SCOTUS Rules 7-2: Christian Baker Wins Case Against Colorado Civil Rights Commission – Full Ruling pdf…

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 today in support of a Christian Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  (full pdf below)  The majority of the justices’ decision revolved around the severity of anti-religious bias displayed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it originally ruled against the baker Jack Phillips.  According to the ruling the commission violated Mr. Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.

The court did not rule upon whether Mr. Phillips held a first amendment right to refuse to bake the cake; the court ruled Mr. Phillips first amendment rights, religious liberty, was actually violated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission itself.  Much irony here.

Due to the severity of discrimination, exhibited by the Colorado Commission, against the first amendment right of the baker to hold and express Christianity as a foundational moral value, the Supreme court ruled against Colorado to support the rights of the Mr. Phillips.

(Via AP) […] Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the larger issue “must await further elaboration” in the courts. 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.

The disputes, Kennedy wrote, “must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”  (read more from AP)

As Amy Howe summarized for SCOTUS Blog: […] “the critical question of when and how Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”

Here, Kennedy wrote, Phillips “was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.” Because he did not have such a proceeding, the court concluded, the commission’s order – which, among other things, required Phillips to sell same-sex couples wedding cakes or anything else that he would sell to opposite-sex couples and mandated remedial training and compliance reports – “must be set aside.”  (read more)

Here’s the full ruling:

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Christian Values, Cultural Marxism, media bias, Religion, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

333 Responses to SCOTUS Rules 7-2: Christian Baker Wins Case Against Colorado Civil Rights Commission – Full Ruling pdf…

  1. alliwantissometruth says:

    It’s called freedom. There’s no God given right that says someone has to bake you a cake

    A baker can decline an order for any reason if he or she owns the bakery. You don’t like it? Tough shit

    Be it a reason of religion, sexuality or simply because the baker doesn’t like the color of your shoes, it doesn’t matter. It’s their bakery & they decide what to bake & for whom

    There’s 5 more bakeries down the street that’ll bake your cake. Start walking

    People are free to dislike you. Deal with it

    This is America. It’s called freedom

    Now, what people can’t do is physically attack you or harass you for any reason, no matter how much you get in their faces with your agenda

    But that’s the thing, a minute percentage of the population shouldn’t be running around flaunting their sexuality when it goes against the grain of normal society, against the norms & mores of humankind since the beginning

    I don’t hate gay people. Hell, I know many, some I consider good friends, & their wonderful people, but do me a favor, keep your private lives private, OK?

    I don’t run around making out with or fondling my wife in public & I don’t dress up in ridiculously flamboyant scanty outfits to push my heterosexuality agenda. I don’t hold parades to celebrate my sexuality. It’s stupid & it’s low class

    Nobody cares what you do behind closed doors. Just do us a favor & keep those doors closed, just like we all do

    You have civil unions, partnerships, that give you basically everything married straight couples have. The concept of marriage was put in place as a societal tool to produce children & bring them up in a structured environment, & we’d like to keep it that way

    But you just have to have the piece of paper, right? But you can’t have babies the natural way, so that piece of paper doesn’t represent to you what it does to society as a whole, & your feelings don’t outweigh what’s best for societies

    Most people don’t really care & most people will bake a cake for you regardless of their opinions, because they want to make money, but some have real & sincere heart felt religious beliefs, & they don’t want to bake certain cakes

    That’s their right, & it’s your right to take your business elsewhere

    Just live your lives & quit defining yourselves & who you are by your sexuality. It’s just sex, & it should be kept private. If you’ve got to prove who you are by what sex you prefer, then you’ve got way bigger problems than just gay marriage

    If you want to tear down individual freedom & the right to conduct our individual lives as we see fit, then you’re opening up a whole new can of fascist worms, & it will ultimately come back to bite you

    This is America & it’s called freedom, the freedom to do as we choose as long as we don’t hurt others. If you consider your hurt feelings more important than the rights of the individual collectively, then you’re nothing but a spoiled, egotistical brat, & you shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power

    Liked by 34 people

    • Coast says:

      Sadly a good part of our “freedoms” were thrown out during passage of the Civil Rights Act.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Jedi9 says:

      This should be published everywhere! Good post and to the point!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Peter and Jan Denny says:

      Very well said.

