You continue to rather conveniently miss the fact that Mr. Phillips didn't refuse to "design a cake for a gay wedding." They never got to the "design" part of the equation you keep harping on. The baker refused to sell them a wedding cake... any wedding cake... without any knowledge whatsoever regarding what type of cake they wanted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

As is so frequently your modus operandi, you post partisan rhetoric with a political agenda that you highlight in bold without providing a link to your source and without crediting the author(s)… like this partisan puff piece by "The Editors" of National Review.

Now in this baker's defense, he apparently did offer to sell these guys anything else they wanted from his bakeshop, but he would not sell them a wedding cake. As stated in the Supreme Court's decision, there were disputes among the parties involved regarding the facts of the case, and I imagine that's simply one of many reasons why they ruled narrowly here and punted it back down to Colorado, which committee is likely to rule the same way but with a nicer tone the next time around.

In the meantime, Mr. Phillips does not and will not sell custom wedding cakes to anyone because to sell a product to some customers but refuse to sell it to others is not allowed in the State of Colorado where he chooses to do business. If you don't believe me, check out his website.

In a nutshell, the Court ruled that the state of Colorado violated Jack Phillips’s free-exercise rights in two specific ways. First, the Court singled out examples of obvious anti-religious animus to show that Phillips did not receive a fair hearing from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Most egregiously, one commissioner compared Phillips’s principled refusal to custom-design a cake for a gay wedding to religious arguments for slavery or the Holocaust. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy rightly declared the statement “inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

While the Court could have ruled against Colorado based solely on the commissioners’ expressed anti-religious animus (a ruling that truly would have been narrow), it went further. Justice Kennedy also noted the existence of a rather profound double standard. It turns out that even as Colorado punished Jack Phillips for refusing to design a cake for a gay wedding, it had protected the right of bakers to refuse to create cakes with anti-gay messages. In other words, the existence of obvious favoritism was itself evidence of anti-religious animus.

Not only was the CO Commission bigoted and prejudiced against the baker, they showed a double standard insofar as allow OTHER bakers to refuse to bake cakes based on THOSE bakers beliefs...

THAT is the part of the ruling that is going to bite the SJW's on the ass...

I stand corrected..

But my point is valid nonetheless...

Comedy is often a reflection of reality. If bigotry is what Donald's seeing opposite him, it's because he's earned it by showing so much bigotry of his own.

Yes, sir. It's a simple concept, really... "reap what you sow." The multiple lies that Donald Trump has told about Barack Obama with all the birther nonsense and on his Twitter feed is recorded for posterity, and I hope the fat, bald, Orange Blowhole and his kind are able to live long enough to experience what real bigotry feels like instead of the fake white male grievance they whine incessantly about. :)

Oh.. I see..

NeverTrumper bigotry is perfectly acceptable because President Trump has shown bigotry too..

OK... I got it...

Here I thought ya'all were claiming you are BETTER than President Trump...

Now you concede ya'all are no better..

OK... Fine.. Glad that is on the record..

Yea.. But never with such hatred and bigotry and intolerance..

Those whose Party and themselves tolerate the calling of names like school children of their opponents regardless of party affiliation and the wearing of t-shirts by some to describe their opponent as that "C" word they whined about Samantha Bee using to describe Ivanka, that "P" word that Trump uses on a regular basis, and referring to citizens exercising their rights to free speech as "sons of bitches" who wish to whine incessantly like victims about "hatred, bigotry, and intolerance" is the very pinnacle of hypocrisy.

#Pathetic
#Speck-Eye-Log
#Pot-Kettle-Black
#Reap-What-You-Sow

So, how does the Left justify their bigotry???

Petty man child Trump takes his White House Ball and goes home.

Petty is exactly right because the BLOTUS has an issue with crowd size. When he found out that the vast majority of the team had refused to come, he freaked out and cancelled on the dozen or so that were planning to attend and then politicized the event.

This First Amendment issue isn't complicated in the least. Those who respect the cake maker's right to exercise his First Amendment rights while "insisting" that the football players (or anyone else) can't exercise theirs are pushing a political agenda, particularly when they are a POTUS violating the very oath they swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

For the record, none of the Philadelphia Eagles players took a knee so they couldn't have been the "sons of bitches" Trump was referring to when using the issue as red meat to divide people, and Trump's reason for disinviting them was yet another lie. The Eagles players stood.

Would Trump be less of an A-Hole if he didn't have such a high register voice?

No.

I guess you let out yer inner racist now and then, eh? :D

You like it? I channeled my inner SJW for that one..

It's a savage beast that is never allowed to see the light of day...

Every national politician in my memory bank has been lampooned, parodied, and imitated mercilessly.

Yea.. But never with such hatred and bigotry and intolerance..

But compared to many presidents, comedians have been surprisingly soft in their imitations of Trump since his election.

Of course you would say that..

Society is going in a definite direction. Whether sooner or later, roberts must be concerned about presiding over this era's plessy v ferguson

JL

One of the things I dislike about Baldwin's Trump, aside from its total lack of nuance, is that he fails to pick up the 'preciousness' of the man, from the high register of his voice to the way he keeps his hands suspended in the air like a French decorator (although some of his gestures are also jarringly similar to those I've seen on religious statuettes like the ones my mother used to put all over our house). He also sometimes gets into a defensive sitting posture like that of a young boy being punished.

