The Supreme Court's decision may have created a slippery slope which could open up Pandora's box for all kinds of bigotry in the the name of "Religious Freedom."
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
No. That’s not what the ruling was about.
While I think Phillips and his beliefs are wrongheaded and bigoted, I do agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Their ruling was very narrow, and it was not about gay right or religious rights. The ruling was focused only on the treatment of this baker by the local human rights commission in their town. The majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy spells out exactly why they ruled the way they did, and it came down to an inconsistent and unfair ruling by the commission. It's a very interesting read. Other justices authored concurring opinions with which I disagree. And I am glad that Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor were so eloquent in their dissent. This decision was not about religious rights. It was about equality before the law, and the justices ruled on the first inequality in this case. They did not address the more well known inequity that caused the couple to be denied their rights.
The court did not determine that the baker has the right to deny service. All they did was determine that when this incident occurred, prior to the passage of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, a different standard was applied by the local commission to this Baker than was applied to other bakers.
Their ruling was not about whether he’s allowed to be a terrible person in the name of religion.
Jumbo
Level 4
June 8, 2018
3
Every busines man has the right to make a decision on how he runs that business. If he makes a wrong decision he losses business, if he makes a right decision his business improves. Nobody will tell me how to run my business. If I don't want to serve you, I won't. Thats the bottom line !
@Sapio_Ink I disagree with that interpretation of the issue that was the impetus for Kennedy’s majority decision. Before the Court would address (and indeed, could address) the rights of the couple, they had to address an earlier issue: had the rights of the Baker been violated? The case, after all, was brought by the baker, and the central issue was not whether he should be compelled to bake a cake. Colorado law is clear and unchallenged in saying he should. His successful argument was that the law was not applied to him in a manner consistent with how it was applied to other bakers in similar circumstances. SCOTUS held that he doesn’t have a right to refuse his service to gay people, and that he does have a right to equal treatment as the law is applied.
I’m grateful for what AHA does, and I support their mission. In the statement above, they overstated the reach of the decision and conflated the issues involved. If I were them, I’d be claiming victory.
However, I completely agree with you that Phillips is a bigot and is both driven to that by, and hiding behind, his religion.
@VAL3941, no, it’s not a problem because the Court was not deciding if he had the religious right to deny service in spite of the law. They were limited to look only at whether the Commission treated this baker the same way they had treated others. It turns out, the Commission applied a different standard to him.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.