      Liked by 1 person

    • GSR says:

      Outstanding words!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Piggy says:

      This X 100 (Alliwantissometruth on).

      Couldn’t have said better.

      Liked by 1 person

    • gymcy81 says:

      ….does that mean that another ‘business’, say gaggel, or chatface, can selectively shadow ban some customers it may not like (for untold reason)…?
      (as long as it is not based on race, creed, religion, color, ethnicity…)
      and if so,
      does it indirectly say that the business can shadow ban customers…?

      [ as long a States formal civil rights commission does not get biased or uncivil towards the business…
      but if someone on the commission gets unequal,
      then the commission is the problem, gets reprimanded, set aside,
      and still, the customer stays shadow banned by the business? ]

      But, without being on the inside, and seeing the private programming, how would we know, or prove, the basis of refusing customers …?
      p.s. hint, by looking at screen shots of the results, over time. [the programming produces end products, and the lack thereof.

      Yes, SC Thomas, it would be good if the SC could comprehensively, address the interconnected issues.
      [ but maybe, the SC was provided only a narrow aspect by the plaintiff / defendent. ]

      Maybe the flower case will look at some of the other connective tissues.
      So as to more cleary define precedence for future cases.

      hmmm…

      Love thy neighbors…
      Matthew 22

      Like

      • rheavolans says:

        I’m supposed to love my neighbor, true, but there’s a difference between “loving my neighbor” and “acting in ways that present a condoning of behavior my religion defines as sin.” The world’s definition if love is “if you love me, you won’t stop me from doing anything I want or tell my behavior is unacceptable or make me feel bad about it.” That’s not the Biblical definition of love.

        “But, without being on the inside, and seeing the private programming, how would we know, or prove, the basis of refusing customers …?”

        I don’t care what the basis is, because I understand that freedom means that a business can choose to serve or not serve whoever they want, and set up their business policies how they see fit. Even Wal-Mart does that – try going to the Wal-Mart bakery and ask them to put a Confederate Battle Flag on a cake for you. It won’t get real far.

        Question: Why is it okay for a homosexual who owns a coffee shop to decline to serve Christians, and throw them out of his store – after going on an obscene tirade against them – but it’s not okay for a Christian to politely decline to serve a homosexual?

        Liked by 4 people

    • covfefe_USA says:

      Excellent, AllIWant! A thousand up votes.

      Like

  2. Trumpismine says:

    I’m sure it has been stated on these posts but justice has been done. TY SD

    Like

  3. StanH says:

    Amen! America is once again edging back to sanity.

    MAGA!

    Liked by 3 people

    • fleporeblog says:

      Your absolutely right and it might get even better in less than a month!

      These comments by Gorsuch and Thomas must be scaring the Liberals to death 💀! There is better than a 50-50 chance that Justice Kennedy will be retiring at the end of the month. Either making his decision known on June 30th or on July 2nd or 3rd. That will allow our President to appoint another Justice in the mold of Gorsuch. That would be 4 hardline Conservatives with Justice Roberts being the swing vote. The good thing about Roberts is that he is much more Conservative than Kennedy.

      From the article linked above:

      In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed back against both the Ginsburg and the Kagan opinions. In his view, the different bakers’ cases – refusing to make cakes for a same-sex marriage and refusing to make cakes disparaging same-sex marriage – were, from a legal perspective, similar, and the commission was wrong to treat them differently just because it regarded Phillips’ beliefs as “offensive.” Using strong language, Gorsuch emphasized that, in the United States, “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

      Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, in an opinion joined by Gorsuch, to address an issue that the court did not decide: whether an order mandating that Phillips bake cakes for same-sex weddings violates his right to free speech. In Thomas’ view, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment. Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he believes his faith forbids,” violates his First Amendment rights.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Ausonius says:

        Two words: Sharia Law!

        Do we protect that also? Or is that where the line is drawn? It is directly part of Islam…

        I would hope that we draw the line there, as we would if somebody wanted to worship Ba’al with child sacrifice and demanded First Amendment protection.

        Oh, wait! We already do that tangentially at abortion clinics!

        Liked by 3 people

        • Beverly says:

          Actually, that IS a poser. All of this garbage sprang from America drifting from her Judeo-Christian moral roots and upholding the same, and insisting that people who come here obey the Ten Commandments, essentially, by obeying our laws. Once the Leftists started the multi-cult crap, we were in for it, but bad.

