LINK Did the Supreme Court Fall for a Stunt? – Mother Jones
In its decision this week in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court wanted a way to rule narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, without upsetting decades of civil rights law. It seems to have found the answer to its conundrum in a stunt pulled by a religious-right activist. The effectiveness of the stunt, and its embrace by the court’s conservative justices, illustrates the extent to which Christian legal organizations are influencing the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.
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
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The SCOTUS has become very dangerous, starting with that citizen's united bullshit. Hang in there Ruth, you can't die for at least 2 more years!
Lop-Eared-Mule
Level 7
June 22, 2018
1
I think they might have made the right decision. These people would still have been upset and if they were compelled to do something they didn't like who knows what they would have done. State law can still supersede the decision. This will mean those wishing to discriminate must weigh the consequence of a reduced income and maybe even a boycott. Perhaps the couples should have gone to an Erotic Bakery (there is one in Seattle). [eroticbakery.net]
JackPedigo
Level 9
June 13, 2018
1
Might want to read the opinion. State law cannot allow discrimination against a protected class. The opinion says you can't discriminate--the guy didnt know it was against the law the court said because Colorado hadnt allowed gay marriage yet. If the same guy does it tomorrow he probably loses.
The sad, scary thing is that people who refuse to read the opinion think it stands for the proposition that it's ok to discriminate when in fact if the same guy does it tomorrow he probably loses the case based on the court's narrow ruling. Certainly blame the lawyers, always a good scapegoat 
In case it matters to you, the State of Colorado had not legalized gay marriage at the time and while the conservative court was looking for some way to uphold his actions, it did say in the opinion that it's not ok for a person in business to the public to discriminate. This is really no different than trump saying there were good people on both sides in Charlotte. To the racists he was read as saying it's ok to be racist when in fact his comment doesnt change the law on racism against protected classes. Narrow Supreme Court rulings should not be misinterpreted. I've had this discussion on another post and won't respond or dwell on it, all I can say is please read the opinion if you care about the issue before jumping to conclusions. [www].supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
lerlo
Level 8
June 13, 2018
2
Thank you. I am finding more and more the different sides play up certain aspects. The Christians say it shows them right and the secularists point to how conservative the court has become. The decision on the 2nd amendment said the ruling did not leave out regulation. Unfortunately, the ruling (what you sent) are long and complicated. The country needs a translator for all these rulings and one that throws out the hype from both sides.
@JackPedigo not long and complicated. Just read the Court's opinion and not the other opinions that don't count
@lerlo I don't read the other opinions, they are everywhere and each side tries to play up one side for self interests. When 7 justices supported this I knew something was not being covered. NPR has a woman reporting about the latest decisions and I often listen but missed this one.
What stunt?
Deanervin
Level 6
June 12, 2018
1
Um..you have to read the article.
@birdingnut yeah just figured it would be here since it is the premise of the post.
My understanding of the decision was that it had more to do with how courts treated the case. Not so much about the actual controversy. Which is consistent with how lawyers seem to answer everything; by really saying anything.
@birdingnut read it and stand by my first comment.
@Deanervin Try to read the links provided before offering comment. That is one of my pet peeves with men.
@birdingnut funny
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.