Read the opinion.

This case was decided on a specific procedural issues and made no substantive ruling.

Please see response in post #9

I’d also add this from one of my other responses:

It can be spun any way we want but as we debate the finer points of the USSC opinion, the right wing religious zealots are thumping their chest and howling at the moon in victory. They could care less about the fine print or nuance of the opinion’s language. They see it as a clear validation and vindication of their position and will not soon let anyone forgot that.

...they can be challenged, and the Court will likely uphold it as long as they receive fair due process.

For that I apologize.

The point is the indignity of being able to assert such a position at all.

Under the cloak of “religious freedom” we, as a nation, are telling Christian evangelical bigots and racist that they have a right to challenge someone who is LGBTQ or a women or an immigrant or a person of color or an atheist access to goods or services if for some reason it falls into an abstract and unprovable construct of “closely held religious beliefs”.

They are granted a special dispensation to discriminate, treat someone as less than a human being, legally and with an equal chance for it to stand on that discrimination and it be legal.

Is is also unique in that the reverse is not true. I have no special legal framework as an atheist to deny goods or services to a evangelical Christian because of my “closely held non-religious beliefs”.

They said that there must be a balance between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom, and that in cases of conflict regardless of decision parties on all sides are deserving of an unbiased hearing by whatever governing body or court makes the ruling.

They only found fault with the actions of the commission that ruled against them saying it had not acted impartially.

They left it totally open for the same commission to act in a way that doesn’t give an impression of bias but still rule against the bakers.

It was all about the procdure. They didn’t say that you get to discriminate because of closely held religious beliefs. They said if you make that claim your entitled to an imperial hearing before you are ruled against.

I disagree.

First, it can be spun any way we want but as we debate the finer points of the USSC opinion, the right wing religious zealots are thumping their chest and howling at the moon in victory. They could care less about the fine print or nuance of the opinion’s language. They see it as a clear validation and vindication of their position.

Nothing could be more damaging to the cause of civil rights than an opinion like this. It will empower them to ramp up their rhetoric and to continue to push to chip away at civil liberties in the name of religion.

The “closely held religious belief” is rooted in ignorance and bigotry. How is it possible to not have an opinion on bigotry or racism based on religion or anything else?

I read several articles and to consider discrimination, for any reason, as worthy of consideration is absurd.

Yeah, it can be “spun any way” in the press.

That isn’t the law. That isn’t precedent. That isn’t biding case law.


Your a spinning this as way more than it is in a fashion like chicken little.

A excerpt from one of my other responses:

What this ruling does is it continues to foster the indignity on a LGBTQ person or women or immigrant or PoC or atheist to prove that they should be allowed the same rights to buy and sell goods as a white male Christian evangelical.

How?

Because it continues to allow ANY Christian the right to challenge a person’s ability to live a normal life because they make a claim to disagree with it based on their religion.

You see, the reverse is not true.

As an example: as an atheist am I allowed to assert a “closely held atheist belief” to refuse services or goods to a Christian?

Is a LGBTQ person allowed to do the same?

No, they have been given permission to deny equal treatment to everyone under the cloak of “religious expression”.

Yes, they may be told, much later on, that they cannot in the future do that in that specific type of case, but the indignity is in their right to assert the belief at all based on the abstract and unprovable construct of “closely religious belief”.

They actually touched in the fact that the same commission had ruled that other Bakers who refused to make cakes with anti-gay marriage themes and bible verses were within their legal rights to refuse to make those cakes.

Your statement that you couldn’t refuse the same services is actually totally unfounded by the very acts of that commission as documented in this ruling, where it noted as background that the commission in Colorado had ruled that a baker could do exactly that, deny a cake with a bible verse on it.

I can see now why you disagree so hard- you either haven’t actually read the ruling or you did and didn’t comprehend it.

No, I haven’t read the actual USSC ruling as I am not in a position right now to do that and no news article I’ve read went that deeply into the case.

That said this issue is almost exclusively spoken of in context of first admendment right of freedom of religion and the much revered “closely held religious beliefs”.

While I am willing to admit it may not seem fair I think their is a significant difference in not wanting to make a cake with a bible verse or an anti-gay slogan on it and refusing to make a wedding cake because you don’t like gay people and want to use the Bible as cover for your bigotry.

I say that because despite Christians assertions to the contrary they are not an oppressed or marginalized group. They decidedly have unique power and acceptance that few could match: their faith is literally enshrined on everything from the national motto to our money.

I am happy to hear that “it can go both ways” in certain situations. I also contend that in those particular cases it is the not the same thing as denying someone goods or services based on the abstract construct of “closely held religious beliefs” that can neither be proven to actually be “closely held” boils down to the cherry picking of pieces of selected verses in the Old Testament as Jesus never mentions homosexuality or gay marriage in the New Testament.

There's hope for us all . . .

