough for their super special day and hence sue the baker for ruining their wedding, and they already have a precedent where the bakers had reservations about the cake in the 1st place.
So its a good thing the judges decided the way they did or this could keep going till the bakers were broke and out of business.
What ever happened to the days where homosexuality was considered mental defect and resided in the closet? Now we let these disturbed individuals adopt precious children to try to normalize their behavior.
Its about time sanity finnaly showed its face in a government decision! Government shouldnt regulate a persons indiviuallty and make u do simething just because someone want it their way
For every bakery that refuses service, there are 100 more who want to make the money, why would anyone want a cake from someone who did not want to make one for them in the first place… THE courts made the right decision…
I agree with the ruling.
What is funny is LGBT all quoting What Would Jesus Do. Trying agrue their case. They to over look the part where Jesus said forgiven but go forth and Sin no more.
These morally challenged people have to many rights as it is, people in America are tired of hearing the fagots cry when someone steps on their toes! I wish they would all go back to the closet.
What homosexuals wont admitt is that tbeir homosexuality is a choice it isnt Gods fault God shows no partility! Its against what God planned! Scripture talks negetivly about it "romans 1:27"! The problem is humans have a lack of self control@ for whatever readon tbey were abused or raised by homos so they think its natural! Nature shows us that men shouldnt be with men or women with women there woukd be no reperduction! Pull ur heads our people ur being decieved by satan and taking that road will not end well for u@ God didnt intend u to di that!
After years of hearing decision after decision as 5 to 4, why does all the news (MSM, Fox, etc.) keep saying 7/2 was close?
7-2 isn't narrow. The idiot calling that narrow, is guilty of attempted propaganda. Homosexuality is a unsustainable lifestyle rife with mental instability and ultimately leads to dangerous desires that involve animals, and or underage children, quite simply an abomination to the human race. Homosexuals need to be put in the closet or dispatched.
oh my god, you guys are idiots. the RULING was narrow and applied only to this specific case, as opposed to a "broad" ruling that would establish a sweeping precedent.
The Narrow ruling was in regards to the subject and cause not the total number of votes.
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS
, C. J., and BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. THOMAS, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.
——–
GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.
So the 2 against were:
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (85) , appointed by President Bill Clinton (Liberal) SURPRISE!!
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor appointed by President Barack Obama (Liberal) SURPRISE!!
BTW: Does any think at 85 that Associate Justice Ginsburg health and mental abilities should be questioned?
We all saw her fall asleep during that State of the Union Address by Obama as he was ripping the SCOTUS on TV for not voting his way.
To use the word narrow is once again a manipulation of words. Anonymous No. 27947 your the idiot. The use of the word narrow to describe this decision is poor Grammer, but it's intentional.
The ruling is a win because it protects personal rights, nothing to do with morality. A satanist owner has an equal right not to sell to a church and thats the way it should be. I support homosexual right to marry and also support a business owner's right to refuse service. Personal rights are whats at stake regardless of societal trends of time.
How do you find 7-2 to be a narrow ruling?