The Supreme Court is setting aside a Colorado court ruling against a baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.
The justices’ limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy says in his majority opinion that the issue “must await further elaboration.” Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Supreme-Court-Ruling-484475001.html
This is a touchy subject. On the surface it would seem that a private business should be able to decide who they want to do business with, but if that business is open to the public, they should not be able to violate the Bill of Rights.
Refusing to bake the cake can be viewed as similar to Google, Facebook and Twitter banning truth or conservative viewpoints. If one practice is illegal, so is the other.
UNDERSTAND……..
MY LABOR AND ENERGY ARE MINE. YOU CANNOT REMOVE WHAT IS MINE (NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, OR HOW MANY BUSINESSES I HAVE….. WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.)
THEREFORE JOLLY, YOUR ONLY LEGAL RECOURSE WOULD BE TO TAKE YOUR CASE BEFORE A LEGAL JURY OF MY PEERS………………………….IF I WERE THE “BAKER” THAT IS………..AND “REFUSING TO BAKE A CAKE”?
I WORK IF AND WHEN I DESIRE. JUST BECAUSE IVE GOT A BUILDING WITH THE SIGN,”CAKES BAKED” DON’T NECESSARILY MEAN I’M GONNA BAKE YOURS. I WAS IN BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS AND REJECTED A HOST OF JOBS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. NOT WORKING FOR FAGS WAS ONE…………….
I hear ya, Koyote…..but my point is that if that’s the case, it’s also legal for Facebook, Twitter, etc., to ban conservative viewpoints.
I’m starting to think that the court may have decided in favor of the Baker just for that reason. There’s a growing movement to end the censorship of Facebook, et al, and deciding in favor of the baker in this case may be the end of it.
A sovereign being’s creation is his/her own… to dispose of as he/she sees fit.
But as Henry pointed out, the baker signed a contract with the STATE.
Therein lies the crux of the matter.