ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, June 04, 2018

No cake for you!

You don't have to bake the cake anymore:
The Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views.
Of course they didn't. That might actually be useful. But at least one minor injustice has been overturned. But on what planet is a 7-2 decision "a narrow victory"?

Labels:

57 Comments:

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook June 04, 2018 12:01 PM  

"The ruling was 7-2, with 2 liberals joining 5 conservatives"

Mmmm delicious salt.

Blogger MendoScot June 04, 2018 12:06 PM  

Doesn't "narrow" refer to the scope of the decision?

Blogger Jack Ward June 04, 2018 12:07 PM  

Narrow ruling? Perhaps because did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views?
Turns my stomach that a 'definitive' ruling was not done. It may have been the compromise that allowed the harassed baker to win his victory. At least that did happen.

Blogger Nathan Bruno June 04, 2018 12:14 PM  

I don't accept that this is supposed to be read as a technical meaning of narrow as in the decision being narrow in scope; this is a--holery from the AP et al to try to get the gullible or those who just scan the headline to believe it was contentious and that the 2018 midterms matter to get Democrats in there:

"The Associated Press

Verified account

@AP
Follow Follow @AP
More
Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake."

If this was meant to be understood as the legal precedent was narrow, they would have put 7-2 immediately after that word "rules" and before that word "narrowly". This is mendacity of high order.

Further, you see in that first sentence quoted: It was not a narrow victor to the baker; it was a full victory to him. He was not treated right. He doesn't have to bake the cake. A narrow victory to him would have been a 5-4 ruling.

Now, it is a narrow decision in that it is narrowly-written and on the technical merits, but this is the cover story of the scoundrels at AP who wanted to leave those who only saw the tweet or the first remarks with the idea that this is 51-49% America and that they need to double down for the midterms. This coverage is propaganda for the Democrats.

Blogger Lyon June 04, 2018 12:15 PM  

Take the W. Narrow or not.

Our governments are overrun by weak men, who collectively have demonstrate they are hostile to us and aligned with our adversary.

These little victories will eventual burst the dam.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 04, 2018 12:15 PM  

Two weeks!

Blogger Paradox June 04, 2018 12:16 PM  

Wasn’t it about decorating the cake? Does the baker still have to sell plain cakes to queers?

Blogger RA June 04, 2018 12:20 PM  

Any way one reads the news, there is no denying the decision itself was narrow, not much more than an unequivocal victory for the baker.

That part was good, actually very good, let's not minimize the victory for this particular man and those of us who stood with him, but the Supremes punted on the wider issues as they often do.

Blogger J Van Stry June 04, 2018 12:25 PM  

It's Reuters and they don't expect most people to read more than the headline (because libs don't read). So they all feel like 'oh! We ALMOST had this one! Time to double down!

It's called propaganda (which I'm sure you already knew) and Reuters, that terrorist employing 'news' agency is famous for.

Blogger Nathan Bruno June 04, 2018 12:27 PM  

@J Van Stry

I agree with you.

The AP and Reuters are specialists in language and clarity. If they had been dispassionate observers, they would have made the language perfectly clear and understandable without ambiguity. They made a conscious choice to make this as ambiguous as possible to convey a specific impression fitting their 51-49 America narrative, because they are unhappy with the ruling.

Blogger Jack Amok June 04, 2018 12:34 PM  

The ruling was 7-2, with 2 liberals joining 5 conservatives

I wonder if the 2 liberals realized there's a lot of damn cakes we can demand they bake, and figured they'd overreached?

Such awareness seems to be utterly beyond leftists, and yet, and yet, something caused those two votes to go that way.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 04, 2018 12:37 PM  

The Fake News can lie all they want to, but this opens the door to civil rights lawsuits based on anti-religious discrimination. About time!

Blogger dvdivx June 04, 2018 12:39 PM  

It doesn't matter as the legal groups representing degeneracy will sue into oblivion any Christians who stand before them. The goal is to financially ruin Christians who stand for their faith. Rulings like this don't stop sjw types they will only double down and sue even more. I think someone wrote a book about liberals doubling down.

Blogger justaguy June 04, 2018 12:44 PM  

Guys the ruling was 4 conservative plus 3 of the vote for gay marriage and gay normalization joining. Kennedy was the vote that made gay marriage legal and here he was swung because the local commission was obviously biased against Christians. However above is correct that nothing was decided except that a commission or adjudicative body cannot by openly hostile to a religion. Nothing points to how the Court would vote to any actual case whereby speech and religious freedom are up against the gay rights lobby to force someone to bake a cake or even preside at a wedding. The opinion says that this will be a hard balancing act-- which is code for keep it looking neutral and we will decide in your favor later.

