Home Uncategorised SCOTUS Sends Oregon Gay Wedding Cake Case Back to Lower Court

SCOTUS Sends Oregon Gay Wedding Cake Case Back to Lower Court

Author

Date

Category

By Rick Moran

The fight back starts.

A case involving a Christian Oregon couple that was successfully sued by the state for not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple was sent back to a lower court by the Supreme Court on Monday “for further consideration.”

Last term, the court ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who was sued by the state for discrimination.

The couple, Melissa and Aaron Klein, cited religious beliefs as their reason for not providing services for a gay wedding. This touched off the latest in a series of such cases making headlines in recent years. During the court’s last term, justices ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a similar situation, stating that a state body demonstrated improper hostility toward the baker’s religion in finding that he violated a state anti-discrimination law.

On Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Klein case back down to a lower court “for further consideration in light of” their Colorado decision.

The central disputes in the case — which pits LGBT rights against religious freedom considerations — have yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

The court keeps punting on deciding the fundamental issue of religious freedom, which isn’t surprising given the controversial nature of the issues involved. Chief Justice Roberts may be waiting for a case where the court can reach some sort of consensus instead of the usual 5-4 split.

11 COMMENTS

  1. I do not understand the need to even cite religious reasons, whatever happened to a willing buyer willing seller. Offer and acceptance? My understanding was that that is part of business. Just like someone could come into my business when I had one and offer me less than asking price for an item and I could refuse, but equally, I could accept. But you should always have the right to refuse to provide a service.

    0

    0

    • Precisely this, thank you for expressing it so clearly. The business owner has rights as well.

      0

      0

        • Just picking a fight. I’m sure there are plenty of places that would bake the damn cake and wouldn’t get all religious over it. Money is money 🙂

          0

          0

  2. This issue has nothing to do with rights, whether religious, racist or just human.

    It is about a small group (of mainly young-ish females) demanding the world bends to them.

    It started in the 1960s when western women started looking at the real world due to new technology and the ugly ones started realising they were missing out.

    The ugly ones were more often than not in teaching and other child minding roles because no one else would have them.

    Parents, pollies and general commentators did not, indeed still do not, recognise the dishonesty and nastiness inherent in these women scorned – nor the weakness in the girly-men who follow them.

    Sixty years on and the same technology has given them a way to make noise and their place in society has allowed them to brainwash two generations to accept their idiocy as normal.

    Their idiocy, unfortunately, does not allow them to actually format what they want to achieve so, in recent times at least, they push for any sort of disruption of the current way of life.

    This, and only this, is what most, if not all, “discrimination” actions are based on.

    As an aside I don’t necessarily use ugly as a physical trait.

    0

    0

    • I still say ladies first; it is not belittling them in any way. It’s called having some class.

      0

      0

      • Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, so you might as well just do what you like.

        0

        0

  3. Why should he have had to give a reason? To the baker matter.

    Melahi, Did you report him to the Law Society? Costs nothing.

    0

    0

    • What is wrong with fake pretense? If the intent is to spare someone’s feelings why give a reason, that you know they do not want to hear.

      I do not consider that, free speech, to offend just for the hell of it. A person should always be allowed to resile from something with a modicum of tact.

      Now the harpies want to know why and then get all offended.

      0

      0

Comments are closed.

Recent posts

Chinese Virus Vaccines are full of DNA

Covid-19: New Zealanders have to wait their turn for vaccination - Chris Hipkins Covid-19 vaccinations should be available to the public by the middle of...

Oceans Confirm Global Cooling

Oceans Confirm Global Cooling Year End 2020 Posted onBBBy By Ron Clutz HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the...

Recent comments

Harvey on Have Your Say
Sooty on Have Your Say
Lizziep on Have Your Say
Simpleton1 on Have Your Say
Starving Artist on Have Your Say
Starving Artist on Have Your Say
Rachael Membery on Have Your Say
Starving Artist on Have Your Say

The way we all feel about this useless government

Hamilton
broken clouds
20 ° C
20 °
20 °
81 %
7.6kmh
74 %
Tue
18 °
Wed
16 °
Thu
19 °
Fri
21 °
Sat
22 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar
USD
1.4043
EUR
1.7028
AUD
1.0828
CAD
1.1030
GBP
1.9110
JPY
0.0135
CNY
0.2167
INR
0.0192