Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:40:00 A.M. EDT
Speaking of “American Pie,” SCOTUS (unbelievably) rules in favor of baker who refused to make a cake for gays getting married.
(CNBC) The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.GRA: So they allow gay marriage, but don't want them to have cake at it (chuckle). Surprising decision, but the analysis is that people can refuse to serve gays based on religious principles—in this narrow example. Now, can gays be refused service at a restaurant? And why not? Interesting.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion.
The commission 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.
N.S.: If you’re looking for consistency from the Supremes, forget it. In Brown v. [Topeka] Board of Education (1954), the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that it did not support forced integration. But after lower courts ignored and defied it, in ordering forced public school busing for racial balance, the Supreme Court supported forced busing, without ever admitting that that the lower courts had defied it, or that it was reversing itself (Raymond Wolters, The Burden of Brown).
By the way: Forced busing never ended. It has continued under linguistic legerdemain. It is now forced by school districts, rather than the federal courts, and disguised by the euphemism, "voluntary."
GRA
Monday, June 4, 2018 at 11:06:00 A.M. EDT
“Now let me get this STRAIGHT. I don't have to make fudgepacker cake anymore?”—Anonymous bakers all across the country
GRA
Monday, June 4, 2018 at 1:41:00 P.M. EDT
The post-game analyses by Napolitano and others are suggesting that this SCOTUS ruling paves the way for individual business owners to decide what type of customers they want to serve.
Cavuto: "What if an owner doesn't want to serve a bi-racial person? Would this ruling allow that to happen?"
Napolitano: "I think the door has been opened for that possibility."
Which would lead to neighborhoods becoming more homogeneous—and better. I don't understand how the SCOTUS decided this case, this way—based on a long history of inclusion*—but it will be fascinating to view the ramifications.
[*GRA is used “inclusion” in its conventional sense.]
3 comments:
The fudge packers, sphincter spelunkers, anal ardvarks, colon cowboys, butt buzzards, muddy roaders, butt bandits, bum boys, butt pirates, butth*le surfers, butt buddies, etc. are really not that numerous. But their supporters are. They don't just want to be left alone to do their thing--they want to force others to give up their values. No doubt they will find other ways to try to coerce normal people into paying homage to their perversity.
I think the idea that only those with religious objections get to choose who they will serve and what they will do is wrong. No one should be forced to do anything for anyone they don't want to serve--that is involuntary servitude. A free person has the right to decide what he will do and who he will associate with. The civil right laws have made slaves of us all. We will not be free until they are gone.
Well,everyone(the experts) backtracked on the significance of this ruling."No precedent for future similar cases,lots of asterisks etc etc."
SCOTUS must have sent the word out that THIS case only applied to THIS litigant--and that it would be a violation to deny service to someone,because they're gay.
Guess the Supreme Court can have their cake and....
---GR Anonymous
We'll have complete anarchy before we have freedom of association.
Post a Comment