Please check the facts. Here's a summery from Brooklynite:

This was NOT a ruling that said it was okay to discriminate on the basis of religious belief (hence the 7-2 vote) and thus does not set precedent. It boiled down to a ruling that the PROCESS by which Colorado Civil Rights Commission came to IT'S rulling was flawed, and that the bakery didn't receive a fair hearing. What that means is that a future case built strictly on the issue of asserted religious rights could lead to a different result.

There are lots of things about which to be angry these days; we really must check facts, and choose our battles.

While, yes, I do not disagree with this statement, the long term implications are much bigger. My point is that it wil create a burdensome process on these types of commissions to prove that they legitimately considered someone’s racist or bigoted or misogynistic “religious beliefs” when deciding if they are allowed to legally discriminate against someone or not. It also means that every ruling is fair game to legally challenge on the grounds that it didnt give their religious beliefs fair consideration.
It leaves the water muddy and puts someone’s “closely held religious beliefs” on an equal footing with asserting your rights as a human being.
It’s fosters the indignity on a LGBTQ person or women or immigrant or PoC or atheist to prove that they should be allowed the same rights to buy and sell goods as a white male Christian evangelical.

Because it allows ANY Christian the right to challenge a person’s ability to live a normal life because they make a claim to disagree with it.

I'm gay and not particularly bothered by the ruling. SCOTUS was verrrrry specific about what the Colorado commission did wrong, and I'm hard-pressed to disagree with them. Once I saw the clusterfuck that was that commission's process, I felt the baker was going to win this one.

They had to. We can't have state commissions who are supposed to be neutral arbiters be actively hostile to due process based on personal opinion.

This opinion isn't wide-ranging in regards to LGBT rights. In fact, I'd be surprised if it is ever seriously cited again.

It can be spun any way we want but as we debate the finer points of the USSC opinion, the right wing religious zealots are thumping their chest and howling at the moon in victory. They could care less about the fine print or nuance of the opinion’s language. They see it as a clear validation and vindication of their position.

More importantly it clearly gives weight to the concept of a “closely held religious belief” as a cover for hate, ignorance and bigotry. Why should such things get an “impartial hearing” when it’s based on a person’s supposed “beliefs” to deny people their rights.

It’s also bigger than the LGBTQ community.
Can a person refuse to install AC in a mixed race family’s home because his “religion” doesn’t support mixing of the races?

My point is that it wil create a burdensome process on these types of commissions to prove that they legitimately considered someone’s racist or bigoted or misogynistic “religious beliefs” when deciding if they are allowed to legally discriminate against someone or not. It also means that every ruling is fair game to legally challenge on the grounds that it disnt give their religious beliefs fair consideration.

The Court stated nothing new - it didn't take away and rights nor did it grant any new ones. It simply said that reviewing bodies must follow the law and this Colorado commission didn't do that so their decision can't stand.

At least half a dozen people have tried to explain to you why you're wrong, but you refuse to listen. Of course, you can think what you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Kennedy is talking about threading a needle that cannot be threaded. Because these “sincere religious beliefs” are rooted in bigotry and ignorance and are given way more deference than they deserve.

Kennedy is asserting a premise that there is potential for a legitimate construct that would allow for a bigot to deny goods or services to a person based on their sexual orientation that would also allow said person being denied services or goods to maintain some sense of dignity despite it.

Kennedy also stated:


Mr Phillips’ “religious beliefs” are intolerant bigotry and ignorance. Why should we show respect or tolerance for someone that has no inclination show any himself?

At what point did we decide that bigotry and ignorance should get respect and tolerance over the equal treatment of all people?
In Mr.Phillips ideal world the LGBTQ would, at best, be second-class citizens without equal access to goods and services as Christians. I would suspect that he more likely would prefer they not exist at all.

Even if the right decision is reached. Due process matters. Everyone, even bigots, deserve fair treatment by the courts.

They deserve to be treated fairly but not equitable. Their argument to deny services or goods to someone based on an unprovable and ethereal notion of “closely held religious beliefs” is not a special right they should get to hold over others.

As the framers of the Constitution said:

suppose the couple had lost in the lower court, and the Supreme Court determined that the Colorado commission was hostile to non-believers. Wouldn't you want the court to reject the decision that had, as it's foundation, a flawed administrative process that never gave the couple a fair hearing?

That is all that happened here.

It has nothing to do with special rights - all it said was that everyone - regardless of religious belief - is entitled to a fair hearing. (What's more, in the concurrences - and the opinion itself - the court moved closer to saying that states are permitted to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.)

This is not a nuance - it is the heart of what the Supreme Court said today.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/06/04/justices-side-colorado-baker-sex-wedding-cake/

Courts must follow the rule of law and observe due process no matter what

especially when the substantive outcome isn't the one we want.

limit the extent of this decision, but my fear is that the conservatives have something more sinister in mind - the "protection" of religious liberty over all other rights.