Wedding Cake Case in Supreme Court

[Bootstrap]

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.

Ideally, Congress decides that. You're right, these things need to be fleshed out in detail, but they should be. And if they are not, we will have a piecemeal hodgepodge based on a whole host of lawsuits and the details of each case.

We have many laws that treat businesses differently depending on how many employees they have. They use numbers like 250 or 500 or 10. A quick Google search says the average shop that makes wedding cakes has 7 employees. I'm guessing a small florist or wedding photographer also has fewer than 10 employees on average. So pick a number like 10, I think most people would say that's a clearly small business.

We also have principles for determining whether someone has a well-established claim to a religious objection. For instance, belonging to a Mennonite church goes a long ways toward establishing your pacifist beliefs.

[Josh]

We also have principles for determining whether someone has a well-established claim to a religious objection. For instance, belonging to a Mennonite church goes a long ways toward establishing your pacifist beliefs.

That used to be the case, but in my church’s most recent meetings with SSS, the government put forth a new position that they will mostly look at individual factors. Church membership won’t be enough to establish one’s self as a CO. (I believe CAM had a similar meeting with SSS; if anyone else was there, perhaps they can also comment?)

Looking at other religious freedoms recently established by concscientous objection, like Wisconsin v. Yoder, the freedom established there is primarily exercised today by individuals by homeschooling.

Conscientious objection to social security would be counter-example to this, but is the only present day example I can think of—and the only way to practice this objection is to be part of a community that effectively self-insures and expels members who take outside insurance, so it cannot be practiced as an individual conviction.

[Bootstrap]

Conscientious objection to social security would be counter-example to this, but is the only present day example I can think of—and the only way to practice this objection is to be part of a community that effectively self-insures and expels members who take outside insurance, so it cannot be practiced as an individual conviction.

I thought Hobby Lobby was a good recent example where they took this seriously. And I think the Lemon Test is still intact.

We need something built on that.

[francis]

We must beware of hatred towards our neighbors: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... ake-ruling

[Bootstrap]

We must beware of hatred towards our neighbors: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... ake-ruling

Amen.

When Christians show open hostility and hatred toward gays, we shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite us. Jesus certainly loved people who we wouldn't consider particularly righteous. We should follow his example.

[mike]

Although the wedding cake ruling was described as "narrow," it is now impacting other similar cases.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case of floral artist Barronelle Stutzman back to the Washington Supreme Court Monday, after vacating that court’s decision and instructing it to reconsider her lawsuit in light of the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

[temporal1]

Although the wedding cake ruling was described as "narrow," it is now impacting other similar cases.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case of floral artist Barronelle Stutzman back to the Washington Supreme Court Monday, after vacating that court’s decision and instructing it to reconsider her lawsuit in light of the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

i’m in awe of folks who endure these various legal aggressions.
i admit, i can barely imagine how they hold up through it all.
in this case, i’m not sure the ruling came quickly enough to save her business. i hope so.

the outcome affects lots of folks for time to come.
i’m really sorry she had to experience this. coming from ones she knew and served must have made it extra-tough to experience. so unexpected.

somehow, she had clarity of her position. and willngness to see it through.

[Wayne in Maine]

Given that it is legal in most states to deny service to someone on the basis of their political affiliation or their employment ( as in the case of Sarah Huckabee Sanders) one only needs to ask who someone voted for or who employs totem to legally deny service to them. How many conservative Evangelicals would be ordering a cake for their gay wedding?

[Bootstrap]

Although the wedding cake ruling was described as "narrow," it is now impacting other similar cases.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case of floral artist Barronelle Stutzman back to the Washington Supreme Court Monday, after vacating that court’s decision and instructing it to reconsider her lawsuit in light of the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

That's good. Again, the grounds seem narrow - not a decision that she should be free to choose whether to serve a same-sex wedding, but a decision that the state cannot practice hostility and hypocrisy, sending it back to the lower courts so they can find an approach that doesn't allow for that.

So we will probably see this case again next year, or another one like it.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully asked the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider Barronelle’s case in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision,” Waggoner explained. “In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denounced government hostility toward the religious beliefs about marriage held by creative professionals like Jack and Barronelle. The state of Washington, acting through its attorney general, has shown similar hostility here.”

Waggoner points out that Ferguson failed to prosecute a business that berated and discriminated against Christian customers. In contrast, however, Ferguson has steadfastly—and on his own initiative—pursued unprecedented measures to punish 73-year-old Stutzman not just in her capacity as a business owner but also in her personal capacity, threatening her personal assets, including her life savings. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling condemned those sorts of one-sided, discriminatory applications of the law against people of faith.

[Bootstrap]

Given that it is legal in most states to deny service to someone on the basis of their political affiliation or their employment ( as in the case of Sarah Huckabee Sanders) one only needs to ask who someone voted for or who employs totem to legally deny service to them. How many conservative Evangelicals would be ordering a cake for their gay wedding?

In some states, political affiliation is also a protected class, and this would be illegal. If they had turned her away for being a Christian it would not have been legal in any state.

Regardless, this does make the Red Hen look more than a little hypocritical. Tolerance needs to flow both ways.