Hello Everyone, May 5, 2018
The 7 U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled yesterday, June 4, 2018, with a 7-2 Ruling in favor of a devout Christian [artist] baker Jack Phillips vs. two Gay men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins in Colorado ( Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission at Scott Lemieux, June 5, 2018, www.nbcnews.com). The Court stated that, "... a Colorado [Civil Rights Commission] panel’s decision against him [Phillips] had been infected by religious animus (Zach Gibson, June 4, 2018, in the www.nytimes.com). Cited as:
584 U. S. ____ (2018)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The majority Opinion written by Justice Kennedy touched on the narrowness of this Ruling (ibid). In my opinion as a heterosexual and political scientist, I disagree with the 7 Justices' Ruling. I find their reasoning dangerous, insulting to the entire Gay Community and to any Community; overstepping Federal Law, meaning, overstepping the 14th Amendment (1868) of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws made in a State of the U.S. that may have denied the Equal Protections to citizens in that State under Federal Law, such as the 14th Amendment:
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education), [go to Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Open Access, at http://www.cornell.law.edu to See more...
This Ruling is sad, because of the danger that laws in states across the U.S. may now be manipulated because of this Ruling, to provide coverage for discrimination and bigotry for private businesses that now want to deny serving persons because they don't like your gender, race, religion, your accent, or how you look, etcetera!
Let me know your thoughts.
Angela Oberbauer, M.A.
https://www.angelaspoliticalforum.org
The 7 U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled yesterday, June 4, 2018, with a 7-2 Ruling in favor of a devout Christian [artist] baker Jack Phillips vs. two Gay men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins in Colorado ( Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission at Scott Lemieux, June 5, 2018, www.nbcnews.com). The Court stated that, "... a Colorado [Civil Rights Commission] panel’s decision against him [Phillips] had been infected by religious animus (Zach Gibson, June 4, 2018, in the www.nytimes.com). Cited as:
584 U. S. ____ (2018)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________No. 16–111
_________________
MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO (June 4, 2018) (go to: www.supremecourt.gov).
MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO (June 4, 2018) (go to: www.supremecourt.gov).
The majority Opinion written by Justice Kennedy touched on the narrowness of this Ruling (ibid). In my opinion as a heterosexual and political scientist, I disagree with the 7 Justices' Ruling. I find their reasoning dangerous, insulting to the entire Gay Community and to any Community; overstepping Federal Law, meaning, overstepping the 14th Amendment (1868) of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws made in a State of the U.S. that may have denied the Equal Protections to citizens in that State under Federal Law, such as the 14th Amendment:
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education), [go to Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Open Access, at http://www.cornell.law.edu to See more...
This Ruling is sad, because of the danger that laws in states across the U.S. may now be manipulated because of this Ruling, to provide coverage for discrimination and bigotry for private businesses that now want to deny serving persons because they don't like your gender, race, religion, your accent, or how you look, etcetera!
Let me know your thoughts.
Angela Oberbauer, M.A.
https://www.angelaspoliticalforum.org
Comments
Post a Comment