          Liked by 2 people

  4. Sporty says:

    I’m sooo happy our Whitehouse isn’t going out of its way to celebrate gay month. I’m so tired of that bull.

    Liked by 6 people

    • lisabrqwc says:

      Like flooding the White House in rainbow lighting? Me too!!

      Liked by 4 people

    • Minnie says:

      I received an email earlier today from a well-known shoe site, bedecked with hearts, every color of the rainbow.

      “Celebrate Diversity” was the mantra, just short of spelling out the so-called Gay Rights motif for the month of June.

      I already celebrate diversity, in all its glory, by kneeling to our God each and every day in praise and thanksgiving for ALL blessings.

      I don’t need a shoe purveyor to remind me of diversity.

      Thank you, Jesus, Alleluia, Amen 🙏

      Liked by 7 people

    • Colorado Conservative says:

      You and me both. Heterosexuals do not run around hollering about how proud we are to be straight nor do we demand a month long “celebration” of parades, etc. because 97% of us engage in sex with the person of the opposing DNA, the way God and nature intended.

      Like

  5. Jedi9 says:

    Aside from the debate, what about the couple from Oregon who lost their business and had their money seized by the state and forced to pay a fine?(weren’t they Bakers too that refused to bake a cake on similar grounds) Now that this ruling is official will they be able to contest the state of Oregon for restitution and damages? Anybody know?

    Liked by 2 people

  6. PaulM says:

    Regarding the writing of the opinion by Kennedy, I’m not sure if this is a matter of import or not but as if I recall correctly, the chief justice appoints which associate justice writes the opinion.
    I remember thinking that this could be used to make a justice who was “sitting on the fence” look like a bigger supporter of the opinion than he or she actually was.
    Not that I’m implying that’s the case here.
    I would guess writing the dissenting opinion is dealt with
    the same way?

    Like

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      Huckabee pointed out today that it IS a big deal that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on it. You may be onto something.

      Like

  7. WeThePeople2016 says:

    It is interesting that they did not punt it back to the lower courts and say “fix this” as they have had the tendency to do in cases that are considered to be “controversial” for them. It needs to be noted that they did make a ruling on it and that is a positive sign. IMHO, I think that although the decision is narrow in scope, the implications of it are going to have broader outcomes. As Barnes said in his tweet today, this will affect the free speech Nazis on campuses. This may have implications for Mental Health counselors and counseling gay couples if it is against their religious beliefs. The Mental Health Associations, which lean far left, are trying to get the TN law overturned on that one. The list goes on and on. This ruling today is one step in the right direction for religious freedom, of which our country was founded.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. rw says:

    I have never felt any animosity toward gay people, until they started pulling this crap. Basically, they are seeking out people to harass simply because they have a different viewpoint on one particular issue.

    Liked by 5 people

    • lisabrqwc says:

      I have a gay brother who I love dearly. He’s been with his partner longer than both my marriages put together. My problem is with the progression in the past number of years. From tolerance, to rights, to pride parades, to militancy almost.

      Liked by 4 people

      • piper567 says:

        lisa, its the parity thing.
        its why they stole the word Marriage.
        Here in WA, Domestic Partner designation gave gay folks all the answers to their objections of being marginalized. But NOOOO. They needed to steal the word marriage.
        We are equal, not we want equal rights.
        Have to handle it to the destructors…they really have it down re stealing the language.
        There is great power in words.

        Like

    • Minnie says:

      “They are seeking out people to harass”

      Ergo, the definition of looney leftist mind-control and group think.

      Liked by 1 person

    • AngelOne says:

      Exactly. I have several gay relatives who I love dearly, it changed nothing I love them the same as I always have. Unfortunately for gay folks the left has co-opted their cause for political ends and just like every group the left claims monopoly over, that group gets used abused and harmed by the democrats who have an agenda that needs them perceived as perpetually victimized and oppressed. That’s why they invent problems such as making a federal case out of cake baking instead of going to another baker, because the leftist funded agitators in the rainbow mafia need people divided while they dominate the headlines with invented nonsense.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Deb says:

        Yes, I love my gay relatives as well. It’s the way the left uses this issue to attack Christians that is upsetting. The fact that you can’t just tolerate gay marriage, you must participate in it or they will destroy you.

