3 ms·
In a very narrow ruling that creates little binding precedent.
by xxpor 8y ago
In a very narrow ruling that creates little binding precedent.
- deanCommie 8y agoNo, but it empowers thousands of hateful business owners to discriminate against gay people in a multitude of ways that while may not be permitted directly by this ruling, will still make life harder for gay people all over the country, and in the BEST case tie up the court system frivolously, and in the worst just remind said gay people that they are second class citizens.
- snerbles 8y agoEmpowered as such business owners may be, remember that they are not free from the consequences of their discrimination.
- xxpor 8y agoRead the actual opinions. SCOTUS ruled that the board in CO that hears these cases was too anti-religious. They didn't rule on the merits of whether the bakery should or shouldn't have to make the cake.
- davorak 8y ago> No, but it empowers thousands of hateful business owners... I do not think deanCommie meant a legal empowering. Only that many will feel more justified in their hate and act on it to the detriment of society as a whole.
- sparrish 8y ago7-2 decision doesn't sound very narrow to me.
- dangoor 8y agoThe ruling has a narrow scope (it was based on the way the lower court deliberated, not so much the substance of the issue).
- harryh 8y agoIn this case "narrow" has to do with the scope of the ruling, not the margin of votes. It could have been 9-0 and still been correctly referred to as "narrow." The court did not rule on the conflict between free speech and discrimination that was at the core of the case. Instead they made a "narrow" ruling saying that the shop owners did not receive a fair hearing in front of the Colorado Civil Rights commission. The broader free speech/discrimination question is still an open one as far as SCOTUS is concerned. I assume we'll see another case down the road somewhere on this topic.
- Tomte 8y ago"Narrow" has two meanings in court opinions like these. You mean the first one: a split that's close. The meaning your parent meant was "not making sweeping generalized judgments, but staying close to the case at hand". That's usully considered to be a good thing, because it leaves open the possibility to decide differently another case that is different in a relevant way, but whose relevant difference couldn't really be foreseen on the former case.