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

Narrow refers to the issues upon which the case was decided, not the number of justices on each side. This actually was a narrow opinion.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

you are simply not getting this, are you?

---

Correct.

quote:

---

7-2 decision:


quote:
politico


quote:
narrowly

---

The narrowness wasn't in the margin of the votes, but in the scope of the ruling. Read the article.

"But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views.

The commission had said Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012."

quote:

---

Thanks for the info. Scotusblog is a chore on my phone.

---

I'm a law student, so I'm used to digesting opinions quickly.

quote:

---

I'm a law student, so I'm used to digesting opinions quickly

---

What year? It may not be too late to quit and make something useful of yourself

quote:

---

However, it was clear that forcing the baker to make the cake is considered a violation of his first amendment right.

---

The Supreme Court didn't decide this at all.

quote:

---

Isn't the the Crux of the issue?

---

It is, but the court didn't decide on that today. There are future cases that will.

quote:

---

Yes but that isn't what was decided today

---

Hmmm. I read it differently.

quote:

---

Hmmm. I read it differently

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Fixed it for you.

---

Nah, I went and skimmed through the actual opinion and read analysis from lawyers. Ya know, like a law student would do.

Yeah, I read it as the Court is only imposing a duty on the commission to take the baker's religious objections as sincere and treat them neutrally. They were obviously hostile toward him.

But they didn't say that the outcome couldn't be the same once his objections are considered. The dissent makes a pretty good point that refusing to sell a generic, no pro- or anti-message cake, to a gay couple would be a clear violation of the law.