re: SCOTUS Says You Don't Have To Bake That Gay Cake

It is AWESOME that the rule of law is being restored in our country!!

quote:

---

The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.

---

I'll temper the excitement by saying that the Court's decision in this case is narrow. Read this from the live updates on SCOTUSBlog:

quote:

---

One version of the question presented in Masterpiece is: "Does the Constitution give wedding cake bakers a right to refuse service to homosexual couples on the basis of a religious objection, even if a State generally prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation." That is the "Right not to bake a cake" version. The Court does not answer that question. Instead it holds that the way the Colorado commission considered Mr. Phillips' case showed substantial hostility toward religion. That preserves the possibility that a State could enact a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual couples and constitutionally apply it to a baker who refused service to a gay couple.

---

SCOTUSBlog

In other words, it isn't totally decided whether or not one who provides commercial wedding services can choose not to provide those services to a same-sex wedding. This ruling does not totally prevent a state from passing a law requiring those who provide commercial wedding services (bakers, florists, etc.) to have to provide those services to same-sex couples. I would expect that such a law would have to be narrowly tailored to allow a baker to freely exercise his religion (i.e. not bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding) without allowing him to refuse service overall to gay people.

TL;DR - The ruling of this case is narrow, the issue of whether businesses can refuse services to same-sex weddings on the basis of religious objection still isn't "answered."

quote:

---

So, is there another case with the SC that actually will determine whether they can refuse service?

---

I believe there are a few working their way up that would actually decide that issue.

quote:

---

USA Today headline: 3 years after same-sex marriage ruling, protections for LGBT families undermined

The wording here is deplorable. "Protection" is an absolutely ridiculous term to use in this instance.

---

Ya that's bad considering nothing g has changed about the refusal of service question at all in that decision.

Looks like everyone is misconstruing this holding. But that's naive.

Everyone is playing politics with it.

quote:

---

List of sites who use the word narrowly in describing the SC decision.

Politco
CNN
CNBC
(Holy hell) Fox News
NPR
NBC News
Washington Post

USA Today used divided to describe the decision (technically correct but to a degree still misleading)

The only major sources I've seen so far that did not use narrowly (other than USA Today) are the New York Times and the New York Post.

---

which should tell you that they all just used/rewrote the Associated Press wire story

further confirmation of this simply from this 1 tweet

quote:

---

The Associated Press @AP
Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake.

---

that's pretty much how media works nowaday for general news stories... the Associated Press sends it out on its wire services... news stations run the AP story or re-word the AP story

that's what has happened here

quote:

---

Looks like everyone is misconstruing this holding.

---

*makes shocked face

The reality is the decision was very limited or narrow.

quote:

---

The justices' limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

---

At last I can sleep at night!

quote:

---

Therefore, there were other 7-2 or 8-1 rulings that were also described as "narrowly".

---

you are simply not getting this, are you?