No matter how you slice it, U.S. jurist Kennedy key vote in cake case

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters




SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 / 7:21 AM / UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A high-profile legal fight involving a conservative Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple promises to showcase the pivotal role Justice Anthony Kennedy will play on the U.S. Supreme Court during its new term that begins next week.

Kennedy, the longest-serving justice and at age 81 the second oldest, could provide the decisive vote in some of the term’s most consequential cases, also including a closely watched battle over political parties manipulating boundaries of electoral districts to tighten their grip on power.

For more than a decade, Kennedy has earned a reputation as the top U.S. court’s “swing” vote: a conservative willing in some major cases including gay rights and abortion to side with liberal justices. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority.

How the court rules on the baker case and others this term could help shape Kennedy's legacy even as some of his former law clerks have speculated he could retire next summer. (Graphics of 'The big cases' - tmsnrt.rs/2y3eCs6)



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kennedy/no-matter-how-you-slice-it-u-s-jurist-kennedy-key-vote-in-cake-case-idUSKCN1C21E9

[exboyfil]

1. If Kennedy retires then Roberts swings

to the 5th position.

Elections have consequences. Shame on whoever didn't vote for Clinton.

[J_William_Ryan]

2. Once Kennedy is gone,

our civil rights will likewise be gone.

[azureblue]

3. but here is the flaw in their case

They claim it is their right to discriminate, because of their religious belief that gay is a sin.
OK, fair enough. Let's begin from there.

Does the Bible say it is a sin, to:
eat pork
eat shellfish
Have tattoos
wear glasses to church
Trim your beard
work on Sunday

The answer to all is yes.

So do they also refuse service to people who commit the above listed sins? Highly doubtful, especially the pork part. If they stopped serving people who eat bacon, their business would collapse in a week.


What the bigots are saying is that it is their choice of which Biblical laws they choose to obey and others, not. IOW, you can't simply pick a religious law you like and disobey the ones you don't like. It's either all or none.

So That negates their argument of "religious grounds", and instead, they are basing their reason on personal preference and choice. Not religion.

And with that, their case goes down the tubes, because the US law do not let a person discriminate because they simply chose to.

[YOHABLO]

4. How any Supreme cannot see that this is blatant discrimination is beyond me.