I have been an angry person since December 12, 2000. And I don't see any signs of that ending.

from their parents and imprisoned, Scotus turning back Gay rights and a deranged monster who would be king.

There is no upside to what is happening in the courts...it may have been a deal which resulted in a 'narrow' ruling and not a 5/4 vote on a worse decision for our side.

I'm starting to think they'll probably side with trump on whether he can be a dictator or not.

Wow. Just wow.

This was NOT a ruling about religious "freedom." A liberal court would have ruled the same way.

Yikes

That was a hasty post by me.

When he does, look here:

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

Thanks for starting the thread.

codifying it simply makes us weaker as a nation.

They ruled that the PROCESS by which Colorado evaluated the bakery case was flawed.

I won't pretend that the likely out come of this is

a) more bigots will be embolden to take this as a green light to do what this baker did. No matter the narrow scope of the ruling. Their president is announcing he can kill a man legally and never be prosecuted. Do I believe these people care about narrow scopes...nope I don't believe that.

b) states where the sympathy lies with said "baker" may use this ruling to justify such course of action as saying, although said person is breaking the law, the prosecution of said person is probably not worth it because the state process is just as flawed as those in Colorado. They need a process review first...which never gets done.

Now that may not happen...may not.

Forget pinning your hopes for rescue of the Republic on the SCOTUS.

of real people in the USA.

PATHETIC.

not on religious grounds. Go to p. 19 and read Justice Kagan's concurring opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

The baker wouldn’t hate gays if he had a good paying job.

if they will the bake a cake for "Happy Birthday Satan?"

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where holy cakes and flower decorations are required for a wedding. It's such a garbage argument. If you're going to say this is a sincere religious belief, prove it through the religious texts.

now be OK if a sincerely held religious belief by my religion.

The Court said that you have the right to due process when the State challenges your discrimination.

They decided it on the basis of whether the Colorado commission gave the baker a fair hearing. It was a procedural case, not a right not to bake a cake case. Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Thank you!

But we have become a group of headline skimmers who then use our super psychic powers to guess the rest of article without reading it.

Thanks for trying to explain it but I feel like you're going to be doing this all day. Did you bring a lunch?

...it just requires that a fairer hearing be held.

There have to be societal repercussions. Hopefully the state takes them back to court soon. During that time I can't see why someone would be bothered by going after their bottom line.

If people in that city who buy baked goods find their position reprehensible, the free market will take care of it.

Exactly. That's why it was mentioned.

I hope they lose enough business to go down. I still understand there are a lot of people out there who would ask "why".

There is no such thing as a "free market" outside of Republicans wet dreams.

Start doing it, folks.

It means only that in the court's opinion a state agency didn't give both parties a fair and neutral hearing. This wasn't a right not to bake a cake case; it was a procedure case. Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Is crumbling before our very eyes.

Unbelievable.

procedural grounds and does not say anything about anybody's right not to bake a wedding cake. It may be crumbling for other reasons but this case isn't contributing to it.

Is being squashed on a technicality, I guess that's OK.

The bakery could get sued again and probably would lose this time because the state law has changed, if the commission were to keep its comments neutral.

Even if Hillary had won and appointed Merrick Garland to the Court and Garland dissented, the result would have been the same, just with a 6-3 ruling.

This case is not as awful as some people think - it was decided on purely procedural grounds and does not in any way impact anyone's substantive rights.

Elections have consequences, but not on this particular case.

Including an Obama appointee one of the 7.

It was a ruling based on technicalities.

abortion next

Link to tweet

The confusion in the case appears to be the type of cake being made.

If it was a plain white wedding cake with no decorations, then the baker would have to sell the gay couple the cake.

The other scenario is a decorated cake where the baker would create a custom cake with his artistic talents. It should be left to the artists discretion to make the cake or not

I just wish I was surprised.

This links to many articles about the decision:

Tuesday round-up