SCOTUS will hear religious liberty case next term

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider next term whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

Lower courts had ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had violated Colorado’s public accommodations law, which prohibits refusing service to customers based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

There are similar lawsuits from florists, calligraphers and others who say their religious beliefs won’t allow them to provide services for same-sex weddings. But they have found little success in the courts, which have ruled that public businesses must comply with state anti-discrimination laws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-take-case-on-baker-who-refused-to-sell-wedding-cake-to-gay-couple/2017/06/26/0c2f8606-0cde-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.bb99ed509842

msugolfguy wrote:No problem with them not baking a cake, just put a sign on your door saying gays not welcome. Own it.

msugolfguy wrote:No problem with them not baking a cake, just put a sign on your door saying gays not welcome. Own it.

Rocinante wrote:Since Sexual orientation is not an explicitly protected class, I suspect this SC, now dominated by literalists, will rule in favor of religious liberty.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Since Sexual orientation is not an explicitly protected class, I suspect this SC, now dominated by literalists, will rule in favor of religious liberty.

Absolutely, and it will spread to restaurants hotels and many more businesses. It's what many who went to the polls want America to be and act like. It's a bit frightening. Lord forbid any of us be homosexual or have a child that is. It's just so disappointing

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

Absolutely, and it will spread to restaurants hotels and many more businesses. It's what many who went to the polls want America to be and act like. It's a bit frightening. Lord forbid any of us be homosexual or have a child that is. It's just so disappointing

The only saving grace there is that for the most part they aren't going to know who is gay and who isn't.

The frustrating part of all of this for me has always been that these people who get super upset about this kinda thing have a God who really wouldn't care if they made a cake for gay people as long as they didn't trip on their way to the ceremony and accidentally suck a dick. In fact, He'd probably prefer that they just be nice to people. But they're using religion instead to justify being assholes.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

The only saving grace there is that for the most part they aren't going to know who is gay and who isn't.

DWags wrote:

msugolfguy wrote:No problem with them not baking a cake, just put a sign on your door saying gays not welcome. Own it.

I think the police should also say, "We'll only protect the business from heterosexual criminals" Or the public works who put a sidewalk in front should only allow heterosexuals to walk on that portion of the sidewalk. The tax dollars paid to police and road commisions shoudl be somehow divided and have the gay peoples money put somewhere else.

Also, we shoudl allow businesses to then not serve black people. Just own it. Or better yet, maybe we could have seperate drinking fountains and maybe make them eat in the back of the restaurant.

Seems we're on a slippery slope in America. I have no doubt a conservative court will allow things based on religion.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Since Sexual orientation is not an explicitly protected class, I suspect this SC, now dominated by literalists, will rule in favor of religious liberty.

Absolutely, and it will spread to restaurants hotels and many more businesses. It's what many who went to the polls want America to be and act like. It's a bit frightening. Lord forbid any of us be homosexual or have a child that is. It's just so disappointing

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

I think the police should also say, "We'll only protect the business from heterosexual criminals"   Or the public works who put a sidewalk in front should only allow heterosexuals to walk on that portion of the sidewalk. The tax dollars paid to police and road commisions shoudl be somehow divided and have the gay peoples money put somewhere else.  

Also, we shoudl allow businesses to then not serve black people.  Just own it. Or better yet, maybe we could have seperate drinking fountains and maybe make them eat in the back of the restaurant.  

Seems we're on a slippery slope in America.  I have no doubt a conservative court will allow things based on religion.  

So you consider private businesses to be on the same footing as publicly owned and paid services.
Interesting.

The Georgia GOP might have backed down on a “religious liberty” pledge for gubernatorial candidates, but another Republican outfit is taking it on as a cause.

The Georgia Republican Assembly, a more conservative shadow organization of the state GOP, is asking gubernatorial candidates who will attend its Saturday meeting to sign the exact same “religious liberty” vow rejected by the state GOP executive committee on Saturday.

The group’s president, DeKalb activist Alex Johnson, wrote to candidates and their top aides Monday that the state party’s move was “unacceptable both to Republican voters and to voters at large.”