        This is like the early Christians who refused to give a pinch of incense to the statue of the Emperor. The Romans couldn’t understand, it was just incense. The left still can’t understand our beliefs today, “it’s only a cake.” By forcing us to betray our beliefs, the left became what they supposedly were fighting against.

        Liked by 1 person

      • piper567 says:

        Angel…BINGO.

        Like

  9. ristvan says:

    Lurking Lawyer here. IMO a win, but not a huge win—just one pointing to generally favorable future SCOTUS directions. As credibility background, my favorite 2L HLS course was full year Con Law, taught by then unknown but now very famous Larry Tribe. Con Law is one of my passions, heightened the night Justice Clarence Thomas gave me a set of 18 carat gold SCOTUS cufflinks in a banquet in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court for service rendered. A personal anecdote previously commented on Sundance’ Rosensteig POTUS cufflinks post a few weeks ago. Sorry if what follows in summary is still longish. Treepers deserve truth as best we can know it.
    .
    Just read the entire opinion. Of general significance are two sets of facts. First, 7-2 aint close and the 2 were predictably Ginsberg and Sotomeyer. Even Elena Kagan (lesbian former dean of HLS) concurred! Second, there were three separate concurring opinions joined by at least one other justice. THAT MEANs the nuances of this narrow scope case are huge pointers to future SCOTUS thinking. I will explain in summary below, although have read none of the concurrences yet, so am commenting without full knowledge of what the future might portend. And all of this, as Kennedy recognized early in his opinion, is admittedly sketching new lines within the previous interpretations of 1A in the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges (the newish SCOTUS opinion legalizing nationally same sex marriage). Directly resulting in the narrow scope opinion and all the related Supreme Court ‘fireworks’ on full legal display. They know how momentous this is, but not yet howmto come down.

    Fact background. This case was a deliberate entrapment setup (shades of Russia collusion?). At the time of the ‘wedding’ (2012), Colorado same sex marriage was ILLEGAL but the CAPA Act had been already been passed. Bad state lawmaking.
    This baker had previously been targeted 6 times for a same sex wedding cake, and had refused all. The ‘grooms mother’ witnessed proposed gay deal as legal wedding in MA, reception back in CO. ‘Mother’ called next day (apparently improperly recorded) to get refusing bakers further refusal comments. Complaint under CAPA was filed the next day. In the CAPA hearings, it was clear from the transcribed proceedings record that CO was giving zero credence to any religious objections. Rather, disparaged them as equivalent to Nazi holocost ‘beliefs. (transcript portion is in the SCOTUS opinion).

    Fast foward to Kennedy’s brilliant but narrow scope opinion. At the outset, he recognizes two separate baker 1A defense grounds, speech and religion.
    He passes on speech, but foreshadows ‘creative wedding cake an instructive example of new contexts’—an essence paraphrase rather than direct quote. His actual writing is longer and more legally pregnant.
    He then focuses on religious freedom, recognizing the fundamental constitutional tension between personal general freedom (LGBT) under the Constitution and freedom of religion (Christians and Moslems both find homosexuality abhorrent, albeit with different cnsequences: Christians, hell hereafter; Muslims by throwing offenders off a multistory roof into hell now) a tension recognized but not reconciled within O. v. H.
    So finally he lands on the obvious religious bigotry of CAPA hearings.
    This is the best of SCOTUS con law art. Presage all the real constitutional battles to come, but presage them rather than fight them now on insufficient case law backgrounds..
    BTW, Roberts Obamacare ruling did many similar things that almost NO One outside con law afficcionados has yet noticed. thatmpresages future limits to expansionist commerce clause interpretations. The newish california raisin board case is just the first example thereof.
    Dinner awaits. I must now depart the Treehouse. Auf Weidersehen.

    Liked by 11 people

    • lotbusyexec says:

      Ristvan – you are amazing! Thank you for always sharing your expertise with we Treepers – your posts are always a treat to digest. Hope your dinner is as good as this post was 😉.

