Bake me a cake!!!!

[Gelston]

Yeah, it was a "narrow" decision...

7-2, lol.

Keep reasoning. Your tears are delicious.

They actually said it is a narrow "ruling".

[time4fun]

She's right. It is worded specifically to set no precedent at all.

Translation: it's a Kennedy decision. The few times I found myself agreeing with Scalia were mostly cases of him lambasting a Kennedy decision. I loathe reading his decisions.

[Fortybox]

LOL You should just stick to memes and echoing the insults of the other trolls.

This case has no bearing on subsequent cases because it didn't establish anything new. They intentionally side-stepped the entire issue and went with well-established precedent and the specific fact patterns of this case. Kagan even pointed out that this ruling wouldn't apply to other cake makers in Colorado, let alone anyone else. Kennedy went as far as to explicitly state that the 1st amendment isn't a shield against anti-discrimination laws.

I see why you rarely bother with substance. You have no idea what you're talking about.

BTW - don't discriminate against people who post memes. How rude!

[Fortybox]

They actually said it is a narrow "ruling".

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html

Writing for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision, he said the Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, had been infected by religious animus. He cited what he said were “inappropriate and dismissive comments” from one commissioner in saying that the panel had acted inappropriately and that its decision should be overturned.

[time4fun]

Yeah, it was a "narrow" decision...

7-2, lol.

Keep reasoning. Your tears are delicious.

ROFL

[Gelston]

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html

I've typically been seeing ruling or grounds. That is just the NY Times being retarded and trying to change up some words so it doesn't look like they copied someone else's homework. And again, the DECISION was narrow. The VOTE was not.

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs."

[time4fun]

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html

Thank god you're too stupid to realize how embarrassing that was.

[RichardCranium]

I've typically been seeing ruling or grounds. That is just the NY Times being retarded and trying to change up some words so it doesn't look like they copied someone else's homework. And again, the DECISION was narrow. The VOTE was not.

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs."

It's a clickbait title. The comments on their Twitter were funny though.

[ClydeR]

Um, we don't call him a "baker." We always refer to him as a "cake artist."

[Methais]

There's a distinction here that you are either purposefully not understanding or are too dumb to understand.

The baker didn't discriminate against PEOPLE, they discriminated against the idea of gay marriage.

The baker didn't say I won't serve you because you're gay so no birthday cakes, anniversary cakes, congratulation cakes, graduation cakes, or any other cakes for you, cause you're gay!

The baker said he doesn't want to be forced to make a gay wedding cake, presumably he would tell a straight person he won't make a gay wedding cake for his friend's wedding as well, meaning he's discriminating against making cakes for gay weddings, NOT gay people.

If you want to argue that this rationale still shouldn't fly in the good ol' US of A, then fine, make that argument. But don't make the situation something it isn't so you have an easier time to win the gold in your oppression Olympics.

look who decided to stop lurking cause of some gay cake