How is 7-2 a "narrow" decision?

[Fig]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/sup...ake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

They had better start cleaning this crap up, because there are some doosey lower court decisions that need to be reversed.

 

[FS1]

Its narrow to the left because their pussification of America program is in jeopardy.

 

[ZEROGUY]

Perfect example of how media spins crap to fit their narrative. Big win for freedom of association.

 

[Nik H]

It is the "New Common Core Math".

 

[MtnCreek]

"Narrow" is describing the decision itself, not how many justices were for or against.

 

[ZEROGUY]

"Narrow" is describing the decision itself, not how many justices were for or against.

I'm not well versed in the law or legal language.

But FWIW: The text of the article says "narrow victory". Not narrow decision. However after doing some cursory research on the matter I think I understand a bit more about a narrow vs broad judicial ruling. http://people.duke.edu/~gsv5/JTP2014.pdf

After reading the article again I would agree, it appears to be a "narrow decision".

But in any case I think author is ignorant of these differences at best, or at worst intentionally misleading to reader to think the ruling was a closer vote than it actually was.

 

[Maggot]

Narrow minds???

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

--------------------SCORE! Finally this crap is settled! Although you'll hear my kind screaming bloody murder --screaming! Like there was a molten poker up their ____ Haha. Can't wait to hear the Dave Rubin report on this. It's all over except the tears and the gnashing of teeth. Next they can take their identity politics....

 

[powdahound76]

My question is, if a Muslim baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple would that baker be destroyed such as this, or would the left be “tolerant” of their beliefs?

It is rhetorical. We all know the answer.

And if a lefty baker refuses to decorate my daughters cake with an AR-15 made out if chocolate frosting........

I know Jack, his shop is just down the road a couple miles from my place and within sight of one of my favorite LGS. My church has his pastries every Sunday to go with coffee in the social area. Delicious stuff!

I agree with this decision by the SCOTUS 100%.

I struggle with my own thoughts on this, as I believe in reaching others by kindness and love and not deciding if what they do is worse than I do, of that which I have been commanded not to. Not to wax to religious, just food for thought.

 

[pmclaine]

When is 7-2 narrow ----- When it goes against liberals.

Had it been 4-5 this would be "Settled Law"

but at 7-2 this is open to debate and subject to change.

 

[pmclaine]

I struggle with my own thoughts on this, as I believe in reaching others by kindness and love and not deciding if what they do is worse than I do, of that which I have been commanded not to. Not to wax to religious, just food for thought.

No struggle necessary.

The way I recall it he would have made them a cake up to the point of putting decorations on that his conscience wouldnt allow him to do.

They could have taken the cake and completed it with their own decorations if need be.

This was an SJW lynching.

Now had he decided not to do the cake and the loss of a particular customer base result in the loss of his business I agree with that outcome also......but to have the govt demand he make the cake or lose his business is an egregious overstep.

Let the market decide, govt can keep out.

 

[pmclaine]

I'm not well versed in the law or legal language.

But FWIW: The text of the article says "narrow victory". Not narrow decision. However after doing some cursory research on the matter I think I understand a bit more about a narrow vs broad judicial ruling. http://people.duke.edu/~gsv5/JTP2014.pdf

After reading the article again I would agree, it appears to be a "narrow decision".

But in any case I think author is ignorant of these differences at best, or at worst intentionally misleading to reader to think the ruling was a closer vote than it actually was.

Are they referencing "narrow" on the limits that make the bakers actions Constitutional?

I took it from this post heading as the "for/against" count.

 

[Fig]

Are they referencing "narrow" on the limits that make the bakers actions Constitutional?

I took it from this post heading as the "for/against" count.

That's how I took it, but as has been pointed out they probably mean that the decision does not have broad implications...though it should. That's probably how they got 7, by making the decision narrow and kicking most of the can down the road.

 

[ZEROGUY]

Are they referencing "narrow" on the limits that make the bakers actions Constitutional?

I took it from this post heading as the "for/against" count.

I initially had the same takeaway from the headline.

MtnCreek seemed to think the author was referring to a it being a narrow decision.

I'm thinking the author of the article heard it was a "narrow decision" and not knowing what that actually means referred to it as a "narrow victory" which would leave many to think they were referring to the vote count.

 

[RTH1800]

It would only have broad implications if they had won.
Anyone else notice the way headlines have changed since 2016 elections? The bias is so obvious that it now appears to be working against the liberals. Folks are now seeing the obvious...

 

[lash]

I initially had the same takeaway from the headline.

MtnCreek seemed to think the author was referring to a it being a narrow decision.

I'm thinking the author of the article heard it was a "narrow decision" and not knowing what that actually means referred to it as a "narrow victory" which would leave many to think they were referring to the vote count.

It actually points out (3 different times in the article including the subtitle) that by "narrow" it was a narrowly defined decision. Meaning that it was not a broad ruling allowing discrimination against people just because you are religious. The ruling was specific to this case and the State Commission that had ruled the exact opposite way in three other cases, allowing bakers to deny service to christian clients that wanted religious or anti-gay messages on their cakes.

Point being that this ruling was not giving carte blanche to deny services using a thinly veiled religious beliefs reason. It is specifically saying that the Commission went too far and was being discriminatory based upon religious beliefs.

 

[TheGerman]

Narrow urethra.

That's all I got for this thread.

 

[powdahound76]

Pmclaine

I dont struggle with Jacks decision. On issues such as this and most others, I support a business person’s right to decide.
I can guarantee anyone here that he wasn't mean or hateful when he told them he couldnt make their cake based on his religious beliefs.
Probably prefaced it with an “I’m sorry” and he isnt even Canadian......
That thought struggle is in my own heart and brain.

I saw one of them said to a news reporter it hurts to have this happen in public. Funny, it wasnt public until YOU made it that way.
I bet the Elegant Bakery across the street (almost exclusively makes big fancy cakes for weddings and big events) would have been glad to make the cake.
I am guessing these dudes hand picked Jack and Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping they could make a stink and some smoke for their cause.

 

[TXBO]

This ruling is "narrow" in that it really only settles this case. It sets very little precident for similar cases.

The court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commision was hostile to the baker's religious beliefs when they have an obligation to be neutral.

It does not answer how discrimination laws will be balanced against religious liberty in future cases.

 

[fx77]

The libs need not worry,soon enough some LIB will set up/entrap another religiously committed christian for some perceived slight and they will be back in court again.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Fuck the SCOTUS. They allowed illegal nationalization of our health care, they are at the apex of the deep state and are enemies of our Constitution. . They have no credibility now or for the last 100 years. fuck them and the rest of justice. Justice is dead in our country.

 

[pmclaine]

It would only have broad implications if they had won.
Anyone else notice the way headlines have changed since 2016 elections? The bias is so obvious that it now appears to be working against the liberals. Folks are now seeing the obvious...

You mean the Emperor really does have no clothes.

The genius of the Founding Fathers was they knew human nature dead to rights.

I bet they could quote Aesop in the original Greek.

Our Constitution is based on good and bad human nature cataloged over thousands of years.

The lunacy of the left is in trying to change universal laws of nature.

Sorry the grasshopper dies and the ant suceeds......it can be no other way.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Justice is dead, its every man for themselves in our country now, cops are crooks, cops are murderers, they are armed agents of teh Dem and Repub parties, revenue collecters, and outright murdering theives lately.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/us/ohio-us-customs-cash-taken/index.html

Serve and protect, they are neither serving or protecting, they are revenue agents, and mostly unconstitutional and criminal in every thing they do. And yes the SCOTUS let this happen, they let FISA courts happen, they let the deep state metastasize and crush our republic with their full progressive support.

Shame on all police everywhere, take out your own trash or be lumped in with this crew. Let these kids bleed out after waiting outside while they were executed one by one,

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/0...ooting-but-were-rebuffed-new-report-says.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/parkland-shooting-paramedic-police-response.html

 

[pmclaine]

Justice is dead, its every man for themselves in our country now, cops are crooks, cops are murderers, they are armed agents of teh Dem and Repub parties, revenue collecters, and outright murdering theives lately.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/us/ohio-us-customs-cash-taken/index.html

Serve and protect, they are neither serving or protecting, they are revenue agents, and mostly unconstitutional and criminal in every thing they do. And yes the SCOTUS let this happen, they let FISA courts happen, they let the deep state metastasize and crush our republic with their full progressive support.

Shame on all police everywhere, take out your own trash or be lumped in with this crew. Let these kids bleed out after waiting outside while they were executed one by one,

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/0...ooting-but-were-rebuffed-new-report-says.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/parkland-shooting-paramedic-police-response.html

Nah, Fish rots from the head down.

We got rid of the rotten fish head now we need the healing to filter down.

 

[500grains]

I wonder if cops can refuse service too.

Cop to Dispatch: "If that guy who wrecked his car is a homo, I'm not taking the call."

 

[500grains]

Fuck the SCOTUS. They allowed illegal nationalization of our health care, they are at the apex of the deep state and are enemies of our Constitution. . They have no credibility now or for the last 100 years. fuck them and the rest of justice. Justice is dead in our country.

The Supreme Court has been a POS since Wickard v. Filburn.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111

Summary: The federal .gov can prevent you from growing wheat on your own land, even if you do not sell any of it, because by growing wheat you are not buying wheat and therefore your wheat affects interstate commerce.

Like the cats at the Hemingway museum in Florida. They are born, live and die on the property and engage in no economic activity, but the court ruled that those cats affect interstate commerce and can be regulated by the federal government.

 

[Maser]

How is it a narrow decision? Same reason why kids are given participation trophies. To keep the snowflakes chilled and not melt away.

 

[500grains]

It is not a narrow decision. But it might be a narrow opinion (I have not read it).

 

[pmclaine]

I wonder if cops can refuse service too.

Cop to Dispatch: "If that guy who wrecked his car is a homo, I'm not taking the call."

Totally different.

Cops are a public service.

The cake business was a privately owned enterprise.

It matters

 

[pmclaine]

The Supreme Court has been a POS since Wickard v. Filburn.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111

Summary: The federal .gov can prevent you from growing wheat on your own land, even if you do not sell any of it, because by growing wheat you are not buying wheat and therefore your wheat affects interstate commerce.

Like the cats at the Hemingway museum in Florida. They are born, live and die on the property and engage in no economic activity, but the court ruled that those cats affect interstate commerce and can be regulated by the federal government.

Roosevelt was a Communist and would of repeated the Holodomor in the US given the chance.

Hopefully Trump will have the chance to legally "pack the court".