      Liked by 5 people

    • lumoc1 says:

      I like your reasoning as usual; and because I am paying attention to detail three minor corrections to consider : Rosensteig Ginsberg and Sotomeyer 🙂

      Like

    • Chris Four says:

      Very good analysis. I am no legal expert but I enjoy reading the SC opinions and how far off the msm is in their reporting. It is always interesting to see what exactly the Court focuses on in a particular case. In this case the biases expressed by the CAPA become the focus of Kennedy’s opinion. One has to wonder if the CAPA members had not expressed their bias how the Court would have ruled.

      As you mention about the Roberts’ Obama Care decision I feel that the Court does not like to wade into the other branches of government. I think Roberts opined it is not the Court’s job to fix bad legislation

      Like

      • ristvan says:

        Yup. Roberts gives every sign of going down as a brilliant Chief Justice. And he is only getting started.

        Like

      • kroesus61 says:

        “I think Roberts opined it is not the Court’s job to fix bad legislation” and yet he did as a jurist by rewriting the law from the bench……can we say hypocrite?

        Like

        • ristvan says:

          Only my opinion, but no. The Roberts Obamacare opinion was sheer genius. What he wrote, he meant. Tossed the while mess back to Congress, where it belongs….
          Butcept a few conclusions, like part 4, which open huge doors to reinterpretation of the overly expansive FDR commerce clause.

          Like

    • piper567 says:

      ristvan, thank you so much for your commentary on this ruling.

      Like

  10. Echo says:

    Here’s the crux of the matter…..
    Phillips offered to sell them one of the standard production wedding cakes made in his cake shop. He refused to use his personal artistic talent to custom make a special design wedding cake celebrating an action he finds morally abhorrent for religious reasons.

    This will come back to SCOTUS.
    If SCOTUS then forces Phillips to comply I guess we’re finished.

    Liked by 1 person

    • rheavolans says:

      If they’ve ruled on the matter, what makes you think they’ll hear it again?

      Like

      • Echo says:

        They haven’t ruled on the essence of it, they ruled only on the apprehended bias of the Colorado apparatchiks. His right to not be dictated to use his talents against his religious convictions remains untested.
        It will be back to SCOTUS if Colorado wants to reexamine and prosecute in a non biased manner, which they or another body can do.

        Liked by 1 person

        • covfefe_USA says:

          Can’t see a homosexual couple going to the cake shop to ask for a homosexual wedding cake because the opinion didn’t just focus on the hostile animus of the Commission – it make clear that the baker has his 1A right to religious expression. The opinion is also a free exercise opinion. The opinion is actually a really big victory for religious freedom. I disagree completely that the opinion is to be narrowly interpreted.

          Like

          • Echo says:

            No, read it carefully. SCOTUS talks about their competing interests at law. It makes no decision on who wins in that competition, instead it dismisses the Colorado bureaucrats because of their bias and the case goes no further to judge these other matters.
            At this time. But it, or another case, will.

            Liked by 1 person

            • lokiscout says:

              I think you are right. The CAPA animus gave the court an easy way out on this case. The court operates on president and with the groundbreaking prior decision on same sex marriage they want to tread carefully on subsequent decisions to make sure they protect basic speech and religious rights while incorporating this new interpretation on same sex rights and build a consistent president base for future rulings. I am encouraged that they are being cautious and restricting their ruling to what is needed. Let’s let the people tell us (SCOTUS) what other areas need addressing by future cases brought before the Court. One or more I understand are already in the system.

              This is encouraging from a more conservative court than we have had recently. The fact Justice Kagan voted with the majority is a welcome surprise.

              But then I’m just a retired Engineer what do I know!

              Like

    • Beverly says:

      Finished?

      Christians withstood the Emperor Nero and being eaten by lions in the arena: Let them come, I say!

      Like

      • Echo says:

        Nah, beat them judicially.
        Letting them come means you lose your house, your business, your wealth….. as would Phillips if the judgement had gone against him.
        Once you’re living in mobile homes with no stake you are easy pickings…

        Like

  11. ReddyFreddy says:

    ALL anti-discrimination laws concerning private citizens and their businesses are unconstitutional and must be repealed. The 1st amendment guarantees us the right to associate with others, or not, as we each choose.

    It is remiss of the SC justices not to state this clearly, when they had an ideal opportunity to do so.

