View Single Post
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2018, 02:58 PM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,619
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,310 Times in 9,281 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The issue at hand is the ruling in the case involving a Colorado baker's refusal to bake a custom cake for a same sex couple's wedding. It's the opinion referenced in the linked article.
Yeah. That's what I'm talking about...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Despite your earlier claim the opinion did not sanctify the right of same sex couples to trample over the religious rights of others. The decision was narrow in scope. Realizing that, you resort to your usual tactics attempting mockery while childishly trying to distort "narrow" as a description of the vote not the opinion.
You have awfully thin skin for as many insults as you throw around.

To the actual issue at hand, I DISTORTED NOTHING.
It would behoove you to actually try to show how I supposedly distorted the statement's rulings. But I know your tactics and your diversions... When you start in by trying to hypocritically whine about how awfully you have been treated, you have devolved to the state of making claims (like claiming my assessment was "distorted") while you provide absolutely no justification for that assessment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Perhaps less time trying to insult me personally would allow you a better grasp of the legal opinion at issue here. Again, the challenge is to provide proof the SCOTUS provided the broad injunctions against religious objections by merchants to participating in same sex weddings in the case of the Colorado baker.
Stop whining and look at what I quoted.
It was right there. I'm going to repeat what you ignored.
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. For that reason the laws
and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The
exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be
given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same
time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay
marriage are protected views and in some instances protected
forms of expression. As this Court observed in
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First
Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless,
while those religious and philosophical objections are
protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy
and in society to deny protected persons equal access to
goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
public accommodations law.
See Newman v. Piggy
Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (1968) (per
curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572
(1995)
The court reaffirmed the standard. The demonstrated quite explicitly and succinctly [b]that these sort of laws still stand and there is no "religious" protection against these laws.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote