Discussion: SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Baker Who Refused To Make Same-Sex Wedding Cake

1 Like

And another brick falls from the wall that was civil rights.

Are segregated lunch counters next?

13 Likes

This just reminds me how much I HATE Republicans. Liars, cheaters, thieves and literal walking scum. We are seeing the destruction of America in real time right now.

There had better be a change in government in November or else things are going to get untenable here.

10 Likes

My sincerely held beliefs include such disdain and disgust with the republican party and movement conservatives that I reserve the right to refuse to stop and render aid if a conservative is bleeding to death in an auto accident or other disaster.

11 Likes

Personally, I’d piss on them. Unless they were on fire, of course.

5 Likes

This is so wrong .

10 Likes

Well a glass half full side of things, these types of thing might get a actual law passed to provide protections, once the current traitors in congress are gone.

2 Likes

Which opens up a interesting line of defense for Trump-“It’s within my sincerely held religious beliefs that Mueller can’t touch me.”

6 Likes

So, -

does this mean that if I were to go into a bakery in December and request a cake be made for Kwanzaa that says “Happy Kwanzaa” said baker can refuse me on the grounds that they don’t recognize any n*gger holidays?

14 Likes

For fuck’s sake. Here we go. Yes, segregated lunch counters; race specific airline seats?

What are we becoming?

2 Likes

They’ve always intended to turn America into a theocracy. These kind of decisions are what lead to religious strife, holy war and terrorism. No religion has ever existed that deserves to be paragon for human behavior. They are usually quite the opposite and bring out the worst in people.

I pray for these law makers.

3 Likes

In light of these opt-out challenges, I’ve thought for awhile that we need an extension of the Civil Rights Act of l964 to include LGBTQ individuals.

9 Likes

A really regrettable precedent set here.

3 Likes

The justices voted 7-2, meaning that two of the “good guys” voted with the majority. I wonder what their reasoning was for supporting this decision.

7 Likes

I’m pretty sure that we already have race-specific airline seats, the race in question being “hobbit” (though they would be sadly disappointed by the associated meals).

4 Likes

The 7-2 split tells me there was a legal flaw in the plaintiff’s argument, or some specific issue with the Colorado law. This is far from over.

16 Likes

I know this is article is intended to release my outrage, but would it be possible for somebody at TPM to report on the actual ruling. I would like to know what Kennedy meant by anti-religious bias. I would also like to know how the court split. Seven to 2 isn’t good enough. Who were the two? Did they dissent, or abstain? Why?

Hint to TPM, the court publishes a syllabus of each opinion so you don’t even have to read the whole thing. The syllabus provides all kinds of answers to basic who, what, when, why, and how questions. Just picking up a really crappy story from AP isn’t good enough.

22 Likes

I think you may be right. If it were 5-4, I’d think it was much more likely that it was mere ideology.

2 Likes

Meals? What airline are you flying that serves meals in coach steerage?

Good point.

1 Like

They had a problem with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

Kennedy added: “As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

18 Likes