Discussion for article #224505
I wondered about this too. Does this mean the bakery in Gresham that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple can now discriminate? This is Oregon, so they lost in court, but I’m guessing some bigoted baker or florist or wedding planner backed by NOM or some equally disgusting organization is going to file suit again - probably in a red state. I think OR will be okay because our state constitution is tighter on rights than the US Constitution, and frequently denies suits like this.
1 Like
So the court could allow discrimination in this case, by ruling that the couple could always go to another bakery.
The opinion by the five male Catholics ruled that this applies only to religious objects to birth control not other things like blood
transfusions, vaccines, drugs made with pig products, mental health services, etc.
In her decent, Justice Ginsberg notes, “Approving some
religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very 'risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”
1 Like
Well, I know I won’t be shopping at Hobby Lobby ever.
Not that I did much.
I don’t see why not. If a baker can approach the bench and claim that his God/religion does not approve of homosexuality and they can cite chapter and verse to prove it, they’ll gladly do away with the potential business. And SCOTUS will buy it because - religion.
The great Flatulent SupremeCorporation KRATS
aka 5 HorseAsses of the Apocalypse have decided
aided and abetted by the KristianKochKoalition…
…and their off shore bank accounts thank the KKK.
.