    Liked by 3 people

    • PaulM says:

      I agree with your points but it’s occured to me that in the near term this decision being “lightweight” might be best.
      They basically said “the balls back in the local court but at 7-2 the local parties get an idea of how it’s going to turn out
      if they don’t correct their behavior”
      There shouldn’t be too much screaming here as it is a “narrow” opinion.
      IF the court delivered a full broadside to the people promoting behavior control, there would have been a much larger platform to vocalize from before the midterms.
      ie: “Look what happened when the right wingers appointed one, we can’t let them appoint anymore!”
      Now after midterms, let the other cases come up and hopefully we’ll get a broader opinion without giving the enemy any issues that can be used for recruitment.

      Like

    • roubaix says:

      Agreed.
      I dislike how this has been framed as a religious freedom issue, as if an individual must have a compelling religious excuse in order to decline to do business with someone.

      Liked by 2 people

      • jello333 says:

        YES! As I’ve said in several other comments, there’s no reason this needs to come down to religious beliefs. It’s as simple as FREEDOM, and the person declaring their rights shouldn’t be required to show some “compelling religious excuse” for their views.

        Like

        • Deb says:

          Yes, if the government can force you to perform work, then they own your labor. That makes you a slave, and the government your master.

          If we are to be free, we own our labor and can sell it or refuse to sell it to whomever we choose.

          The left doesn’t see this. In their commie worldview, everyone belongs to the collectivist system. Labor is distributed like everything else, at the will of the state.

          Liked by 2 people

    • piper567 says:

      Reddy, I think ristvan’s contribution above, ^^^, clarifies this a bit.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. youme says:

    All these types of case should be tried in a civil court before a jury. Let the people decide not some kangaroo court filled with political hacks and Social Justice Warriors.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. This whole thing is bogus to me. I believe, with very few exceptions, a private business should be able to refuse services and products for any reason whatsoever.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Minnie says:

      Ah yes, no shirt, no service.

      Absolutely agree with you.

      Like

    • lokiscout says:

      That’s what the sign says over the bar in my local American Legion Hall! Of course another sign says, “No religion, politics or Legion Business spoken here.”

      Totally comfortable with both signs along with the fines for swearing and “Potty Mouth”. Just means us old Navy and Marine vets have to leave our “salt” at the door.

      Like

  14. youme says:

    Operating like secret court…

    Matters concerning investigations or appeals before the Commission are confidential, and can only be discussed with the parties and/or their representatives.

    https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/commission

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Liberty Forge says:

    When it is all boiled down, I do not believe that this issue is really about whether or not one believes in “gay” marriage or not, or even if one’s religious beliefs should prevail.

    This ruling is a small setback to what is the fundamental, and underlying intent.

    I believe the “gay marriage” issue, and so very many other issues, is being used as a “tool” — the distracting umbrella.

    What the real intent is is to force someone to conform, and if “they” succeed in having others “conform” to their mission, then they have successfully taken away the freedom of those who have succumbed to their pressure.

    Gay activists forcing others to conform to their wishes is really a means to an end. It is not enough to be tolerant — one must accept & conform.

    This ruling was not a sucker punch to the enforcers. It is only a pause.

    The intent is to take away our freedom to be free. And they will not stop trying.

    “They” do not want us to be FREE. That is their intent.

    A ‘free’, independent; self-motivated & self-sufficient populace is their enemy, so they will continue to try to crush us. And this is why we fight. This is why we rebel. But that American spirit is a really stubborn thing, isn’t it?

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Sunshine says:

    COWARDS, all of them of which most Atheists and many LGBTmisc. They attacked what they thought was a weak target.

    They would never go to a Kosher or Halal bakery. Much easier to attack a Christian baker.
    Major Kudos to Jack Philips who went all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Please note: Politically incorrect but true – You won’t hear a peep about this ruling from the Muslim nor Jewish communities, although they are all quite satisfied. Once again, Christians are bearing the Cross.

    Liked by 2 people

    • lokiscout says:

      I think the Jewish community has taken their share of hate and bigotry throughout history. Besides a Kosher Corned Beef on Rye is a wonderful thing regardless of your political bent or sexual preference!

      Like

  17. sDee says:

    Americans, who understand the roots of liberty, now feel the boot of the state lifting from our necks.

