DiscussMormonism.com

I'm honestly shocked that the supreme court went this way to institutionalize discrimination against a minority class of people based on who they are...this is a sad day for America. As shocked as I am I'm even more shocked that the decision was a 7-2 decision. The only positive was that "the Supreme Court’s decision, which turned on the commission’s asserted hostility to religion, strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights and left open the possibility that other cases raising similar issues could be decided differently."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/p ... v=top-news

Craig Paxton wrote:I'm honestly shocked that the supreme court went this way to institutionalize discrimination against a minority class of people based on who they are...this is a sad day for America. As shocked as I am I'm even more shocked that the decision was a 7-2 decision.

From what I have read, the decision is very narrow in scope and really does not answer the larger question of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. Basically this was a ruling against way the the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated the baker. That is why it was a 7-2 decision also, because it did not have larger implications.

"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," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.

So outside of the baker himself and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this was not a win or a loss for either side.

We will be hearing some of the LDS General Authorities tout this allowance to discriminated as an affirmation of religious liberties. If sufficiently excited President Oaks might exclaim to George and Jerry, "No cake for you!"

Craig Paxton wrote:I'm honestly shocked that the supreme court went this way to institutionalize discrimination against a minority class of people based on who they are...this is a sad day for America. As shocked as I am I'm even more shocked that the decision was a 7-2 decision. The only positive was that "the Supreme Court’s decision, which turned on the commission’s asserted hostility to religion, strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights and left open the possibility that other cases raising similar issues could be decided differently."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/p ... v=top-news

Did you read the opinions? I linked to them in the No Gay Wedding Cake For You Thread. The opinion in no way institutionalizes discrimination. It holds that the Commission didn’t give the baker a fair hearing.

moksha wrote:We will be hearing some of the LDS General Authorities tout this allowance to discriminated as an affirmation of religious liberties. If sufficiently excited President Oaks might exclaim, "No cake for you!"

But do they get to come back for cake in one year?

moksha wrote:We will be hearing some of the LDS General Authorities tout this allowance to discriminated as an affirmation of religious liberties. If sufficiently excited President Oaks might exclaim to George and Jerry, "No cake for you!"

Orin Hatch is already touting this argument

Fence Sitter wrote:

Craig Paxton wrote:I'm honestly shocked that the supreme court went this way to institutionalize discrimination against a minority class of people based on who they are...this is a sad day for America. As shocked as I am I'm even more shocked that the decision was a 7-2 decision.

From what I have read, the decision is very narrow in scope and really does not answer the larger question of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. Basically this was a ruling against way the the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated the baker. That is why it was a 7-2 decision also, because it did not have larger implications.

"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," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.

So outside of the baker himself and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this was not a win or a loss for either side.

I see that now...I should have read further before allowing my emotions to take over.

Craig Paxton wrote:

moksha wrote:We will be hearing some of the LDS General Authorities tout this allowance to discriminated as an affirmation of religious liberties. If sufficiently excited President Oaks might exclaim to George and Jerry, "No cake for you!"

Orin Hatch is already touting this argument

IS he? Well, if he is, he's right in a way. It DOES tell the folks who hold hearings about this sort of thing that THEY cannot discriminate, but must see to it that the hearings are fair.

I have seen some of the statements made that caused the Supreme Court to do a collective 'eewww..." and they were pretty obvious. Supreme Court really didn't have much choice here.

Well, you probably won’t feel overjoyed, but maybe not as disappointed. The majority opinion cites the fact that gay marriage was not legal in CO at the time and that members of the commission displayed animus toward religion.

I believe the case will be remanded to the Commission for a new hearing. If the Commission demonstrate neutrality toward religion in a hearing and distinguished in any finding the anti-LGBT cake cases mentioned in the opinion, the case would be much stronger.

Ok, so I go into a Japanese sword making boutique in LA and tell the owner/ manufacturer(he personally makes the sword), that I need his Honja?? sword to settle some revenge issues I have against certain parties. So can he refuse making the sword on religious grounds because he is an Amish pacificist. by the way he told me he would make and sell me the sword if I was only going to use it for slicing watermelons and other peaceful activities.

You are the SCOTUS- what is your decision for this case of discrimination (I contend) to you?

Ps-see Kill Bill movie for the context and the sword maker's decision!