Jack Phillips doesn't have to violate his faith to conduct business:
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.The justices' limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the issue "must await further elaboration." Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
The same-sex couple at the heart of the case, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, complained to the Colorado commission in 2012 after they visited Phillips' shop in suburban Denver and the baker quickly told them he would not create a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the commission concluded that Phillips' refusal violated the law. Colorado state courts upheld the determination.
But when the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December.
That same sentiment suffused his opinion on Monday. "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," he wrote.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.The swing vote and two libs understood the principle at stake here.
The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.
Psst, someone ought to tell him that his response is hyperbolic, but it's not gonna be me, not that I disagree with the decision. 2 libs + 5 cons = 7 but not on the big issue. Whatever they decide is OK with me, but Glory to God anyway for a Supreme Court of the United States in the year of Our Lord, 2018!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt would certainly have been better if this had not been so narrowly decided.
ReplyDelete"Whatever they decide is okay with me."
You are at a dismaying juncture, but you're being prayed for.
Here's hoping someday your love of freedom can be rekindled.
Thanks for the prayers but I don't accept that I am at a dismaying juncture, unless you admit that we are always so, until the end. Oh I get the narrow now, it means that the decision regarded a narrow issue. And it did. The broader issue is whether a business can deny service based on race, creed, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. Call me lib (to your con) but I don't think there will be a majority con decision on that issue, if you can accept a prediction from one not schooled or that well-versed in the law. It just makes sense that the business did discriminate in this issue to me. If we want to take sexual orientation out of the criteria, well then, yeah, refuse all the faggots and leg lickers you want to....
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteYou could not be more flat wrong. The broader issue is whether a free individual or a private organization must be forced at gunpoint by the government to conduct business in violation of the individual's or the business owners' understanding of immutable spiritual truths.
We'll of course find out who's in the majority on this issue in the Supreme Court someday. As for God, if He weren't so silent we wouldn't need a human court to decide the law of this land.
ReplyDeleteWell I am wrong in that the "narrow" applies to this case only. The opinion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might decide future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who have cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2015 same-sex marriage decision." But thanks for all the prayers, can't get enough prayers. Back atcha too, of course. Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will! https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/scotus-sides-with-baker-who-wouldnt-make-gay-wedding-cake/ar-AAydep0
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps it's too naive at this late point in American history to hope that all sides have learned something from our nation's 50-year cultural war. Perhaps it's too idealistic to think that we would listen to Mahatma Gandhi, credited with saying, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." But as someone who once fought in that cultural war, and who now regrets it, I still hold out hope that we can learn to respect and value those whose beliefs and experiences are different than our own. It's the Christian thing to do. The American thing to do. The right thing to do."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/tim-swarens/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-baker-gay-wedding-cake-all-lose-tim-swarens/668928002/
God is hardly silent. Crack open your Bible.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete