No Gay Wedding Cake For You

[_DoubtingThomas]

The review found an error in a landmark ruling, Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts used erroneous data to make claims about comparable rates of voter registration among blacks and whites in six southern states. In another case, Justice Anthony Kennedy falsely claimed that DNA analysis can be used to identify individual suspects in criminal cases with perfect accuracy.

https://www.propublica.org/article/supr ... rd-to-find

I think it is now clear we need scientists in the Supreme Court.

[_subgenius]

I think it is now clear we need scientists in the Supreme Court.

It is becoming ever more clear that you have no idea what "science" means or what it means to be a "scientist" - please stop.

"Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.
...
One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
Konrad Lorenz, a famous scientist.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Thank you honorentheos and Res Ipsa for sharing you expert views on this. It is very much appreciated.

[_DoubtingThomas]

It is becoming ever more clear that you have no idea what "science" means or what it means to be a "scientist" - please stop.

LOL sure! Okay quick without googling explain the steps of the scientific method for me.

[_honorentheos]

Thank you honorentheos and Res Ipsa for sharing you expert views on this. It is very much appreciated.

Res is the only real expert here. I echo the appreciation for his help in informing the discussion.

[_honorentheos]

You claim to be committed to critical thinking. Surely you read the source material directly given your strong opinions. So...what did it say?

I try to have an open mind and I don't claim to be perfect. All I know is the the court sided with the Christian baker.
I don't have a strong opinion on the wedding cake, but I don't like it when religious people get special treatment.

I try to think, but I usually don't have time to read all news articles.

DT,

It's very human to have both strong opinions and limited information. In this case, while I understand why people feel upset that the court didn't uphold the couple's claim it helps to read the details of the ruling to understand what the court actually said rather than view it in a binary way. The source material available in the SCOTUSblog link I provided up thread includes the syllabus, ruling, consensus and dissent along with a number of informed commentaries. It would be a great exercise to take the time to read them when you can make the time. You can be assured that the result isn't religious people getting special treatment in this ruling. What was actually ruled on, though, is just something you'll need to dig into for yourself.

[_DoubtingThomas]

DoubtingThomas,

It's very human to have both strong opinions and limited information. In this case, while I understand why people feel upset that the court didn't uphold the couple's claim it helps to read the details of the ruling to understand what the court actually said rather than view it in a binary way. The source material available in the SCOTUSblog link I provided up thread includes the syllabus, ruling, consensus and dissent along with a number of informed commentaries. It would be a great exercise to take the time to read them when you can make the time. You can be assured that the result isn't religious people getting special treatment in this ruling. What was actually ruled on, though, is just something you'll need to dig into for yourself.

I will read them. Thanks.

[_subgenius]

It is becoming ever more clear that you have no idea what "science" means or what it means to be a "scientist" - please stop.

LOL sure! Okay quick without googling explain the steps of the scientific method for me.

case in point.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thank you honorentheos and Res Ipsa for sharing you expert views on this. It is very much appreciated.

Res is the only real expert here. I echo the appreciation for his help in informing the discussion.

I don’t consider myself an expert on this stuff. I do have training and lots of experience in reading cases. Discussing about suing the LDS church for the refund of tithing forced me some years ago to dig into the free exercise clause, and I found it fascinating. I’m not much of a Scalia fan, but I do think Smith is an outstanding opinion.

[_Maksutov]

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

By Geoff Herbert gherbert@syracuse.com,
syracuse.com

A hardware store owner in East Tennessee is celebrating a new Supreme Court ruling by putting up a sign that says "No Gays Allowed."

If that sounds familiar, it's because he's done it before and made national headlines for it three years ago.

WBIR reports Jeff Amyx first put the sign up on his Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies store in Grainger County, about an hour outside of Knoxville, back in 2015 after a Supreme Court ruling legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Amyx, who is also a baptist minister, said gay and lesbian couples are against his religion.

According to USA Today, Amyx later removed the sign following backlash and replaced it with a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion."

But on Monday, Amyx posted a sign saying "No Gays Allowed" at his store again.

He told WBIR that he was celebrating a "win" after the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The Supreme Court ruling said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Jack Phillips' rights under the First Amendment, though Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.