First Amendment Cake Baker in Denver vindicated by SCOTUS, today...

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by BTPost, Jun 4, 2018.

  1. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    It is all the Rage today for the Liberal Pundants... They are Pontificating to the MAX, that it doesn't mean Anything.... and that it doesn't Set any Precedent....
    SCOTUS Ruled 7-2 that the State of Colorado violated the Cake Baker's 1st Amendment Rights, in REQUIRING him to Bake a Wedding Cake for a Gay Couple, (Men) or cease doing business in the State, under a State Discrimination Statute. HoRay for Freedom of Religion... In this case, the Cake Baker LOST at every Court , that adjudicated the Case, all the way up to SCOTUS... There his Rights were affirmed, and and the findings of ALL the lower Courts, overturned... Justice Kennedy wrote the Ruling for the Majority, and stated that the STATE of Colorado is REQUIRED to take the Defendants Religious Convictions into SERIOUS Consideration, when adjudication such Claims, as the Defendant raised in defense of his position, on the Issue... which the Record showed that NO SUCH Accommodations were ever considered, or even voiced...
    Hanzo, Mountainman, Motomom34 and 8 others like this.
  2. T. Riley

    T. Riley Monkey+++ Site Supporter++

    Hope he can sue the happy couple and Colorado.
    Hanzo, Altoidfishfins, Ura-Ki and 2 others like this.
  3. Asia-Off-Grid

    Asia-Off-Grid RIP 11-8-2018

    And, screw the ACLU.
    Ura-Ki, Seepalaces and ochit like this.
  4. Ura-Ki

    Ura-Ki Grudge Monkey

    I know this was a "Narrow focus" but the ramifications reach far and wide! I have to wonder if the Oregon baker has the same protections re enumerated by SCOTUS, as this now DOES set a president for him, at least! Be real interesting to see what happens now!
    Altoidfishfins and Bandit99 like this.
  5. ochit

    ochit Monkey+

    That is surprising but fantastic to hear that the vote was 7 to 2 because those close votes are looked upon by the left as they are ready to tip the scales for generations to come, abd they press twice as hard I can't figure what generations those might be as same union couples cannot breed another generation unless the are no true tho their choice.

    I wish no ill on anyone but if someone tells me they don't want to serve me, so be it. had this gone the other way I would have tested the waters on the other side of the fence. At least now it's settled SCOTUS means that all 50 states have to comply with the ruling. I do not want to make another religion act dress or change their service because a snowflake wants to make an issue. think the also helps if not alters the attacks on Hobby Lobby and the Catholic Sisters the Hobby Lobby case won only by 5 to 4 this is like telling the left they need to find and end run and try to get at these businesses and organizations another way a 7 to 2 vote that's crushing and shows them they have to indoctrinate a whole other generation before they can try again -- and they will.
  6. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    Yes, I am sure it does but I am not a lawyer (thank goodness!) and I imagine the Portland folks are now with their legal council and preparing. I would be.

    I wouldn't be suing the plaintiffs (gay couple), except for court costs and return of my fine, but the state (that's where the real money is) and I would stick it to them so good that they would never, ever do something like this again.
    Altoidfishfins, Ganado and Ura-Ki like this.
  7. Thunder5Ranch

    Thunder5Ranch Monkey+++

    The real question in all of this for me has been........... WHY WOULD THEY WANT SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT WANT THEIR BUSINESS TO DO BUSINESS WITH THEM! Keep seeing leftist say this was a narrow decision.............. only in Leftist LaLa land could 7-2 be considered to be a narrow ruling.
    Altoidfishfins, Ganado and Ura-Ki like this.
  8. Asia-Off-Grid

    Asia-Off-Grid RIP 11-8-2018

    I don't use "yelp". Never have. But, apparently, that is the sounding board for those-who-whine-incessantly, like children, when they don't get their way - our lovely little liberals.

    Surge in bad Yelp reviews for US bakery whose owner turned away gay couple
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    The ruling has very narrow applicability. 7-2 is pretty durn firm agreement from the court, not even close. The ruling applies to this case only, has no other direct applicability, and as a precedent isn't worth a lot unless there's another baker out there, or an awfully similar case.
    chelloveck likes this.
  10. Thunder5Ranch

    Thunder5Ranch Monkey+++

    Seems a lot of it came down to the Baker would sell them anything, except a custom decorated cake. And of course the hostile language used by the State. Really no precedent here other than it opens a pandora's box. It was however a good call by the SCOTUS in affirming "Your rights end where mine begin" still exist somewhere in the USA legal system.
    ghrit, Dont and Ganado like this.
  11. ochit

    ochit Monkey+

    Here, it is a generally accepted that a business can place a sign, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone" these signs are a talisman against law suits against a business but, as we know lawyers will try to break any accepted social convention and pander to the smallest segment of society who's only goal is, as you said to get their way and push the boundaries of common decency and rational public behavior. A business should be a reflection of the vision of the owner or corporation / board, should they take a political stance that is their right it is anyone's else's right to boycott a business in not visiting or spending in it, its simple and does not need to degenerate into violence or screaming wearing a puntang hats or as in Berkley, tear up the campus because you don't agree. I hate abortion but, staging protests blocking access or harming workers and doctors is just wrong.. as Americans we can hand out tracks or literature without being aggressive and let people know there are alternatives and support if they want it. The Temperance movements aggressive nature got prohibition but that backlashed into the power of the gangs, the Mob and a rift in society, people can get their way and pay a dear price thinking they are going to improve society and create a social disaster.

