Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
No, I don't like. I've really thought that maybe you were just trolling the thread. Now I think you actually believe what you've been posting. You really don't understand one ****ing word of the ruling nor anything else I and other posters have told you. I've encouraged you to go learn the truth about this rather than take my word for it. You won't even do that. I can't fix stupid, so as a result, I am finished discussing this subject with you.
Stay in school, kids.
We know you don't understand the ruling.
basically it came down to this.
The CO commission discriminated against the baker and his religious beliefs. in that regard their so called penalty and punishment were thrown out.
The fact you still don't understand this is simply amazing even though it has been copied and pasted to you numerous times.
the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs.
On the one hand, society has recognized that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” and their rights are protected by the Constitution. On the other hand,
“the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” bolded for emphasis.
“This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”
Here, Kennedy wrote, Phillips “was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.” Because he did not have such a proceeding, the court concluded, the commission’s order – which, among other things, required Phillips to sell same-sex couples wedding cakes or anything else that he would sell to opposite-sex couples and mandated remedial training and compliance reports – “must be set aside.”
Gorsuch emphasized that, in the United States, “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”
In Thomas’ view, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment. Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he believes his faith forbids,” violates his First Amendment rights.
Thomas’ discussion of Phillips’ free-speech claim seemed to acknowledge this, with his observation that, “in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing” the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, from being used to “portray everyone who does not” agree with that ruling “as bigoted and unentitled to express a different view.”
The court says you are 100% wrong.
you cannot discriminate against peoples religious views. no matter if you like them or not. the state must stay neutral and consider all aspects.
no you can't fix what you have posted it is too late to do so.
Avoid his school kids. They don't teach you constitutional rights such as equal protection.
