Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: U.S. Supreme Court Throws Out Gay-Bias Finding Against Baker [View all]SharonClark
(10,497 posts)28. It was a narrow decision - the Supremes should have passed on this one
"A seven-justice majority said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission finding was tainted by animus toward religion. The Supreme Court ruling was a narrow one that didn't reach the broad free-speech and religious-rights issues that had prompted the justices to take up the case."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Also, the grounds were narrow, so there is little precedent that will flow from this decision. . .nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2018
#18
The case was decided narrowly on "bias" by the state commissioner. As the article states the
Fred Sanders
Jun 2018
#14
Going to have to disagree with you regarding bakers and cake decorators, at least.
Jedi Guy
Jun 2018
#59
Bakers and decorators are artist and do express. But a fancy shape or curlicue has nothing to do
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2018
#72
I never said baking cakes is not an art. Or decorating them. You miss the essential point.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2018
#76
You may well obtain relief in that precedent could make you be safe from consequences of a refusing
24601
Jun 2018
#63
They want the just opposite of today's result. They wanted a sweeping ruling addressing
24601
Jun 2018
#71
Agree with others that the court did not address anyone's refusal to do business with another.
24601
Jun 2018
#65
Avoided the meat...good way to summarize it...or kicked the can down the road, also. No Panic!
Fred Sanders
Jun 2018
#15
I refuse to do business with MAGAts, Christian conservatives, and Fox News fans.
Initech
Jun 2018
#12
IMO it now means my apartment building can refuse rental to all christians or anyone else they
RKP5637
Jun 2018
#16
No. Even a wider ruling (that was not made) would not apply to apartment buildings.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2018
#22
If it is a tiered cake, no problem. Figurines no excuse, if customer specifies it. Read my post.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2018
#54
It's not just creativity. That's no excuse. It has to involve expression related to religion etc.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2018
#78
We serve people and service cars. Customers & clients are people, not machinery. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2018
#55
We were waiting on this for a while. Will we hear about their gerrymandering decisions
Tiggeroshii
Jun 2018
#29
So wasn't it the civil rights commission's JOB to show "animus" to discrimination?
SunSeeker
Jun 2018
#37
Baking a cake is not speech. It is a good. It is not akin to a mural signed by an artist.
SunSeeker
Jun 2018
#47
I'm not arguing the morality of not selling to a buyer because of their sexual orientation.
Jedi Guy
Jun 2018
#67
I did read what you wrote. It just is wrong. Being artistic does not exempt you from the law.
SunSeeker
Jun 2018
#69