- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Says You Don't Have To Bake That Gay Cake
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:45 am to Eurocat
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:45 am to Eurocat
The RULING is narrow npt the VOTE.
By The Associated Press
Posted at 10:33 AM
The justices’ limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.
The justices’ limited ruling turned 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 commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the issue “must await further elaboration.” Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
By The Associated Press
Posted at 10:33 AM
The justices’ limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.
The justices’ limited ruling turned 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 commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the issue “must await further elaboration.” Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
1
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:45 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
Here's the politico email title in a 7-2 decision:
You understand that headline was talking about the narrow basis for the ruling, not the margin by which it was reached, right?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:46 am to Salmon
quote:
And then they made the context clear within the 1st paragraph of the article
So misleading
I'm sure you'll acknowledge that while it ain't a great thing..........a large portion of the population never gets past headlines.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:47 am to Salmon
quote:
And then they made the context clear within the 1st paragraph of the article
So misleading
Do you know how many people don't read articles? They just look at the "news" app on their phone which is all headlines. Or get on twitter and look at the news.. which is all headlines.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:47 am to ShortyRob
Sorry Shorty, I was replying to the thread overall not you personally.
Have a good one.
Have a good one.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:48 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I'm sure you'll acknowledge that while it ain't a great thing..........a large portion of the population never gets past headlines.
of course
that is obvious from this very thread, from the melts about the word "narrow" and from the OP title being wrong
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:48 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
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."
Talk about opening Pandora's box. I can't even see how that would be Constitutional. I get the race and religious discrimination, but they have started taking this discrimination thing to mean "Anyone outside social norms". What happens to the business owner's freedom of choice?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:48 am to The Boat
Sure but what other term are they supposed to use? “Narrow ruling” is what this is called.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:49 am to The Boat
quote:
Do you know how many people don't read articles? They just look at the "news" app on their phone which is all headlin
so that is the fault of the MSM?
they literally provide the context of within the 1st paragraph
it was an accurate title and they gave you context within the 1st paragraph
what else do you want?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:51 am to Salmon
quote:My post regarding the use of the word narrow is related to the reality that the left interprets ALL rulings they don't like as "narrow".
that is obvious from this very thread, from the melts about the word "narrow" and from the OP title being wrong
The word "narrow", by definition, is relative and an opinion.
First off, the vast majority of us never have even asked for a baker to just be able to refuse gays in general(or refuse anyone in general).
And, no matter how "narrow" someone wants to read this........good fricking luck constructing a law that gets around the reason these bakers won.
They, and all like them, will continue to win. So, on that front, it's just not that narrow.
Regardless. My point was that the left NEVER notices when cases they like are "narrow". Which, of course, could rightly describe virtually all Supreme Court decisions.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:51 am to Salmon
quote:
so that is the fault of the MSM?
They know what they're doing. They take advantage of people's ignorance.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:52 am to Salmon
quote:
what else do you want?
They want three-word headlines that neutrally tell the whole story about a nuanced legal principle with significant implications for future constitutional decisions.
Now is that too much to ask?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:52 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
It is still undecided if you can or cannot refuse service in this manner.
You probably can't refuse service based on particular demographics however you can refuse to bake a cock and balls cake.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:53 am to Salmon
quote:Well, it's their fault if they use it to push one way or the other.
so that is the fault of the MSM?
I mean, the headline could have been written just as accurately WITHOUT any push.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:53 am to Eurocat
quote:
ruled narrowly
so was the ruling narrow or the margin by which the ruling occured narrow?
quote:
the justices' limited ruling
This is the accurate way to describe the case.
Can we put the narrowly argument to bed and talk about the issue.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:54 am to The Boat
quote:
They know what they're doing. They take advantage of people's ignorance.
I don't deny this.
This is just a bad example to use.
Or maybe it is a good one with the amount of people that got offended by the headlines
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:54 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:They disregarded the baker's opinion of "offensive".
Yup, sounds like it was a narrow ruling. The commission violated the baker's rights when it treated his case differently than other similarly situated cases before it.
Good fricking luck getting around that problem.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:54 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Which, of course, could rightly describe virtually all Supreme Court decisions.
Wanna know how I know you've read precisely ZERO Supreme Court decisions?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:54 am to Guava Jelly
quote:
Wanna know how I know you've read precisely ZERO Supreme Court decisions?
"Narrow" is a relative term.
So, good luck telling me how one couldn't use it for shite tons of decisions.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:56 am to ShortyRob
People are certainly hypocritical on the issue. Just like always.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News