Supreme Court set to deal a sharp blow to unions for teachers and public employees

[C-Mag]

Free Choice

[Fife]

FIRST AMENDMENT:

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

One of the most significant decisions will undoubtedly come in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which pits religious liberty and freedom of conscience against anti-discrimination laws. This case arose when a baker, Jack Phillips, refused to bake a cake to celebrate the nuptials of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, prompting a complaint to local authorities. Phillips’s decision, the complaint alleged, violated Colorado’s law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips, for his part, argued that he has no objection to serving gay customers, but instead objects to participating in an event that is contrary to his religious beliefs. Being forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, Phillips maintains, both requires him to violate his religious conscience and violates his First Amendment right against forced expression.

SCOTUS cobbled up 7 votes (I had it figured 5-4 the other way initially) for a pretty weird holding, that avoided the art = expressive speech issue. I urge you all to check out the concurring opinion from Thomas. He nails it with a direct hit on the issue the Court skipped out on. Seriously, it's a very good opinion from Thomas. Check it out.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_j4el.pdf



The tweet that should have been:

[Fife]

[nmoore63]

Points to Kagan and Breyer.

Though I am bit surprised Roberts thinks the government is limited from doing anything... prolly cause it was a state limitation....

[jediuser598]

FIRST AMENDMENT:

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

One of the most significant decisions will undoubtedly come in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which pits religious liberty and freedom of conscience against anti-discrimination laws. This case arose when a baker, Jack Phillips, refused to bake a cake to celebrate the nuptials of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, prompting a complaint to local authorities. Phillips’s decision, the complaint alleged, violated Colorado’s law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips, for his part, argued that he has no objection to serving gay customers, but instead objects to participating in an event that is contrary to his religious beliefs. Being forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, Phillips maintains, both requires him to violate his religious conscience and violates his First Amendment right against forced expression.

SCOTUS cobbled up 7 votes (I had it figured 5-4 the other way initially) for a pretty weird holding, that avoided the art = expressive speech issue. I urge you all to check out the concurring opinion from Thomas. He nails it with a direct hit on the issue the Court skipped out on. Seriously, it's a very good opinion from Thomas. Check it out.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_j4el.pdf



The tweet that should have been:

If I create a religion on the spot, that says "I hate white people" and then I deeply and sincerely hold that, does that mean my public cake baking business does not have to serve white people?

[Fife]

No, dumbass.

No more free law skool today. Go read the opinion at the link I gave you.

[Kath]

SCOTUS cobbled up 7 votes (I had it figured 5-4 the other way initially) for a pretty weird holding, that avoided the art = expressive speech issue. I urge you all to check out the concurring opinion from Thomas. He nails it with a direct hit on the issue the Court skipped out on. Seriously, it's a very good opinion from Thomas. Check it out.

He goes on about how the baker gets involved with the couple ... meeting with the couple, attending their weddings, closing on Sunday, etc. He made it sound like he passed the smell test, with regards to being truthful about his religious beliefs. That seems to open the door for more business owners having to be subjected to religious conviction tests. Ewww.

[DBTrek]

More people free of government coerced speech.
“Ewww.”

Wait ... what?

[Kath]

More people free of government coerced speech.
“Ewww.”

Wait ... what?

That seems to open the door for more business owners having to be subjected to religious conviction tests.

You think it would be good for judges to administer religious conviction tests?

[DBTrek]

Where do they conduct religious conviction tests these days?