View Single Post
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2018, 10:06 AM
AZRWinger AZRWinger is online now
Conservative Sage
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,482
Thanks: 10,833
Thanked 11,396 Times in 6,796 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You claiming they are irrelevant while completely failing to justify your assessment does not make them invalid.

I just quoted the ruling which explicitly documents what I stated.
And the only response you can muster is that you don't find it valid with absolutely no explanation.

You never once explained why the quoted text doesn't say exactly what I said it said.
Instead, you just repeat that you think it's not valid and now you claim you had a "challenge"???
What challenge?
Again you fasten on an excerpt to present a distorted view of the decision.

The Commissionís hostility was inconsistent with the
First Amendmentís guarantee that our laws be applied in
a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was
entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full
and fair consideration to his religious objection as he
sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this
case was presented, considered, and decided. In this case
the adjudication concerned a context that may well be
different going forward in the respects noted above. How-
ever later cases raising these or similar concerns are
resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the
Commission and of the state court that enforced the
Commissionís order must be invalidated.
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances
must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the
context of recognizing that these disputes must be re-
solved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere
religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to
indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is re-
The excerpt you insist on quoting is merely background to the decision. It's history but not despositive in this case. The issue of same sex couples being able to trample religious rights is left open for another day.

It's not surprising you avoid recognizing the blatant hostility of the Oregon officials toward the exercise of religious freedom. They even used some of the same intolerant rhetoric towards Christian objection to same sex marriage you are so fond of spouting.
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post: