Christian Baker

[Sea Dangles]

I know this topic was discussed in the past but it seems to be in the news again. I am glad to see the Awhole gay hater was given his right to discriminate. People put their lives on the line to provide a nation that allows this man to bake for whom he chooses.

[spence]

You didn’t read the judgement did you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

It wasn’t a broad ruling, it really only said that this one guy wasn’t treated fairly by the state, which was actively hostile towards Christianity. It’s not decided, not by a long shot. But a 7-2 vote is a very good sign, except it means that two nuts believe that the first amendment only applies when those rights are exercised in a way that doesn’t hurt the feelings of any liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn’t read the judgement did you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a statement or question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Is this a statement or question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A little of both.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It wasn’t a broad ruling, it really only said that this one guy wasn’t treated fairly by the state, which was actively hostile towards Christianity. It’s not decided, not by a long shot. But a 7-2 vote is a very good sign, except it means that two nuts believe that the first amendment only applies when those rights are exercised in a way that doesn’t hurt the feelings of any liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This really came down to first amendment/artistic rights rather than a religions/gay marriage decision.
More interesting to me was how the others conservatives signed on with Kennedy's response about the importance of tolerance and (to paraphrase) the idea that there are real religious objections, but that is not necessarily that broad.

[wdmso]

the court played it safe

[PaulS]

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A South Dakota lawmaker on Monday said businesses should be able to turn away customers based on race.

In a Facebook comment, state Rep. Michael Clark, a Hartford Republican, said business owners should have the final say in who they serve.

Clark later pulled the Facebook comment. And an hour after the Argus Leader published a story about the comment, he sent an email apology to a reporter.

The comment elicited outrage from constituents and calls from Democratic opponents for him to withdraw.

Clark's initial comment came in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's narrow decision Monday siding with a Colorado baker that refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding.

"He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants," Clark wrote. "If he wants to turn away people of color, then that('s) his choice."

Clark posted a story, and in the description celebrated the decision as a "win for freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

In response, others called into question the lawmaker's comments and pointed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. And they began sharing Clark's comments on other social media sites.

“You can’t turn away someone from your business because of their race, it was illegal yesterday, and it’s illegal today,” said Libby Skarin, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota.

Clark took down the post on Tuesday to re-write it, saying he'd "jumped in on it a little bit too fast."

In an interview with the Argus Leader, Clark said that business owners with strongly held beliefs should be able to turn away customers.

“If it’s truly his strongly based belief, he should be able to turn them away,” Clark said. “People shouldn’t be able to use their minority status to bully a business."

And if the community doesn't support a store or restaurant that bars customers for that reason or others, it will put them out of business.

"The vote of the dollar is very strong," he said.

An hour after an initial version of this story published online, Clark emailed an apology to an Argus Leader reporter.

"I am apologizing for some of my Facebook comments," he wrote. "I would never advocate discriminating against people based on their color or race."

Clark does not face a primary challenger and has filed petitions to run for re-election to represent District 9.

The state Democratic Party and Democrats set to run against him in November expressed concern about the remark and said it demonstrated he was unfit to hold his office.

“He doesn’t understand the rights of people he represents," said District 9 House candidate Toni Miller. "He is not qualified for the office he holds."