    Godspeed, Donald J Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Seems like the snowflake enabling “educators” ought to study up on the Free Speech=Unpopular Speech=Protected Speech aspects of Justice Thomas’ concurring brief…

    Liked by 2 people

  19. treehouseron says:

    Sundanced mentioned the Irony of it all, that’s how I’ve been seeing it too.

    – By making the case about the gentleman’s Religious freedom being violated by the actual civil rights commission, the justices actually did a great service to the LGBTQ community by insisting that the civil rights commission give a fair and impartial hearing to all sides of an argument. They’re just too dense to understand that. If you’re gay you still have religious freedoms that need upheld, and if they’re not going to uphold religious freedoms they’re not going to uphold ‘sexual’ freedoms either.

    The libs are all acting like this is a big loss but it has nothing to do with what they think it does.

    Like

    • Beverly says:

      I beg to differ: remember, in Lefty World, “some animals are more equal than others,” and that whole argument that these punishments could be turned against the Leftwingers just makes them laugh: they have Zero intention of engaging in “turn and turn about makes fair play.” And it’s not “religious” freedom that is under attack — it is always, and only, and specifically, CHRISTIAN freedom that is under attack. (If you can think of a case where the leftwingers went after another religion, lemme know).

      Ann Coulter was right: they are “Demonic.”

      Like

  20. CNN_sucks says:

    Good ruling. Too many cake maker to go to. Why singled him out? Hypothetical question. If I want a roasted pig, should I force a muslim caterer to roast me a pig? Hell NO. They will haul my a$$ for sensitivity training.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Daniel says:

    When it comes to voluntary business relationships such as the products and services a company will deliver, this is a good and nearly solid win.

    But what about the hiring of people? We’re still held to this “human rights” standard when it comes to who we’d rather not associate. I presently work for or in support of several related companies and some of them are religious non-profits which are ALLOWED not to hire atheists or Muslims if they decide they want to descriminate against them. But for-profit businesses are not allowed to choose with whom they want to associate. To me, it doesn’t make sense.

    On one hand we’ve always recognized the moral and legal limitations which government should have when it comes to serving people. But why is it different when hiring people?!? In reality, this puts business in even worse jeopardy when they cannot discriminate to get the best people? Consider the fast food places where their hired representatives serve broken glass to police officers ordering food through the drive-through?!

    I sincerely hope we can see an expansion of these standards to include precisely this. And let’s be serious and honest. I know black people who do NOT want to eat at restaurants where the entire staff are comprised of black people. Why?? I have had frank conversations about that and it really boils down to their expectations of quality delivered. (That said, I know a place in S.Carolina where that paradigm is reversed, but that’s a bizarre and so far inexplicable exception to the general rule)

    To be clear, I’m not interested in seeing racial discrimination in the work place. I’m very interested in allowing any sort of discrimination and to allow the marketplace to determine the success or failure of businesses. I believe the same standards should be applied universally. The same businesses which can refuse products or services should also be able to refuse to hire or to fire.

    Like

    • Beverly says:

      The Leftwingers have destroyed freedom of association in this country — and they used the Civil Rights Act as their Trojan horse to do it. This, actually, is why Barry Goldwater opposed the Act (though he was in favor of voluntary desegration and racial equality). He said the end was fine but the means would shred the Constitution — and so it has.

      Think about it: the Act made one group of people the beneficiaries of special protections under the law, and forced other citizens to deal with them in certain ways, against their will or no. This was very different from the laws giving black men the franchise, and later women. It brought coercion into the picture and effectively drove a stake through our freedom of association.

      Like

      • Beverly says:

        And for Goldwater’s principled objection, the Left savaged him as a bigot. He was the farthest thing from one, and they knew it — he was a Western conservative libertarian.

        Like

  22. Raj says:

    I think the undertone for leftists/progressives is if this sets a precedent. That is, what if some business declines you service because of your race if that’s against that business’s religious beliefs? I am a conservative and fully agree with the SCOTUS ruling. However, the danger here is if the “religious belief” is used in a perverse way. Case in point: South Africa’s apartheid. People then actually invoked God to justify their racism. And that included businesses to refuse serving the Africana’s. This is America and we’re proud of our nation. However, our past does haunt us on the injustice we leveled against the African American community. Btw I’m an Indian American who’s extremely proud of our country. If anyone has lived anywhere else overseas, one will realize what a great country we have.