But compared to many presidents, comedians have been surprisingly soft in their imitations of Trump since his election. I would have expected otherwise.

So, no we're voice-shaming in addition to all the other physical attributes you attack President Trump over??

You hysterical NeverTrumpers really ARE no different than you accuse Trump and Republicans of being... :^/

Sad....

You and that "commissioner" fail to differentiat between 'sins' (acts) of COmission and those of Omission.

Justifying slavery or "holocaust" on religious grounds results in serious harm to black folks and Jews

Justifying refusal to bake a cake for a queer couple inflicts physical harm on nobody.

Yeah, you can respond to the effect that it inflicts emotional harm on the people, but in spite of how much Dems/Libs wish otherwise, there is NO constitutional guarantee against being offended!

Kick-1 Petty man child Trump takes his White House Ball and goes home. I doubt the players care much, since many weren't going. Eagles management probably saw the invite as a potential wedge issue of team unity, so they happy too.

nypoet22 I agree that it looks like a cop-out, but CW makes a pretty good case that it may be strategic decision to avoid this particular battle at this particular time in American History. In the words of Lord Trump* "We'll see."

* Would Trump be less of an A-Hole if he didn't have such a high register voice? Bit of manliness overcompensation? Could a good voice coach have changed history. Sadly, we will never know.

Are you going to Live Blog the California races today?? :D

Can't wait to see if the Democrats out-foxed themselves.. :D

seems like a cop-out decision. i think it's clear the commissioner was making a rhetorical point, not going full godwin over a wedding cake. a better analogy might have been segregated lunch counters in the jim crow south. could those lunch counters have constitutionally stayed segregated if their religious beliefs said people of different skin color need to be separate?

The decision goes to who is the more aggrieved party..

If the gay couple really just wanted a celebratory cake, they could have gone to ANY one of a hundred bakers without a single hiccup.. The facts clearly indicate that they were looking for activism..

In this particular case, the harm to the baker to violate his beliefs or lose his business is MUCH MORE egregious than the "harm" of the gay couple to....

"OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
-Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

..... find a different baker..

If one looks at it with an objective eye w/o regards to a political agenda, one can clearly see the logic in the ruling..

This gay couple decided to bully a religious baker to push their activist agenda and they got their wee-wees whacked...

End of story...

And Kennedy's ruling is inconsistent with the concept that our laws should be realistic about Religion,

"realistic" according to whose definition?? Those who hate and are intolerant of religious beliefs??? :^/

Yes.. In effect, the SCOTUS ruled that government commissions can't use bigoted, intolerant and hateful processes to push an unpopular partisan agenda..

One of the new husbands went with his mother to a local bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop.

A bakery well-known for it's religious affiliations..

Out of the HUNDREDS of bakeries in the city, they choose the ONE bakery they knew would have a religious aversion to serving them...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31408/walsh-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-matt-walsh?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=dailywire.c

What they decided was that illegal discrimination had indeed happened, but that the discrimination was against religion, and that the Civil Rights Commission was the one who had perpetrated the discrimination.

WORD......

The Civil Rights Commission, rather ironically, was ruled to be discriminatory (towards religious beliefs). From some of the comments and questions the commission made during the process, this behavior was pretty egregious, which is why the argument against it convinced two of the Supreme Court's liberals to agree with the conservative justices.

X2......

The VERY first Amendment of the US Bill Of Rights and the US Constitution has religious freedom at it's base...

Unless you want to concede special rights for gay people, forcing a religious baker against their will to create a cake for a gay couple is no different than forcing a liberal baker against their will to bake a MAGA cake for President Trump's birthday party...

JL

“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,” Kennedy wrote.

And Kennedy's ruling is inconsistent with the concept that our laws should be realistic about Religion, while guaranteeing the everyone be allowed to pray to the fictional idol of their choice.

The statement by whatever Colorado Commissioner incurred the wrath of the majority has the unfortunate virtue of being true: religion has indeed been used to justify truly heinous policies, including slavery and the Holocaust; it is (or should be) entirely reasonable to question whether this is yet another case of the same. The Supremes have here in effect gagged the courts from considering this pertinent question in future cases, to the detriment of due consideration and common sense. It shouldn't be out of bounds for any Court to ask any question, as long as the intent or source of that question isn't malicious.

This is in fact a win for those who would use religious belief to justify their bigotry, hatred and narrow mindedness, a total step backward for our whole society. And henceforth, no Court will even be able to question that out loud. Sad!

Speaking of rights and political agenda, BLOTUS just disinvited the Philadelphia Eagles from the White House, blasting the Super Bowl champions for not agreeing with his policy of standing for the national anthem.

They disagree with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country. ~ Donald Trump

It seems to me like the people who understand the concept that no one can insist that the "cake baker" must perform in a manner with which he disagrees might see their way clear to recognizing that it's not altogether different than a President of the United States who "insists" how citizens must perform to suit him.