Patty cake, patty cake

[Kaos]

Baker's man,  
Bake me a cake
I don't take it up the can...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/

Are we finally sliding back toward common sense again?

[wesfau2]

Baker's man,  
Bake me a cake
I don't take it up the can...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/

Are we finally sliding back toward common sense again?

This opinion doesn't say what you seem to think the headlines mean.

[Kaos]

This opinion doesn't say what you seem to think the headlines mean.

For one who champions subltely you surely don’t see it when it exists. 
It’s not the full decision I hoped for, but it’s a step in the right direction.   
All the lower courts ruled against the baker.  In a 7-2 opinion the SC leaned toward the side of sensible response. 

[wesfau2]

For one who champions subltely you surely don’t see it when it exists.
It’s not the full decision I hoped for, but it’s a step in the right direction.  
All the lower courts ruled against the baker.  In a 7-2 opinion the SC leaned toward the side of sensible response.

Still did not read the opinion, huh?

The only real court that heard this was the Col Appellate court (the Col Sup denied to take the case), the remainder of the procedural history exists before lay boards and commissions, rather than a full hearing in court (ALJ proceedings are decidedly different from traditional courtroom proceedings.)

The SC opinion basically says that one commissioner mouthed off in a hearing and, since no other commissioner disavowed the statements, the procedure was "hostile" to the baker and the entire process has to start over.

[chinook]

I would have baked them a fruit cake.  

[Kaos]

Still did not read the opinion, huh?

The only real court that heard this was the Col Appellate court (the Col Sup denied to take the case), the remainder of the procedural history exists before lay boards and commissions, rather than a full hearing in court (ALJ proceedings are decidedly different from traditional courtroom proceedings.)

The SC opinion basically says that one commissioner mouthed off in a hearing and, since no other commissioner disavowed the statements, the procedure was "hostile" to the baker and the entire process has to start over.

The liberal takeaway. 

[WiregrassTiger]

Still did not read the opinion, huh?

The only real court that heard this was the Col Appellate court (the Col Sup denied to take the case), the remainder of the procedural history exists before lay boards and commissions, rather than a full hearing in court (ALJ proceedings are decidedly different from traditional courtroom proceedings.)

The SC opinion basically says that one commissioner mouthed off in a hearing and, since no other commissioner disavowed the statements, the procedure was "hostile" to the baker and the entire process has to start over.

I not only didn’t read the decision but I only read the first sentence of your post. Which is actually farther than I’ve made it with one of your posts in a very long time.
But it was exhilarating.

[wesfau2]

The liberal takeaway.

Or the actual language in the opinion.

See, the "fact-fluid" nature of this forum's current iteration strikes again.  If you really are interested in discussing the opinion, then let's...otherwise just another waste of time thread in here.

[Kaos]

Or the actual language in the opinion.

See, the "fact-fluid" nature of this forum's current iteration strikes again.  If you really are interested in discussing the opinion, then let's...otherwise just another waste of time thread in here.

Your interpretation is the most liberal interpretation of the ruling period.  It pretty much mirrors what your average LBGTQRSPD blog says.  

Other interpretations are different.  

Most, even in mainstream media, view this as a victory for the baker.  

It may stop short of what I would have preferred in terms of affirming absolute freedom for business owners to uphold their own values, but it does not completely close that door.  

Believe it or not, you aren’t always the sharpest bulb in the sack. Your elite view from on high isn’t always right.  

[wesfau2]

Your interpretation is the most liberal interpretation of the ruling period.  It pretty much mirrors what your average LBGTQRSPD blog says.  

Other interpretations are different.  

Most, even in mainstream media, view this as a victory for the baker.  

It may stop short of what I would have preferred in terms of affirming absolute freedom for business owners to uphold their own values, but it does not completely close that door.  

Believe it or not, you aren’t always the sharpest bulb in the sack. Your elite view from on high isn’t always right.  

My post isn't an "interpretation."  It's the actual language from the actual opinion.

That [neutral and respectful] consideration [of his claims] was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

[WiregrassTiger]

Or the actual language in the opinion.

See, the "fact-fluid" nature of this forum's current iteration strikes again.  If you really are interested in discussing the opinion, then let's...otherwise just another waste of time thread in here.

Name one other example of a "waste of time" thread in here, bucko.

[Kaos]

My post isn't an "interpretation."  It's the actual language from the actual opinion.

You. Take. From. That. What. You. Want. It. To. Mean.
Not that hard.  

Also not the entire opinion, just the part you and the LTBRGQMFZ blogs have siezed on. 

[wesfau2]

FFS.

I'm back to drive-by posting here.

[WiregrassTiger]

FFS.

I'm back to drive-by posting here.