    Like

  23. Raj says:

    I think the undertone for leftists/progressives is if this sets a precedent. That is, what if some business declines you service because of your race if that’s against that business’s religious beliefs? I am a conservative and fully agree with the SCOTUS ruling. However, the danger here is if the “religious belief” is used in a perverse way. Case in point: South Africa’s apartheid. People then actually invoked God to justify their racism. And that included businesses to refuse serving the Africana’s. This is America and we’re proud of our nation. However, our past does haunt us on the injustice we leveled against the African American community. Btw I’m an Indian American who’s extremely proud of our country. If anyone has lived anywhere else overseas, one will realize what a great country we have.

    Like

  24. Texian says:

    I don’t fly heterosexual flags, I don’t make heterosexual.public marches, I don’t sue non-heterosexual businesses (I just don’t do business with anybody flaunting their sex – such as a rainbow sticker – it’s a concept called the “free market.” I know of no business that flaunts a “heterosexual” symbol – because they want your business.. They don’t want to know or hear about your sex so just keep it to yourself).

    I politely keep my heterosexual preference in my home. The abc-lgbtq-xyz ones would be better off if they were simply polite and did that too.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. MAGAbear says:

    Thankful for this ruling, though I wished it had gone further in protecting religious freedom. One thing for sure is that these so-called “civil rights” commissions should be held as unconstitutional entities.

    Like

  26. navysquid says:

    What really p*sses me off about this WHOLE gay marriage attack and that is what it is and I’ll explain why.
    We can all recall when this movement started approx 15-20 years ago was that what gay and lesbian persons were ONLY asking for was that they have the ability to have civil unions be recognized and that was ALL they wanted…though we all know that liberalism is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. They promised that they were not like the militant gays that we did see on a daily basis. Fast forward to once civil unions were accepted that they immediately began screaming discrimination and marriage rights and all other “rights” were always part of their plan.

    Now, I really do not care if you want to be straight, gay, love or hate disco, smoke pot inside your house or not, believe in God or not, be pro 2A or not…these are all YOUR choices. Where I believe most conservatives and even some traditional Dems get all bent is do NOT force me to adhere to YOUR beliefs by going to court to force me to believe in your beliefs. That is not freedom. I do not publicly display my love for my wife in front of you, force you to be a gun owner, tell you that you HAVE to go to church, or, yes, tell you that Shaun Cassidy did have a popular hit called the Do Run Run Run.

    Your choices are your individual choices but you have NO right to force your choices on me. This is America…or it still is for the time being.

    btw…I appreciate alliwantisthetruth’s and ristvan’s comments above!

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Beverly says:

    The Colorado [Satanic] Commission “MANDATED REMEDIAL ‘TRAINING’ AND COMPLIANCE REPORTS”????

    Our Lord warned us of this, all right: to remember, when they hate us, that they hated Him first — and they hate the One who sent Him.

    Brace yourselves, Christians. We are entering rougher seas. The ruling basically leaves the door open for persecution of Christians by “polite” ThoughtCrime/Heresy Against The State commissions. It actually gives them a primer on how to do it next time.

    Like

  28. lokiscout says:

    Top down bottom up inside out! What happened to the day we practiced our sex in the bedroom and practiced/discussed our religion openly without apology or embarrassment? Today we are expected to leave our religion at home and practice, discuss and flaunt our sexuality from the classroom to the “Public Square”.

    Something bassackwards going on!

    Like

  29. What got missed in the ruling was also the issue of property rights, which I think trumps the issue of free exercise of religion and freedom of expression. In other words, the business, the labor and the cakes are the property of Mr. Phillips and whether to offer for sale his property ought to be at the sole discretion of Mr. Phillips. Because the nature of his business does not involve life and death issues, nor does he have a monopoly that would otherwise be subject to government regulation, he ought to be able to tell the gay couple (or anyone else for that matter) that his property is not for sale. And to have a state anti-discrimination board step in and persecute him for choosing to do what he wishes with his own property is unconscionable. I don’t need to explain what it looks like to informed readers on this board to have the government use its monopoly on coercion to force you to do something with your private property, even (or especially) if it is under the pretense of moral superiority. It has all the hallmarks of communism. And I am certain the Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission has been corrupted and taken over by the same.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s