General Discussion

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)

8. From Scotusblog...

Mon Jun 4, 2018, 10:26 AM

Jun 2018

The lineup in Masterpiece is fascinating--and the gist of the holding seems to be that the baker did not get a fair and impartial hearing before the state Civil Rights Commission (not that the Commission was prohibited from rejecting his arguments after a fair hearing).

The intro to the opinion thus concludes, "Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: SCOTUS reverses Masterpiece Bake Shop (gay wedding discrimination) ruling [View all] brooklynite Jun 2018 OP

But her emails..... NT Adrahil Jun 2018 #1

If Garland had been appointed to the Court, the outcome would have been the same... brooklynite Jun 2018 #4

Yes, but had the SCOTUS not thrown the election to Bush in 2000, the outcome might not have. LisaM Jun 2018 #51

I don't think so...this is what happens when we have spoiler candidates like Stein...kids ripped Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #64

The was a 7-2 vote with Kagan and Breyer brooklynite Jun 2018 #65

And even if they had voted with us , we still lose. Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #66

This Court sucks. OliverQ Jun 2018 #2

I'm starting to be alarmed on where they'll be on gerrymandering. Hugin Jun 2018 #7

This was a ruling JUST about the actions of the Colorado Commission. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #56

So Public Accommodation is out the window? underpants Jun 2018 #3

No, it is not. n/t quartz007 Jun 2018 #52

Yes. I've read further analysis of this ruling. underpants Jun 2018 #54

No prob...been there, done that. quartz007 Jun 2018 #55

SCOTUSblog: Live blog of orders and opinions mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2018 #5

From Scotusblog... brooklynite Jun 2018 #8

Robert Barnes of WaPo hasn't gotten to this decision yet. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2018 #11

7-2 DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2018 #6

I am guessing 7 on SCOTUS are religious? quartz007 Jun 2018 #53

There is nothing ever sincere about blatant public bigotry and hatred Johonny Jun 2018 #9

They didn't... brooklynite Jun 2018 #12

The result may be the same Johonny Jun 2018 #50

Terrifying! Zoonart Jun 2018 #10

Read the decision. It isn't what you think. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #35

And once again, make believe (ie: Christian religious beliefs) trumps the real lives stopbush Jun 2018 #13

Read the decision. It was decided on procedural grounds, The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #29

What would happen if a cake maker refused to bake a cake for a couple from different religions ? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2018 #14

Hmmmm ... that's what I was thinking in post #16. n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #18

You can find a justification for that in the Bible too. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2018 #21

Yep!!! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #22

Economic anxiety, folks. RandySF Jun 2018 #15

Maybe they can just put plaques on their entrances of who can enter. I wonder RKP5637 Jun 2018 #16

"sincere religious beliefs and convictions" TCJ70 Jun 2018 #17

So, if my religion says no christian can rent an apartment in my building it must RKP5637 Jun 2018 #20

Nope, Court didn't say that brooklynite Jun 2018 #23

Thanks, I also read your post on clarification. Thanks!!! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #24

The court didn't decide the case on the basis of "sincerely held religious beliefs." The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #28

This. EffieBlack Jun 2018 #38

I get that. I'm just making a general statement on "sincere religious beliefs". Thanks! n/t TCJ70 Jun 2018 #44

You're trying really hard. EllieBC Jun 2018 #45

Yeah, I'm about to give up. The knees are jerking too fast for me to keep up with them. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #46

There is nothing in this ruling that stops Colorado from challenging the Bakery again... brooklynite Jun 2018 #19

Thanks. Didn't have time to read it. underpants Jun 2018 #25

our next move is to put this guy out of business samnsara Jun 2018 #26

Why? The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #27

Why would you support his business? NCTraveler Jun 2018 #31

I don't. But I'm not in favor of targeting someone to destroy their livelihood, either. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #32

" the free market will take care of it." NCTraveler Jun 2018 #34

He already went out of business fallout87 Jun 2018 #62

This means you can legally discriminate against fundies. roamer65 Jun 2018 #30

It doesn't mean anything of the kind. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #33

Thanks for pointing this out! Glimmer of Hope Jun 2018 #40

No, the ruling basically exempts religious beliefs from the process. Read the first part of page 2. roamer65 Jun 2018 #58

America TimeSnowDemos Jun 2018 #36

No, it isn't. At least not on account of this case, which was decided on The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #42

As long as freedom TimeSnowDemos Jun 2018 #43

Nobody's freedom got squashed. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #47

Elections have consequences. nt Alethia Merritt Jun 2018 #37

Not in this case EffieBlack Jun 2018 #39

Also, Kagan, who concurred, was an Obama appointee. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author redstatebluegirl Jun 2018 #48

The ruling was 7-2 RhodeIslandOne Jun 2018 #49

2 more SCJ could retire in his term highmindedhavi Jun 2018 #57

Statement from NY AG on this ruling Gothmog Jun 2018 #59

2 different scenarios manicdem Jun 2018 #60

Baseless magical thinking trumps human rights and common decency. Garrett78 Jun 2018 #61

SCOTUSblog: Tuesday round-up mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2018 #63