MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room - Supreme Court sides with anti gay baker, religion over human rights

>Supreme Court sides with anti gay baker, religion over human rights

I don't agree with the justices ruling, but the USSC decision to side with the business is because the majority members of USSC felt that the Colorado Civil Rights commission decision was biased against the business owner. I would have preferred the USSC decision be to not get involved and allow the state's civil rights commission ruling stand.

The ruling is specifically a 'narrow' defined ruling against the civil rights commission with this specific case against the baker. The USSC might agree with the civil rights commission in other cases in Colorado in case there are future discrimination events in that state.

-
U.S. Supreme Court Throws Out Gay-Bias Finding Against Baker

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142074874

Supreme Court rules narrowly for baker who refused to create same-sex couple's wedding cake

-
The verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage, ruling that a civil rights commission was biased against him. As a result, the decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, such as florists and photographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples.
-

Here are specific scenarios in which discrimination based on religious viewpoints might be allowed especially individual/self run business owners that are of the 'faithful followers' type that choose to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

==
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2074921

The case was decided narrowly on "bias" by the state commissioner. As the article states the much wider issues of religious and speech freedom was NOT ruled upon, punting the issue back to individual states.

Status quo preserved.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2074999

1) The ruling was narrow, only about the process. It did not rule on the baker's religious rights or free expression rights.

2) Any future action in this or similar cases will revolve around speech rights to "free expression". A lunch counter is not speaking or creating or expressing. They are "providing a public accommodation" and have to accept all customers without regard to religion or sexual orientation. They have a reasonable right to refuse service to people wearing brief attire (string bikinis) or not wearing shoes; things like that.

A cake decorator is not the author of the words but only a conduit for someone else to express them. If the customer said, "I'm John and I'm marrying Richard. Compose a suitable message and put it on the cake", then the decorator could refuse to compose it. If the customer said "Put 'John & Richard, united in love' on the cake", I don't think the decorator has a right to refuse to do that if they are running an ordinary bakery or cake business.

So I would rule in favor of photographers, playwrights, music composers, and not many others. I would rule against bakers, cake decorators, and sign painters.
==

The Supreme Court decision won't mean outright 'Jim Crow' discrimination being started up once again, but let's hope this doesn't encourage a Christian founded faith based private large scale business outlets like Hobby Lobby being allowed to discriminate against shoppers that might want to buy products inside one of their retail outlets.

btw: Hobby Lobby is one of the few religious founded companies that was given exemption of not having to provide medical coverage such as funding of contraceptives for their store employees, but Hobby Lobby was also found guilty of receiving many stolen historical artifacts from Iraq (after US invasion in 2003). Hobby Lobby returned the artifacts to Iraq. I don't know if any of their management were prosecuted for this. They should have been imo.

Or other such scenarios such as one of the large scale redevelopment companies, I don't know the name at this time (also a private Christian faith based corporation) that has been building shopping centers in parts of US midwest for past ten years and considering only allowing Christian faith be allowed to enter and shop in such shopping centers and excluding everyone else. That is a recipe for losing money for cities and counties that are dependent upon sales taxes. It better not happen even though the U.S. dictator 'SOB in office' would love that idea of taking place.