The Supreme Court already ruled that this guy can't be forced to bake a cake. Why is the Colorado Civil Rights Commission all up in his grill, er, oven again? Phillips is counter-suing for $100,000.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Not plain, not simple, and not what the Supreme Court ruled. SCOTUS didn't say a nano-peep about whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech. The SCOTUS based its ruling on statements by the administrative agency that suggested a hostility to his religious beliefs: his “neutral and respectful consideration” was “compromised.”
The Court also emphasized the “background of legal principles and administration of the law in Colorado at that time.” Both those principles and their administration were revised by Colorado years ago, in between the original incident and this one. And decidedly not in the direction the baker prefers.
Even under the previous legal principles and administration of the law, the SCOTUS signaled that the baker might have lost in the absence of those predisposed statements. They indicated that in a neutral proceeding, he would presumably lose under the state's new anti-discrimination laws.
The baker stupidly got full of himself and seems to think he was gifted a Get Out Of Bigotry Free card. He wasn't. This time he's going down.
Here's a question for you anonymous chin-dribbling asswipes - I declined tax preparation services to a client earlier this year because he constantly complained about the price of damn near everything, including my potential fees, without me even mentioning the denomination of said fees. I mailed him his tax documents back, no explanation.
Am I being 'bigoted' or 'discriminatory' towards this former whining piece o' shit of a client?
And anyone who'd think up a question with a "parallel" as stupid as yours shouldn't be allowed near the "take a penny, leave a penny" tray, let alone filling out financial forms.
5 comments:
Not plain, not simple, and not what the Supreme Court ruled. SCOTUS didn't say a nano-peep about whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech. The SCOTUS based its ruling on statements by the administrative agency that suggested a hostility to his religious beliefs: his “neutral and respectful consideration” was “compromised.”
The Court also emphasized the “background of legal principles and administration of the law in Colorado at that time.” Both those principles and their administration were revised by Colorado years ago, in between the original incident and this one. And decidedly not in the direction the baker prefers.
Even under the previous legal principles and administration of the law, the SCOTUS signaled that the baker might have lost in the absence of those predisposed statements. They indicated that in a neutral proceeding, he would presumably lose under the state's new anti-discrimination laws.
The baker stupidly got full of himself and seems to think he was gifted a Get Out Of Bigotry Free card. He wasn't. This time he's going down.
The SCOTUS based its ruling on statements by the administrative agency that suggested a hostility to his religious beliefs:
Suggested?
I’m just glad we’re still allowed to kick conservatives out of restaurants. We can’t have those filthy conservatives eating lesbian cake for dessert.
Here's a question for you anonymous chin-dribbling asswipes - I declined tax preparation services to a client earlier this year because he constantly complained about the price of damn near everything, including my potential fees, without me even mentioning the denomination of said fees. I mailed him his tax documents back, no explanation.
Am I being 'bigoted' or 'discriminatory' towards this former whining piece o' shit of a client?
A: No.
And anyone who'd think up a question with a "parallel" as stupid as yours shouldn't be allowed near the "take a penny, leave a penny" tray, let alone filling out financial forms.
Post a Comment