Could you post a schedule? Then, I could only show up on the days you’re off.

boom!
#makinxgreatagain

[Snaggletiger]

Back on the opinion for a second. Although I agree that the part Wes posted focused on the hostility of the Commission during what was supposed to be a fair and unbiased hearing, I think it also hits directly at the crux of the issue. The Justices got a glimpse of how religion is treated in certain areas in our current environment.  I'm assuming that Phillips is sincere in his assertion that his religious beliefs precluded him from baking teh gay cakes.  It also appears that up until the SCOTUS took a look at it, his religious beliefs were dismissed as balderdash...shenanigans even...and he was not allowed to take a position based on his faith. I believe (Just my opinion)the SCOTUS saw in the extremely biased language of the Commission's decision, and that it was never challenged, that Phillips was in fact, the one discriminated against.    

[WiregrassTiger]

Back on the opinion for a second. Although I agree that the part Wes posted focused on the hostility of the Commission during what was supposed to be a fair and unbiased hearing, I think it also hits directly at the crux of the issue. The Justices got a glimpse of how religion is treated in certain areas in our current environment.  I'm assuming that Phillips is sincere in his assertion that his religious beliefs precluded him from baking teh gay cakes.  It also appears that up until the SCOTUS took a look at it, his religious beliefs were dismissed as balderdash...shenanigans even...and he was not allowed to take a position based on his faith. I believe (Just my opinion)the SCOTUS saw in the extremely biased language of the Commission's decision, and that it was never challenged, that Phillips was in fact, the one discriminated against.   

I know that you and Wes got a good look at my SCROTUM. You want to tell us about that?

How about it, Wes? Fly by post about my SCROTUM.

[Kaos]

Back on the opinion for a second. Although I agree that the part Wes posted focused on the hostility of the Commission during what was supposed to be a fair and unbiased hearing, I think it also hits directly at the crux of the issue. The Justices got a glimpse of how religion is treated in certain areas in our current environment.  I'm assuming that Phillips is sincere in his assertion that his religious beliefs precluded him from baking teh gay cakes.  It also appears that up until the SCOTUS took a look at it, his religious beliefs were dismissed as balderdash...shenanigans even...and he was not allowed to take a position based on his faith. I believe (Just my opinion)the SCOTUS saw in the extremely biased language of the Commission's decision, and that it was never challenged, that Phillips was in fact, the one discriminated against.   

You used a lot of words and got to the same general area: 

The opinion could easily be interpreted as a win for the baker and a statement upholding his religious rights. That requires you to read the ENTIRE opinion. 


Or.... you could cherry pick a section and drive by with the same view as the typical LBNG539QWERTY blog.  

The SC tried to be Solomon. Typical.  Left the meaning open to interpretation. Regardless of what some would have you think 

[Snaggletiger]

Admittedly, I'm not versed in procedural issues at that level.  Just asking and would love for Wes to weigh in because I guarantee his knowledge on the subject kicks mine in the ass. 

If the SC made this decision solely on their perception that Phillips didn't get a fair shake at the lower levels strictly due to bias, would they not remand/send it back down for a do over.  Or by the time it reaches their ears, do they have to make a decision and that's final? 

I still tend to read into that part of the opinion Wes posted as not only was the Commission's decision off the charts bias, but they (SC) also tended to acknowledge Phillips' right to take a position based on his religious beliefs. 

[Kaos]

Admittedly, I'm not versed in procedural issues at that level.  Just asking and would love for Wes to weigh in because I guarantee his knowledge on the subject kicks mine in the ass.

If the SC made this decision solely on their perception that Phillips didn't get a fair shake at the lower levels strictly due to bias, would they not remand/send it back down for a do over.  Or by the time it reaches their ears, do they have to make a decision and that's final?

I still tend to read into that part of the opinion Wes posted as not only was the Commission's decision off the charts bias, but they (SC) also tended to acknowledge Phillips' right to take a position based on his religious beliefs.

Now, now.  You know it's not open for interpretation.  Do better.  

Seriously?  Your take is pretty much what everyone other than the most screechingly left viewpoints drew from the ruling.   Which is why I said in the beginning that it didn't go quite far enough for me.  

I think what Wes is missing that you (and most) seem to grasp is that even without the instance of the religion being mocked, this decision would likely have gone the same way.  The mocking aspect of it just allowed the Supreme Court to kick the can a little further down the road.  I can't envision any circumstance where one person's freedom to be gay overrides another's right to object and that's what the Court nudged up against in this ruling.  

It's not a full victory for either side, but most rational observers counted it as a win in the baker's column. 

[Vladimir]

Admittedly, I'm not versed in procedural issues at that level.  Just asking and would love for Wes to weigh in because I guarantee his knowledge on the subject kicks mine in the ass.

If the SC made this decision solely on their perception that Phillips didn't get a fair shake at the lower levels strictly due to bias, would they not remand/send it back down for a do over.  Or by the time it reaches their ears, do they have to make a decision and that's final?

I still tend to read into that part of the opinion Wes posted as not only was the Commission's decision off the charts bias, but they (SC) also tended to acknowledge Phillips' right to take a position based on his religious beliefs.

I believe Wes kick you in ass, too. Special if you not give fair shake and hold by ears.