DiscussMormonism.com

Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_j4el.pdf

The holding is pretty narrow. The Court found that the Civil Rights Commission was openly hostile to the baker’s religion, and, as a result, failed to properly consider the baker’s first amendment rights. The court did not decide how to properly resolve the balance between first amendment freedom of religion and the power of government to regulate commerce in a way that provides equal treatment. It held that the commission failed to engage in the required balancing analysis.

Having scanned the opinions (majority, 3 concurrences and one dissent), the most interesting issue to me is not the holding itself. It is the attempts to reconcile the Commission’s holding in this case with its holdings in three other cases in which bakers were asked to bake wedding cakes that included anti-gay marriage wording or declaring homosexuality to be a sin. The justices seem to me to be pretty deeply divided on that issue.

Res Ipsa wrote: The justices seem to me to be pretty deeply divided on that issue.

Because the brain of our supreme court justices is made of dog _____. We need scientists as supreme court justices.

DoubtingThomas wrote:

Res Ipsa wrote: The justices seem to me to be pretty deeply divided on that issue.

Because the brain of our supreme court justices is made of dog _____. We need scientists as supreme court justices.

What do you think science tells us about setting the limits of free speech or freedom of religion?

Res Ipsa wrote: What do you think science tells us about setting the limits of free speech or freedom of religion?

It is a very complicated problem, so we need Justices with the critical thinking skills. Scientists usually have a better brain.

"Smart people literally have bigger brain cells than the rest"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... -the-rest/

I don't have much time right now, but I will come back.

DoubtingThomas wrote:

Res Ipsa wrote: What do you think science tells us about setting the limits of free speech or freedom of religion?

It is a very complicated problem, so we need Justices with the critical thinking skills. Scientists usually have a better brain.

"Smart people literally have bigger brain cells than the rest"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... -the-rest/

I don't have much time right now, but I will come back.

Sure, take your time. No rush.

At one time, some scientists thought that brain size correlated with intelligence. Why do you trust the speculative statements in this article?

And, even if true, why are you confident that "smart" people will actually make the best legal decisions? See, e.g., Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things." How do the brains cells of Notorius RGB stack up against your average scientist?

DoubtingThomas wrote:It is a very complicated problem, so we need Justices with the critical thinking skills.

Unless I'm mistaken, Critical Reasoning is a required cognate course for majoring in criminal justice, as well as courses in various social sciences.

DoubtingThomas wrote:Because the brain of our supreme court justices is made of dog _____. We need scientists as supreme court justices.

and there is the best reason why you will never be making a Supreme Court appointment. Heck, this is even a good reason to believe you still use a sippy cup.

DoubtingThomas wrote:

Res Ipsa wrote: What do you think science tells us about setting the limits of free speech or freedom of religion?

It is a very complicated problem, so we need Justices with the critical thinking skills. Scientists usually have a better brain.

"Smart people literally have bigger brain cells than the rest"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... -the-rest/

I don't have much time right now, but I will come back.

Hey, spoiler alert...scientist does not automatically equal "smart people" or even "smarter" people...... so, yeah, you could easily be a scientist.

Res Ipsa wrote:And, even if true, why are you confident that "smart" people will actually make the best legal decisions?

Maybe you should type slower for DT on this one and, to be sure, ask DT exactly how he thinks a "smart person" is defined?