Barrett urged to recuse herself from Supreme Court LGBT case over Christian faith

[Peter1469]

Originally Posted by midcan5
Normal people!!?? Please define normal people, be specific.

If you need a definition, you are not one of them.

lol

[RMNIXON]

While the Constitution clearly prohibits an establishment of religion it still respects the right of Government authorities to have religious views. There are no reasonable grounds to recuse as one would have if they had a deeply personal involvement in a legal issue being decided.

[LescoBrandon]

While the Constitution clearly prohibits an establishment of religion it still respects the right of Government authorities to have religious views. There are no reasonable grounds to recuse as one would have if they had a deeply personal involvement in a legal issue being decided.

Everyone has religious views, whether they like to call them "religious" or not. Otherwise, we could never pass any laws whatsoever.

[RMNIXON]

Those seeking gay marriage, websites, cakes...have a limitless supply of companies to use.

The LGBTQ activists want forced acceptance even in the smallest of places. That is why they target on purpose so they can start a court case.

People who behave like this are a little NUTS IMHO!

[Standing Wolf]

While several of the more high profile cases of this nature have been dismissed on technical grounds, I believe that going forward the courts will end up establishing a positive divide between instances where someone is being asked to create a message - whether it is on a cake, a t-shirt, a poster, etc. - that they find objectionable on religious grounds, which touches on the question of whether forcing an individual to transmit or communicate a message by whatever medium is a violation of their right to free speech, and cases in which an individual is simply denied service on the basis of their stated or perceived sexual preference. There is a difference, as defense attorneys in some of these cases have pointed out, between simply selling someone an item, on the one hand, and being asked to participate in promulgating a message they don't agree with on the other.

[DGUtley]

While several of the more high profile cases of this nature have been dismissed on technical grounds, I believe that going forward the courts will end up establishing a positive divide between instances where someone is being asked to create a message - whether it is on a cake, a t-shirt, a poster, etc. - that they find objectionable on religious grounds, which touches on the question of whether forcing an individual to transmit or communicate a message by whatever medium is a violation of their right to free speech, and cases in which an individual is simply denied service on the basis of their stated or perceived sexual preference. There is a difference, as defense attorneys in some of these cases have pointed out, between simply selling someone an item, on the one hand, and being asked to participate in promulgating a message they don't agree with on the other.

I agree.

[Chris]

While there's a difference, there shouldn't be. Constitutional protections of rights are or should be protections of the individual or group against government interference and that alone.

[Tahuyaman]

Barrett urged to recuse herself from Supreme Court LGBT case over Christian faith

What does her religious faith have to do with her ability to judge whether or not a law is constitutional?

[Peter1469]

Originally Posted by Standing Wolf
While several of the more high profile cases of this nature have been dismissed on technical grounds, I believe that going forward the courts will end up establishing a positive divide between instances where someone is being asked to create a message - whether it is on a cake, a t-shirt, a poster, etc. - that they find objectionable on religious grounds, which touches on the question of whether forcing an individual to transmit or communicate a message by whatever medium is a violation of their right to free speech, and cases in which an individual is simply denied service on the basis of their stated or perceived sexual preference. There is a difference, as defense attorneys in some of these cases have pointed out, between simply selling someone an item, on the one hand, and being asked to participate in promulgating a message they don't agree with on the other.

I agree.

As in the Cake case it will come down to balancing of competing rights. SCOTUS remanded the Cake case back to the start, recall the first trial was at a city level adjudication where the adjudicator not just ignored the cake maker's First Amendment rights, but mocked them.

[Captdon]

Those seeking gay marriage, websites, cakes...have a limitless supply of companies to use.

This is not like the KY court clerk that refused to provide a marriage license.

Their is no need to force a private business owner to provide services to anyone for any reason. If it says no Conservatives allowed then I am not going to sue them.

Then I can refuse service to a Black?