Supreme Court Backs Christian Baker

Okay, go ahead. We're listening.

 

How are you not understanding that this baker did not decline to sell these two prima donnas a cake?

 

You're arguing with blockheads.

 

If bet yours won't.

 

None do.

They serve select individuals

 

When I ran my business, I served who I liked, and refused service to those I didn't like. Just because I am open to the public, does not mean I cannot refuse any customer for anything. Again, the 13th amendment says no involuntary servitude. It is totally your choice who you serve, FOR ANY REASON! If you don't want to sell your house to a white person, a oriental person, a muslim, the constitution says you do not. Now the government may not discriminate, but private persons in business can. It is THEIR property, their actions, their choices. If not, then we have slavery.

 

Wow that is totally wrong. And please post what business you ran because we can find out who you discriminated against and they can sue you.

 

Remember the inaccuracy of the OP: the case has been returned to the Commission, with directions that it must consider the baker's religious belief within the nature of a state public accommodation law.

 

It is totally right.

It is the law forbidding discrimination which is wrong and immoral

 

Quote the inaccuracy, please. OP author


Agree that it was sent back to the commission and not a
landmark case was not emphasized.
Hardly worthy of being termed, "inaccurate".

 

Yes they were so vitriolic and hateful that they blew what should have been as easy ruling in their favor. Angry resentful liberals are going to cost the Democrats the next election. We saw this in my state with the recall election of Scott Walker who ended up being the first governor in history to win a recall election entirely because the left was so hateful and vile that they drove people to vote for Walker just so they wouldn't be associated with those angry, disgusting people.

 

Why would anyone want to use the authority of govt to force someone else to provide them service?

I walk in, they say 'we wont serve you', maybe I ask 'why?' out of curiosity and maybe I flip em the bird on my way out depending on their answer... but ultimately I go somewhere that wants my money.

...but Im not a control freak.

 

I'm not any seeing reference to a remand ("sent back") in the opinion or in the syllabus. Where are you all reading that? Maybe I'm just missing it.

 

I'm not any seeing reference to a remand ("returned to the commission") in the opinion or in the syllabus itself. Where are you reading that?

 

Just not "comprehensive".

No "inaccuracy". Si?

 

What if a white male had the same look and asked for a big knife?

 

Ex-squeeze me? The OP looks both comprehensive and accurate to me

 

Go find and read the opinion, please.

nsider.foxnews.com/2018/06/04/judge-nap-scotus-ruling-baker-refusing-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-dangerous-opinion?page=2

"I think this is a dangerous opinion," Napolitano said of the ruling on "America's Newsroom."

"It will allow others to say, 'My religious beliefs prohibit me from dealing with women or Italians or African-Americans,' and they will base it on the logic in this case," he explained.

 

I see folks still can't tell the difference between a discriminatory practice of refusal vs plain old not wanting to sell something because they person is not liked.
Often times discrimination is frowned upon.

 

The state does, they sell the license and the operator agrees to state laws by accepting the business license.
Also, a city may have further restrictions on businesses.
So there are some entities that definitely have a right to impose standards.

 

No they don't. They have no right to place you in involuntary servitude. It is choosing removing your rights and sell them to another. A business has responsibility for such unconstitutional laws. I can sell to whomever I please, with or without a license.

 

Sorry, it wouldn't do you any good. I am free of an involuntary servitude (13th amendment). I owe you nothing, and you owe me nothing. There is nothing in the constitution that says I must sell to you, regardless of my reason, or no reason at all. It is a made up thing by the courts, but has never been challenged under the 13th amendment.

Oh, and show me in the constitution where one person cannot discriminate against another. It is made up crap, with the courts violating their oath to uphold the constitution and not rewrite it.

 

Do you have a cite to a transcript of this?

 

I read it. There is nothing about remand.

"Judgment REVERSED. 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."

If it had been sent back to the commission, it would have said "Reversed and remanded."

Forgive me, but I know a lot more about this procedural stuff than most people.

 

You are so right, and I stand corrected.

"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. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided. In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated. 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. The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered." [bolding is mine]

Page 18 of "Opinion of the Court" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

On a second point: the state has the inherent right given by We the People to regulate and tax within the parameters of the Constitution and federal and state laws.