Yes. SCOTUS ruled today in favor of homophobic baker Jack Phillips. But despite celebration on one side and despair on ours, the actual facts of this case are worth knowing.
No, this didn’t go how we wanted it to all.
“In a narrow ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.”
Digging under the surface and into the facts, “many initial reactions from pro and anti-gay observers and groups have been wide-ranging, and many have been wrong.”
Don Don Jr already got caught up on the wrong side by saying “7-2 isn’t a narrow ruling.” Here’s what that actually means.
Instead, “narrow” means the ruling pertains to the case at hand. As Axios’ Sam Baker explains, “SCOTUS says *this* baker wins *this* case, in part because Colorado officials seemed hostile to his beliefs, but explicitly holds open the possibility that future bakers could lose.”
But over at RawStory, they have broken this down into exactly what this ruling does, and doesn’t mean:
1. The ruling does not allow discrimination against same-sex couples, LGBT people, or anyone else. It changes no laws and sets no precedents.
2. The ruling applies to one person only: Jack Phillips, the anti-gay Christian baker. Again, it does not set precedent, it cannot be used by others to discriminate against anyone. Period.
3. The only “person” the ruling is against is the Colorado commission that ruled against the baker – and not because of the commission’s overall conclusion, that Phillips engaged in unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling says that the commission acted with “hostility,” in this one case, against Phillips.
4. The Court’s ruling calls for Americans to find a way to be tolerant towards each other, respecting the rights of gay people and the rights of people of faith. (It does not state those are two opposing groups.)
5. If anything, the Supreme Court’s ruling is in part a win for the LGBT community and supporters of equality. Here’s the key passage from the Court’s majority opinion: “these disputes must be resolved 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 market.”
Pride Month is underway and continues with a renewed importance. We’re here. We’re queer. Get to used to it. And, oh yeah, bake the fucking cake!
And now, back to our regularly scheduled pornography.
the problem about saying that it’s no big deal that someone is discriminated against is that pretty soon once the floodgate is open in one area of discrimination it metastasizes into other areas and then people are suddenly saying how did we get into this situation where several precedents have been established for denying people basic goods and services.
either you’re for discrimination or you’re not. the only problem is that one never knows when they will be the subject of unfair business practices. what if doctors and lawyers decide that it’s within their religious rights not to treat patients or represent clients who are queer? as it is many employers can do exactly that with impunity. but what the hell, it’s not a big deal.
Why would you make that big a deal of it and it’s food. If I knew someone didn’t like me and was preparing my food, honey, there’s no telling what would happen. There could be some drugs or fecal matter planted in that cake. Why couldn’t they go elsewhere? This whole case just took so damn long and was a waste of damn money. Should have never been an issue in the first place. That baker should have lost the sale and those two should have gone to another bakery where they didn’t have to put up with that. Something about this smells more fishy than Cardi B doing a split and taking selfies with Chelsea Manning. Well played.
In the age of Trump, did the SCOTUS just want the publicity?
The SCOTUS addresses Constitutional interpretation. “Narrow ruling” isn’t their field.
Nothing about this situation makes ANY.
1. Gays: Find another baker.
2. Baker: Make an excuse
3. How did this become a Federal Case?
Something tells me that the parties involved [baker and couple] just wanted media attention and profit. Talk about collusion.
This case never made sense to me, if this baker didn’t want to make a cake for you, then just go to a different baker. Why cause such a stink about a freaking cake, if he opposed, move along. Now Mr baker if you don’t want to make a cake for someone for what ever reason, then just say “I cant at this time, too busy” don’t be an ass about it and bring your god into it.
so true!
Here’s a thought….find another baker.