- 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: Why is 7-2 Supreme Court Decision considered "Narrowly?"
Posted on 6/5/18 at 6:50 am to League Champs
Posted on 6/5/18 at 6:50 am to League Champs
quote:
But if you're in the wedding business, you can now claim that your religion is expressed ONLY through the union of a man to a woman. And that you put your heart and soul into making that religious statement, whenever you agree to work for a traditional wedding. And that you don't feel that you can put the creative force behind something that you are spiritually opposed to. The blueprint has now been set, by a sizable majority.
you get it
SCOTUS affirmed that a state can't be hostile to a person's religious beliefs.
If a baker claims that he can't participate in certain activities due to his religion, it is now pretty much impossible for the state to do anything to him that isn't hostile.
Fines? Jail? Remove licenses and permits?
The state doesn't have any options but hostility, because hostility and force are the only tools government has.
2
Posted on 6/5/18 at 6:56 am to rbWarEagle
even when you are right you a wrong because you one of dem cuck soyboi libtards. no upvotes for you.
or maybe they melt over your sig image
or maybe they melt over your sig image
Posted on 6/5/18 at 7:13 am to TrueTiger
I find it queer that headlines stating the lopsided, in-your-face nature of the vote (78% to 22%) are scant relative to how many times the word "narrow" is bandied about without proper context. It's my opinion that the authors of the stories know this full well, in advance, but forge ahead anyway with a "let the reader beware" justification. To those working-class Americans who spend the majority of their time trying to make a living rather than studying legal dynamics (there are many), it's a bit misleading and ambiguous. Technically not fake news, but kissing cousins.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:09 am to tigerpawl
A majority is a majority. The vote count just doesn’t matter, outside of those of us who court watch to try to get information on the individual justices that will enable prognostication going forward.
On the other hand, whether the opinion is broad or narrow is of massive inportance.
I’m practically certain that this entire bitching point arose because an expert said that it was a narrow ruling in favor of the baker and then a bunch of laymen ran off to write headlines having zero idea what that means.
On the other hand, whether the opinion is broad or narrow is of massive inportance.
I’m practically certain that this entire bitching point arose because an expert said that it was a narrow ruling in favor of the baker and then a bunch of laymen ran off to write headlines having zero idea what that means.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:24 am to AdamsHouseCat
How can you be so well educated on good music but not this simple concept?
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:28 am to Joshjrn
quote:Let me wrap my little pea-brain around this. Give me a moment...
The vote count just doesn’t matter
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:34 am to TrueTiger
quote:
you get it
Yep. What I don't get - how come no one bitches about stores that have signs on their front doors that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" but have a stroke when a merchant espouses other reasons for non-service.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:37 am to tigerpawl
If I conducted a poll, what percentage of the population do you think could correctly answer a question concerning the vote split in something uber famous like Roe? Hell, what if I only polled abortion activists? I imagine the number who got it right would be vanishly low.
By the way, the vote was 7-2, which I now know because had to just look it up because no one cares.
By the way, the vote was 7-2, which I now know because had to just look it up because no one cares.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:39 am to matthew25
quote:
The state law still stands?
Yes.
A lot here are takin the position that it is effectively dead since they view it as inherently hostile to religion. I believe that is wishful thinking on their parts.
Kennedy pointed out the comments of one CCRC commissioner and their disparate treatment of the “Jack Cases” as evidence of hostility. I think a commission could, by acting equally on both sides of the case, enforce one of these laws in a manner that is not hostile to religion.
Whether (a) these state commissions are capable of doing that, and (b) whether the SCOTUS will recognize any decisions as being neutral to religion remains to be seen.
However arguing these laws are totally dead is premature.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:48 am to CorporateTiger
I think the dissenting opinion lays out the roadmap for the next challenge:
The Court seems pretty clear that it is antagonistic towards forcing someone to write a message they don’t agree with. However, it’s still a very open question of whether someone could be forced to perform a custom, but messageless, service. As an example, whether I’m gay or straight, a baker could refuse to design a cake depicting either the murder of a gay person or a full blown sodomy scene. But if I ask for a white three tier cake with almond fondant icing, a cluster of roses on two tiers, and a bouquet on the top, can the baker agree to make it if it’s going to a heterosexual wedding but refuse if it’s going to a homosexual wedding?
It’s my opinion that anyone who thinks that question has been answered is misreading the instant case.
The Court seems pretty clear that it is antagonistic towards forcing someone to write a message they don’t agree with. However, it’s still a very open question of whether someone could be forced to perform a custom, but messageless, service. As an example, whether I’m gay or straight, a baker could refuse to design a cake depicting either the murder of a gay person or a full blown sodomy scene. But if I ask for a white three tier cake with almond fondant icing, a cluster of roses on two tiers, and a bouquet on the top, can the baker agree to make it if it’s going to a heterosexual wedding but refuse if it’s going to a homosexual wedding?
It’s my opinion that anyone who thinks that question has been answered is misreading the instant case.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 8:50 am
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:03 am to Joshjrn
Agreed, and Kennedy’s opinion goes out of its way to leave the door open for a different ruling based on different facts.
Having looked at some details on the other cases currently in the system, a lot will probably be ruled in favor of the bakers under Masterpiece. The issue is going to be what the next round of decisions by state commissions look like.
Having looked at some details on the other cases currently in the system, a lot will probably be ruled in favor of the bakers under Masterpiece. The issue is going to be what the next round of decisions by state commissions look like.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:50 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
I think a commission could, by acting equally on both sides of the case, enforce one of these laws in a manner that is not hostile to religion.
That's going to be really tricky because the only tool that government has is hostility.
It seems to me that if a gay couple came in the shop and bought something already made right off the shelf then the baker should be fine with that.
But the line is where they would want a custom product demanding his artistic talent and time in something that he is now aware he doesn't agree with.
That is where a conflict with conscience occurs and this case seems to affirm freedom of conscience.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News