Wedding Cake Case in Supreme Court

[Bootstrap]

Reading further ...

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 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.

So this is basically a ruling about the hostility Colorado showed, encouraging tolerance to both sides without actually resolving most of the fundamental questions about what happens in general in this kind of case. So ... not a setback, but not yet a major victory for religious freedom either.

[mike]

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

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also was the author of the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

"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.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

"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," Kennedy wrote.

"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 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," Kennedy added.

[Dan Z]

Religious liberty is the next great legal issue of our times. It a core tenet of this country's founding - I can only hope it stays in tact. Sounds like this verdict did not settle things, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Like others, I'm thankful for the verdict.

[Bootstrap]

Religious liberty is the next great legal issue of our times. It a core tenet of this country's founding - I can only hope it stays in tact. Sounds like this verdict did not settle things, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Like others, I'm thankful for the verdict.

I agree completely.

But let's stay in prayer about this issue in the coming years.

[mike]

One article stated that the ruling is "a lesson to the LGBT community that tolerance goes both ways."

That I think is the key issue - the definition of tolerance. Many advocates of tolerance have difficulty with being tolerant of opposing views. The idea of tolerance going both ways sounds like a reasonable concept. I am sure it is a relief to many.

[temporal1]

One article stated that the ruling is "a lesson to the LGBT community that tolerance goes both ways."

That I think is the key issue - the definition of tolerance. Many advocates of tolerance have difficulty with being tolerant of opposing views. The idea of tolerance going both ways sounds like a reasonable concept. I am sure it is a relief to many.

it should not be a tough lesson!
however, after some years of being encouraged they are “special and above,” simple fairness and tolerance will “feel like” a punishment to those who bought into themselves as uniquely privileged.

they will fight it. and, i’m not even sure why.

[Dan Z]

One article stated that the ruling is "a lesson to the LGBT community that tolerance goes both ways."

That I think is the key issue - the definition of tolerance. Many advocates of tolerance have difficulty with being tolerant of opposing views. The idea of tolerance going both ways sounds like a reasonable concept. I am sure it is a relief to many.

it should not be a tough lesson!
however, after some years of being encouraged they are “special and above,” simple fairness and tolerance will “feel like” a punishment to those who bought into themselves as uniquely privileged.

they will fight it. and, i’m not even sure why.

I don't know why either T-1. Perhaps it is an overreach in reaction to a sense of victimization over the years. Anyway, I hope, like most social issues, it all eventually settles down as equilibrium is reached and most everyone finds a way to make it work for them.

[mike]

One article stated that the ruling is "a lesson to the LGBT community that tolerance goes both ways."

That I think is the key issue - the definition of tolerance. Many advocates of tolerance have difficulty with being tolerant of opposing views. The idea of tolerance going both ways sounds like a reasonable concept. I am sure it is a relief to many.

it should not be a tough lesson!
however, after some years of being encouraged they are “special and above,” simple fairness and tolerance will “feel like” a punishment to those who bought into themselves as uniquely privileged.

they will fight it. and, i’m not even sure why.

I don't know why either T-1. Perhaps it is an overreach in reaction to a sense of victimization over the years. Anyway, I hope, like most social issues, it all eventually settles down as equilibrium is reached and most everyone finds a way to make it work for them.

I have heard it pointed out that a gay pride parade is all you need to see to become really confused as to whether the LGBTQ community is trying to paint itself as mainstream or as really strange.

[Bootstrap]

That I think is the key issue - the definition of tolerance. Many advocates of tolerance have difficulty with being tolerant of opposing views. The idea of tolerance going both ways sounds like a reasonable concept. I am sure it is a relief to many.

To me, the problem is that this decision does not yet define what tolerance going both ways looks like in practice.

Scotusblog hosted a legal symposium with four thoughtful articles coming from different points of view. They are worth reading in full, I have only skimmed them so far.

Here's one promising suggestion that a future court could choose or Congress could implement as a law:

Should conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage be protected from participation in same-sex weddings? We still think they should, when the business is small and personal and ample alternative providers exist (as they nearly always do). Such an exemption means that same-sex couples will very occasionally be referred elsewhere and feel insulted and demeaned. But without such an exemption, conscientious objectors like Jack Phillips must permanently surrender either their conscience or their occupation. A narrow exception to gay-rights laws, in a religiously significant context of intense importance to conscientious objectors, holds the best hope of protecting both sides.

That's the first well-defined legal definition of tolerance going both ways that I have seen.

[mike]

That I think is the key issue - the definition of tolerance. Many advocates of tolerance have difficulty with being tolerant of opposing views. The idea of tolerance going both ways sounds like a reasonable concept. I am sure it is a relief to many.

To me, the problem is that this decision does not yet define what tolerance going both ways looks like in practice.

Scotusblog hosted a legal symposium with four thoughtful articles coming from different points of view. They are worth reading in full, I have only skimmed them so far.

Here's one promising suggestion that a future court could choose or Congress could implement as a law:

Should conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage be protected from participation in same-sex weddings? We still think they should, when the business is small and personal and ample alternative providers exist (as they nearly always do). Such an exemption means that same-sex couples will very occasionally be referred elsewhere and feel insulted and demeaned. But without such an exemption, conscientious objectors like Jack Phillips must permanently surrender either their conscience or their occupation. A narrow exception to gay-rights laws, in a religiously significant context of intense importance to conscientious objectors, holds the best hope of protecting both sides.

That's the first well-defined legal definition of tolerance going both ways that I have seen.

But even there, who decides what it means for a business to be "small" and "personal," and what does "ample" mean? What qualifies one as a conscientious objector? The statement is hardly well-defined in my opinion, but maybe it's as well defined as it can be. I don't know. But I think we all know this is not the end of the issue for sure.