3 ms·
Page 12 I think is where the money is. "Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services w
by classichasclass 8y ago
Page 12 I think is where the money is. "Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."
In effect, the ruling comes down in favor of the baker because it finds fault with the Colorado commission's deliberative process, not actually with CADA, nor does it say that religion must take precedence, merely that it must be considered. Both sides are going to pull pieces from this for future cases. I applaud Kennedy for trying to address the complexity of the issues here but it doesn't settle much.
IANAL. (edited for typo)
- ordinaryradical 8y agoYou can look at all of the false precedents that are being extrapolated below to see how few of us read or understood this case well (I’m guilty here!) What’s scary is how many of us are repeating arguments that the media narrativized this case with as a way of raising the stakes. So many “common sense” yet wrong arguments and conclusions being trotted out.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y agoEven in this thread, much less in other discussions about this case, I've read a lot of people who believe the bakery refused to serve the couple at all, instead of refusing them a particular service but offering to sell them anything in the shop or to custom make cakes for any events other than a same sex wedding. If facts of the case are lost in the discussion, then what hope is there of minding the nuances of the ruling itself?
- cgriswald 8y agoAlso import was the time and legal setting in which this occurred. From the judgment[1]: > His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
- andrew_ 8y agoThe decision strikes me as more of a statement on the imperative of due process without prejudice, than anything else.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]