Blogger Phelps June 04, 2018 12:44 PM  

In legal jargon, narrow refers to the breadth of the ruling, because a win is a win is a win. 5-4 is just as valid as 9-0.

It's the Establishment Media using jargon to mislead.

Blogger Bufface June 04, 2018 12:50 PM  

The ruling is narrow because it does not protect religious liberty and only applies to this one specific case. The supremes have basically said the Colorado civil right commission were too overtly hostile to Christians in going after this baker. They did not rule that they were in principle wrong to force them to bake a cake. The left will simply be more careful the next time they go after a baker. This ruling settles nothing and has wasted everyone's time and money.

Blogger Azimus June 04, 2018 12:58 PM  

I noticed that Orwellian language about 7-2 being narrow as well... little cowardly weasels can't turn off the propaganda spigot even to the point of losing all credibility...

Blogger SamuraiJack June 04, 2018 1:04 PM  

So Sotomeyer and Ginsberg were the dissenters. Both of which should not be in this country in the first place let alone on the Supreme court. Gotta love all the salty tears though, yummy!

Blogger KPP June 04, 2018 1:17 PM  

Since the Supremes did not recognize Constitutional religious protections, you know that the progressives would turn right around and go after this baker again, just to make an example of him.

But - he no longer bakes wedding cakes. He still runs a bakery, but he eliminated wedding cakes from his offerings (losing 40% of his business). Betcha they still try to figure out a way to punish him.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) June 04, 2018 1:18 PM  

Doesn't "narrow" refer to the scope of the decision?

Yes

Blogger James Dixon June 04, 2018 1:19 PM  

> Doesn't "narrow" refer to the scope of the decision?

They'll claim that's what they meant, yes. They'll be lying.

> Wasn’t it about decorating the cake? Does the baker still have to sell plain cakes to queers?

Yes. My memory tells me that he actually offered to provide then a generic cake. But no, they demanded he make a custom one to their specifications.

> But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views.

Oh, I'd say it did. Kennedy's decision said "The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion." You can't get much clearer that that, and he's one of the swing votes.

> The ruling is narrow because it does not protect religious liberty and only applies to this one specific case.

See above.

> So Sotomeyer and Ginsberg were the dissenters. Both of which should not be in this country in the first place let alone on the Supreme court.

Ginsberg doesn't have much time left and there are persistent rumors that Kennedy is ready to leave.

Blogger Elijah June 04, 2018 1:23 PM  

the court refuses to follow the law and logic to end this controversy. they should simply say that refusal of "service" to a protected c;lass is unconstitutional but that refusal of tailored or specific service is not unconstitutional. A jew cannot go into McDonalds and demand a kosher meal, but McDonalds cannot refuse to serve a jew because he is a jew. this is really quite simple except the SJWs don't like logic and truth.

Blogger James Dixon June 04, 2018 1:26 PM  

> ...but that refusal of tailored or specific service is not unconstitutional.

Especially in a case where the tailored service can reasonably considered a work of art, as was true here.

Blogger lowercaseb June 04, 2018 1:32 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:The ruling was 7-2, with 2 liberals joining 5 conservatives

I wonder if the 2 liberals realized there's a lot of damn cakes we can demand they bake, and figured they'd overreached?


I think that is EXACTLY it. I'm kinda sad about this decision almost. Every terrible decision that the lower courts pass can be weaponized by our side.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 04, 2018 1:39 PM  

OT: A bright spot for ship defenses such as carriers?

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/06/us-navy-developing-mothership-drones-coastal-defense/148671/?oref=d-mostread

Blogger MendoScot June 04, 2018 1:43 PM  

7-2

Let me guess, the 2 included Ruth "Arseface" Ginsberg and a Wize Latrina?

Blogger MendoScot June 04, 2018 1:45 PM  

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, two of the Court's more liberal justices, dissented.

That was just too easy.

Blogger Brick Hardslab June 04, 2018 1:52 PM  

@Stg fifteen years ago I was standing on the porch drinking coffee when I heard an ultra low flying plane, well below the limit unless it is a helo landing.

This was on a really remote stretch of coast. I step out to see the knucklehead pilot and it was a drone. It looked kind of like one used for sensors. Only saw it the once but he'd get them on nights with low clouds coming out of the park for years.

Blogger Phil Mann June 04, 2018 1:56 PM  

Every terrible decision that the lower courts pass can be weaponized by our side.

Except that they can't -- not when the supposed referees unabashedly favor one side and blatantly ignore the rules to ensure its victory.

However, the Court no doubt did figure they'd overreached, but not by creating bad legal precedent as much as sensing they'd pushed voters a bit too far (see election of DJT). With mid-term elections coming up shortly, reminding voters why they elected Mr. Trump is not good for the liberal cause. Should Trump be damaged following the mid-term, Kagan and her cronies will be back to business as usual in an instant. Her actions were political -- not the result of honest legal reasoning.

Blogger Salt June 04, 2018 2:46 PM  

This ruling didn't address anything but bitch slapping Colorado for its bias.

Blogger CarpeOro June 04, 2018 3:22 PM  

The writer intended the article be titled "Supreme Court rules narrow mindedly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake", but the editor over rulled it as driving away their allies in the SCOTUS.

Blogger JJ from AZ June 04, 2018 3:28 PM  

It's Narrow because Kennedy, in his love of all things homosexual, couldn't bring himself to rule in favor of the general right to not be forced to make art (speech) in support of causes that run afoul of your own, sincerely held religious beliefs.

Instead, he premised the decision based upon the fact that the same commission that would force this man to create a pro gay marriage cake (even though gay marriage was still illegal in Colorado at the relevant time) had previously ruled (twice) that other bakers could not be forced to make anti gay marriage cakes, and that the commissioners had made disparaging remarks about the baker's religious beliefs.

To wit, if they hadn't had the past history of outright religious discrimination to overcome, Kennedy and the other two leftists would have ruled against this man. As it stands, your right to believe and live your faith is dependent upon whether or not SJW state actors are dumb enough to express their hatred of religion out loud.

Blogger CarpeOro June 04, 2018 3:29 PM  

"The vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets." Meaning they are hoping it is a setup to invent more "rights" they have by making sure you have fewer "rights".... congruent with my previous comment after a fashion.

Blogger lazlo azavaar June 04, 2018 3:41 PM  

What are "words" anymore?

Blogger James Dixon June 04, 2018 4:04 PM  

> As it stands, your right to believe and live your faith is dependent upon whether or not SJW state actors are dumb enough to express their hatred of religion out loud.

It's fortunate that the election of Trump has caused them to drop the mask then, isn't it?

Blogger El Rojo June 04, 2018 4:08 PM  

Title 2 of the civil rights acts is what needs to be taken down.

Doesn't look like much headway is being made though.

I would think that a direct legal challenge would be necessary, but the Supreme court has ways of punting those too.

Blogger tublecane June 04, 2018 4:24 PM  

@2- I don't see how that's possible. "Narrow" is modifying the noun "victory." What victory? The victory of a Christian baker from Colorado. His victory was total: he won the case. Nothing narrow about it.

Blogger tublecane June 04, 2018 4:25 PM  

BTW, I see intentional misuse of "narrowly" being memed everywhere already.

Blogger tz June 04, 2018 4:26 PM  

Although I rarely pray for someone to move on, (((Ruth Cryptkeeper Ginsberg))) needs to be put out to pasture.

I'm listening (@voice on android) to the opinion now. I anxiously await when I get to Clarence Thomas.

Volokh explains the "narrowness"

This might be a feature, not a bug, since by the middle of Trump's 2nd term they can revisit and overturn Obergefell and Roe.

Blogger tublecane June 04, 2018 4:31 PM  

@20- "Yes"

If true, then whoever wrote that headline doesn't know English. Because you don't say the baker was handed a narrow victory in that case. His victory is all-or-nothing.

What you would say, instead, is that "the baker was handed victory in a narrow decision..."

Can we assume the propaganda organs putting this out there are that incompetent? Or are they liars. I l, for one, do not abide by Hanlon's Razor.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) June 04, 2018 4:34 PM  

This ruling didn't address anything but bitch slapping Colorado for its bias.

Agreed.

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 04, 2018 4:34 PM  

So you still have to bake the cake or they will ruin your life, but several years later some robed (((justice))) wizards will reverse the ruling... well after the damage was done.

And of course in the interest of (((justice))), the robed wizards won't make precedent to prevent the same ruination from happening to anyone else.

So in reality, this ruling means nothing and petty (((officials))) can still ruin your life with impunity.

Technically you don't HAVE to bake the cake, but if you don't we will still ruin your life for years until after a huge amount of legal fees the decision will be reversed... but none of the damage we did to you, your life, or your reputation will be reversed.

See, you have (((freedom))) to choose whether or not to bake the cake. You live in a (((free))) country! Thank god for all of those constitutional (((conservatives))) who are defending the constitution to protect us.

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 04, 2018 4:40 PM  

As for the people saying "we can demand they bake OUR cakes!" - You're being delusional. It might work occasionally but I really don't think you have a handle on how brazenly evil these liars are. They aren't afraid of being hypocrites - in their mind, their hypocrisy isn't even hypocrisy because they are "right" and we are "wrong".

That is all the matters to them: their perfect angelic "right"ness and our evil "wrong"ness. There is no hypocrisy they will not commit with this state of mind. They will deny you your baked cake and then cheer when the state forces you to bake their cake. And many of the states will side with them.

Blogger tz June 04, 2018 4:47 PM  

SCOTUS affirms it is Public Accomodation, not Pubic Abomination.

Meanwhile, I have to wonder if this is a SJW convergence virus: Microsoft pays $7.5B for GitHub

Anonymous Anonymous June 04, 2018 4:59 PM  

Wise latina cleaning lady and (((Ginsberg)))

Every single time.

Blogger Starboard June 04, 2018 7:28 PM  

1. Jack Amok "I wonder if the 2 liberals realized there's a lot of damn cakes we can demand they bake, and figured they'd overreached?"

Would you really trust them to bake a cake for you? I can only imagine the sabotage if they suspected much less knew of right leaning politics in the customer. Look for the Christian baker; there's a better chance he conducts himself with honor.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf June 04, 2018 7:44 PM  

This is a positive step, though the ruling appears to be quite limited in scope.

Blogger rumpole5 June 04, 2018 8:34 PM  

That was my immediate impression as well, but not everyone is blessed (or maybe cursed would be a better term) with a JD degree. Years exposed to the Bizzaro world of legal opinions does little to promote a clear understanding of a common English word like "narrow”.

Blogger James Dixon June 04, 2018 10:41 PM  

> an we assume the propaganda organs putting this out there are that incompetent? Or are they liars.

Normally both. But in this case it's done deliberately in order to mislead people.

Blogger Wayne June 04, 2018 11:33 PM  

Yes. The baker has to sell ordinary products to anyone who walks in his shop. The objection was that creating a custom wedding cake for “Adam and Steve” would/could be seen as endorsing so-called “gay marriage” as well as being compelled speech in support of same.

Blogger Jack Amok June 04, 2018 11:42 PM  

As for the people saying "we can demand they bake OUR cakes!" - You're being delusional. It might work occasionally but I really don't think you have a handle on how brazenly evil these liars are...

Oh, I completely understand. The problem that "bake the damn cake" causes for Leftists isn't that we might force them to "accommodate" us (you're right, they'd brazen it out, and Starboard is right, who'd want their work anyway), but that by making the equivalent demands, we'd force them to undercut their own logic.

They still rely on normies believing the poor lefties are oppressed, downtrodden folks just trying to be good neighbors. Making them refuse to bake our cakes exposes them. Normies don't understand how evil these bastards are - and the bastards are counting on that.

Blogger Damaris Tighe June 05, 2018 2:51 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Damaris Tighe June 05, 2018 2:54 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Unknown June 05, 2018 8:21 AM  

It was a little "narrow" in the ruling but the press obviously tried to take that and twist it to make people thing it "narrowly passed". whores they are.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz June 05, 2018 11:49 AM  

It's narrow in the sense that it's not a broad ruling and that you will probably still be forced to bake the cake.
They only decided that in this one particular case, the body that ruled against them was showing anti-religious bias. It is a precedent setting ruling and is only applicable to this one specific case.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz June 05, 2018 11:50 AM  

That should read 'It is NOT a precedent setting ruling and is only applicable to this one specific case.

Anonymous Anonymous June 08, 2018 2:59 PM  

Very much ON-topic:

Arizona (((judge))) rules that Christian wedding-invitation shop must write invitations for same-sex (and presumably polygamous, pedophilic, etc.) weddings.

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2018/06/07/court-rules-for-phoenix-same-sex-discrimination.html

If the plaintiffs can afford to appeal, this is certain to be over-ruled.  "Brush and Nib" implies creative input, which was just protected from having to create distasteful messages under the Masterpiece decision.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts