Finally - No Fruit Cake (pun intended)
Community
“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.”
Grow up EF.
“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.”
Grow up EF.
I thought the cake maker would make them a cake. He just wouldn’t decorate it the way the couple wanted it done. That isn’t exactly refusing service to someone. That’s providing a service with limitations.
As for the ruling the Supreme Court left the door open for future lawsuits.
This country was based upon two broad freedoms....the freedom from, and the freedom to. When those two ideals collide we have issues like this. There is no easy answer, but there are consequences for the choices we make regardless of our freedom to make them.
Race, religion, gender, etc all are part of civil rights and anti-discrimination.
A wedding IS NOT a civil right, nor the celebration of it. The civil rights commission in CO is wrong, were wrong, still wrong, and will always be wrong.
Watching the smart folks on FNC tonight.....the ruling was specific to the baker and what the Colorado Human Rights Commission attempted to impose on the baker who was exercising his/her 1A rights. It sounds like the SCOTUS slapped the CO HRC for violating the baker's 1A rights. From what I heard tonight...there is another case the SCOTUS will consider to take up and may address it more broadly. More to follow.
Think it happened in Abq, NM as well...
And the zeidian proREgressive view of this outrageous decision by the SCOTUS:
From the link:
"... Majority rule can lead to abuse of minorities, justifying judicial protection of minorities, but how do we ensure that the Court both protects the minorities who really need protection, and does so in a way that allows majority interests to prevail when they ought to? The Court’s answer, “trust us,” is increasingly out of place in an era of populist rejection of elite rule.
A democratic system for protecting the rights of minorities is desperately needed. We describe here a voting system that does just that — by allowing citizens to vote in proportion to the strength of their interests. It would be simultaneously more democratic and less vulnerable to the trampling of rights than the options currently on the table, and it would not involve elite interventions in politics through judicial review..."
You need to read the full article to see what the zeidan nation would foist upon this country...
