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

quote:

---

Which is why i said "good friggin luck" constructing something after this ruling that avoids this problem.

---

I agree. As I've said, I don't think this is as narrow as people are making it out to be.

States are going to have a really hard time trying to construct a completely neutral process.

Basically they'll have to say you can't refuse service to ANYONE. So a gay baker may have to bake a cake that says "I hate f-gs."

7-2 decision. So relatively strong support. In this case “narrow” means they are confining to the facts of this particular case and not taking a broader policy perspective. Perhaps not surprising, given how poorly the Colorado Civil Rights Commission wording was in this case.

Also Kagan is not nearly as bad of a Justice as a lot here make her out to be. She is a lot better than Sotomayor and Ginsburg.

quote:

---

Your point isn't "it"...it's just your opinion...subject to disagreement...and with or without your bias, potentially just wrong

---

He isn't even arguing against my opinion.

He is arguing against the wrong point.

And I would love for you to tell what "bias" I have in this case

quote:

---

I agree. As I've said, I don't think this is as narrow as people are making it out to be.

States are going to have a really hard time trying to construct a completely neutral process.

Basically they'll have to say you can't refuse service to ANYONE. So a gay baker may have to bake a cake that says "I hate f-gs."

---

Yup

quote:

---

"Narrow" perfectly describes the ruling It is isn't the responsibility of the media to cater to your fragile, emotional mind

---

Eh, methinks they knew what they were doing with that word choice.

quote:

---

Salmon and Beam thoughtfully articulated their points. And they are good ones. Your post, however, was silly.

---

I articulated the same point pages ago, so this sentence makes no sense.

Just my interpretation.

<--also a worthless bloodsucking lawyer

quote:

---

If they were trying to mislead, they wouldn't have put the 7-2 decision in the 1st paragraph

---

To be fair, the vast majority of people only read headlines.

quote:

---

Eh, methinks they knew what they were doing with that word choice.

---

Yeah all these arse hat wanna be legal scholars in this thread are hung up over the word narrow. The media used that word for the reason of misleading viewers and readers. People will see the word narrow and not know the context of its usage. People will think it was a 5-4 decision won by the hardline alt-right nazi justices and cause a riot.

Narrow is the term lawyers use to describe rulings of this type. What it means for the next set of cases that this was ruled on a narrow basis, we shall see.