    The peaceful transfer of power is better and as in all things moderation social agendas are nothing less than forcing by law individuals to become drones and loose their independence or individuality back when Rue Paul was doing his thing I did not agree but I just changed the channel if it comes to it and it has I dropped cable and satellite and now target my interests that way I am not allowing my dollars to be used against my beliefs or insult my intelligence.

    I ask that people need to ask the government to put up for a vote to split channels or allow a buffet style / individuals choice of television channels to put the consumer in charge of how their dollars are spent on entertainment and, give back the power to the consumer. It is my belief that many popular shows are not as popular as we are told by the MSM and their agenda would be forced to support themselves and not be able to parasitically thrive off of channel packages with some of those channels I don't want, don't support the ideals or agendas of. The rubber meets the road when you walk into the room and your children or grand children are watching something you find disgusting or inappropriate for their age, or promoting violence or degenerate behavior, that is why I think we need to have control of our media content so we can choke out those agendas we do not approve of by choice of the people and by the people. I equate package television to going to a car service business and being forced to not only get an oil change but have to accept transmission service car wash and with hot wax with an air freshener and the scent not of my choice and find I also got charged for wood bead seat covers and all I wanted was an oil change.
    Ura-Ki, Asia-Off-Grid and apache235 like this.
  12. As in no.10 above. Didn't the baker say he would do business with them but his religious beliefs inhibited him from selling a wedding cake to a homosexual couple for use at a homosexual wedding. Looks to me that it was a deliberate ploy to search out individuals and businesses with those standards to use as test cases.
  13. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Part of the decision rendered by SCOTUS was that the defendant's Custom Wedding Cakes were more than just Wedding Cakes, they were "Works of Art" and as such, WERE an Object covered by First Amendment Rights... The First Amendment Free Right of Expression, is a Right covered by the 1st Amendment...
    ochit likes this.
  14. Ura-Ki

    Ura-Ki Grudge Monkey

    Don' forget, the Cake is a piece of ART, and thus, it becomes intellectual property, don't ask how I know this, let's just say it involves a million dollar car! So, the baker as an ARTIST can choose to enter into contract in accepting a commission for a piece of ART! Or, he can choose not to accept the commission, for what ever reason he chooses! Finally, separation of church and state, let Congress make no laws against ones religion or ones beliefs, here the State ignored a religion and intellctual rights! My gut tells me this Pandoras box is also about to swallow up the music industry, authers, and other ARTISTS in confirming intellctual property rights! I can see why the SCOTUS is reluctant to take things further in this, but they are going to have to now!
    Thunder5Ranch and ochit like this.
  15. 3M-TA3

    3M-TA3 Cold Wet Monkey Site Supporter++

    I think the cases are similar enough that it should. The State of Oregon persecuted and when they got the guilty verdict the punishment was way beyond reasonable. Don't bake one cake on religious grounds (they would sell them anything except a wedding cake and even tried to help them find another bakery) resulted in a punitive fine in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and guaranteed to put them out of their business. If you read up on the Colorado case it was very similar in the abuse given them by the legal system.
    Ura-Ki likes this.
  16. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Monkey+++

    The issue that seemed to be the deciding factor was the hostility that the baker received.Plus the baker offered to sell them something else, but not a wedding cake. The baker was specific.

    Kennedy said:
    JUSTICE for the Christian Cake Baker! Supreme Court Rules Colorado Was Unfair and Hostile
    Ura-Ki and 3M-TA3 like this.
  17. Big Ron

    Big Ron Monkey++

    I always figured if I owned a company I could refuse to do business with anyone. I guess it is some old-fashioned idea.
    Hanzo, Motomom34 and Ura-Ki like this.
  18. natshare

    natshare Monkey+++

    I always looked at these cases, as the same with businesses that do not want me in their establishments, with a gun. My belief is that I have a right to be armed. Theirs is that they don't want me armed, in their establishment. Fine, I will find an alternate establishment, who doesn't mind the way I believe, and practice. That's the grown up way of handling disagreements.

    The liberal way, of course, is to sue the daylights out of the business! :eek::mad:
    Ganado likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary