Score: 1st amendment 1 Liberals 0

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

* Court says state panel violated baker's religious rights

* Ruling was 7-2, with 2 liberals joining 5 conservatives (Adds details on 2012 incident that triggered the case, Kennedy quote)

http://news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

it used to be that any business could refuse service to anyone for any reason. but rarely ever did

---

So at what point do we determine what you do is religión
So the person thrown at the bar wearing a trump hat can now go to the next court and win right

---

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”

So I read up on this decision and before everyone breaks out the party hats and/or gets their panties in a twist, the decision covers a very specific piece of what happened. The baker was asked to make a custom, one-off wedding cake for the gay couple. He refused to do this but he did not refuse their business outright. The court ruled that making a custom cake is art and therefor protected under the 1st amendment. In short; the government can force you to sell your art to anyone willing to buy, but it can not force you to make art for anyone willing to buy.

Or to give a slightly less abstract example: If you had a Jehovah's Witness who was a painter, and a Muslim man commissioned her to do a painting of him and his wife celebrating Ramadan. If the painter says "no, I won't do that because I do not sell to Muslim people" that would be discrimination, but if the painter said "I can do a painting but not of that subject because it is against my religion" that would be okay.

---

So I read up on this decision and before everyone breaks out the party hats and/or gets their panties in a twist, the decision covers a very specific piece of what happened. The baker was asked to make a custom, one-off wedding cake for the gay couple. He refused to do this but he did not refuse their business outright. The court ruled that making a custom cake is art and therefor protected under the 1st amendment. In short; the government can force you to sell your art to anyone willing to buy, but it can not force you to make art for anyone willing to buy.

Or to give a slightly less abstract example: If you had a Jehovah's Witness who was a painter, and a Muslim man commissioned her to do a painting of him and his wife celebrating Ramadan. If the painter says "no, I won't do that because I do not sell to Muslim people" that would be discrimination, but if the painter said "I can do a painting but not of that subject because it is against my religion" that would be okay.

Actually, the decision was not based on the cake being considered art (and thus falling under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment). The decision was solely based on the Free Exercise Clause. You may have been confused by reading the opinion of Justice Thomas in which he made the Free Speech argument.

---

So at what point do we determine what you do is religión
So the person thrown at the bar wearing a trump hat can now go to the next court and win right

Political affiliation, not a religious one. If I remember right, the guy kicked out of the bar tried a “spiritual” defense but the judge chastised him for claiming a spiritual group of one!

---