[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

They called it a narrow decision or ruling, not a narrow victory. I.E The decision was limited to a very narrow scope.

That's why a lot of outlets called it narrow.

PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...x-wedding-cake



This blog is a neutral one which follows the Supreme Court from a legal perspective and they called it narrow: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/op...ing-cake-case/



This isn't a Trump thing. People have used this phrasing before to refer to court decisions whose impact is limited. Here is an article from 2014: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...rrow-decisions

Anyone saying victory would be wrong, calling it a narrow ruling appears to a correct way to talk about a legal ruling.

Having re-read through the article, you are correct, this is what they inferred when they wrote the article...which is even more inaccurate (I'll get to that in a minute) but you are correct, they spoke in regards to the ruling, not the numeric majority. Thank you for the correction.

In regards to saying that the scope of the decision was narrow in its definition is wrong. This was not narrow by any imagination.

They all but excoriated CO's findings (the commission). There is no ambiguity in what Kennedy wrote, for the majority:

Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the commission concluded that Phillips’ refusal violated the law, despite Phillips’ argument that he is opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Colorado state courts upheld the determination.

But when the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by comments by a commission member that the justice said disparaged religion. The commissioner seemed “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Kennedy said in December.

That same sentiment coursed through his opinion on Monday. “The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” he wrote.

CO should be facing civil penalties and I hope that Phillips decides to sue.

Now, Kagan (in her own opinion) wrote:

Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.

Just to be clear though, her finding that this was a narrow and limited ruling was not the prevailing opinion of the majority which all deferred to Kennedy.

Even those who voted against it (like RBG) realize that the issue was folly and CO screwed up:

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. “There is much in the court’s opinion with which I agree,” Ginsburg wrote of Kennedy’s repeated references to protecting the rights of gay people. “I strongly disagree, however, with the court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”

They just did not want to rule against the couple (bless, lol).

Jeff Sessions seems to think that on a state by state basis, this does show some precedent:

“The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs. The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Sessions said.

However, the ACLU does not agree:

“We read this decision as a reaffirmation of the court’s longstanding commitment to civil rights protections and the reality that the states have the power to protect everyone in America from discrimination, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project.

Now, the ACLU is just full of crap here...they just don't seem to understand that Phillips never turned away the custom in the first place:

Waggoner and Esseks disagreed about the ruling’s effect on Phillips’ wedding cake business. Waggoner said her client can resume his refusal to make cakes for same-sex marriages without fear of a new legal fight. But Esseks said that if another same-sex couple were to ask Phillips for a wedding cake, “I see no reason in this opinion that Masterpiece Cakeshop is free to turn them away.”

They just simply refused to be involved in the baking of a cake for a gay wedding.

This again, is the slant from WaPo but in fairness they are just quoting the ACLU representative.

Now there are plenty of other cases pending the HC:

Several other legal disputes are pending over wedding services, similar to the Phillips case. In addition to florists, video producers and graphic artists are among business owners who say they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds and don’t want to participate in same-sex weddings.

Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, has appealed a state Supreme Court ruling that found she violated state law for refusing to provide the wedding flowers for two men who were about to be married.

The justices could decide what to do with that appeal by the end of June.

All from the same article so that could possibly be what the post is looking for to cite that this ruling is broad in nature but as it is it has said that the religious beliefs of a cake baker must be considered along with ruling against CO's commission, it mentions the 1st amendment and short of invoking RFRA to make it a federal issue there is nothing they seem to note that invokes federal supremacy here.

At the end of battles over gay marriage Kennedy authored the final part of it, with protection intended to re-affirm the deeply held religious beliefs of those opposed to homosexuality:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

This is the beginning of him re-affirming that and it is not in a narrow scope - I'll show you an example of a ruling that is limited by definition:

(From Bush V Gore)

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

This was clearly meant to be infer that the case was not setting precedent ; it was narrow in scope to purely that race, at that time and not any election moving forward.

That is the difference between a case and in this case, an issue.

The issue is still being litigated to some extent but the decision was not narrow by any stretch of the imagination.

At the beginning it just looked like the Washington Post was taking a hit for the team / editorializing their own wishes but they were not so thank you for pointing out my error.

However, that just made them look biased. Their fundamental failure in understanding the very basic principle of the ruling however makes them look woefully incompetent ; it is the usual argument of what is worse? Stupidity and ignorance or outright wrong and evil acts?

Both are a danger but the Washington Post just looked like they are clueless.