[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

It wasn't just them, there was a large amount of reporting that suggested it was of limited scope including the SCOUTUS blog which is a pretty well respected outlet for reporting on the court., ABC News and even the right-wing National Review

You may have a different legal interpretation to them, some outlets do, but they weren't isolated in their view of this so I think it's unfair to accuse them of being woefully incompetent. They are clearly in the majority on their interpretation of the judgement.

Okay Damien I have been thinking all day of how to write this response, and it is tough.

First off, I wanted to say, that in absolutely no way is this an "I told you so post" - I am not gloating.

Secondly, some of the tone / language of this message may seem tough / crude. In no way is that aimed at you.

So...Monday the SC ruled that it was declining to hear another case involving a gay couple at a wedding wishing service from those who have a religious exemption:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.f5e7704dca33

The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it is unwilling to immediately answer whether a business owner’s religious beliefs can justify refusing gay couples seeking wedding services.

The justices returned to lower courts the case of a Washington state florist who refused to provide a floral arrangement for a longtime customer when he told her it was for his wedding to another man. A unanimous Washington Supreme Court found that the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, a state civil rights law.

So at first, it may seem like the Justices just went ahead and let the lower court ruling stand....

Not quite:

The U.S. Supreme Court said the case should be reconsidered in light of its decision earlier this month in favor of Colorado baker Jack C. Phillips, who declined to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

There was one part of the ruling before that was "narrow" in scope that the Supremes ruled ; that this was the one and only time that they will ever have to say as much: religious liberty (deeply held beliefs) will trump all else - the high court will not have to say it again in regards to this issue.

They are as good as telling WA's SC that stare decisis is now in effect which means it was not narrow in scope at all - not one bit. It is precedent setting and every other ruling will have to abide by that.

This is as black and white as it gets:

There is little dispute about the facts of the case. Stutzman had counted Robert Ingersoll as a customer for nearly a decade when he came in one day in 2013 and said he wanted to talk about flowers for his wedding to his longtime companion, Curt Freed. Stutzman said she held his hand and said she had to decline his request because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ.”

You do not get to break the will of Jesus Christ in a person here on Earth...simple as that.

They told the WA state SC that not only do they not get to do that but the high court will break the gay whoring (for lack of a better term) of the WA state SC. Not only will they rule against it though, they are going to make Olympia rule it themselves. Washington isn't going to get over ruled on this, they are going to have to climb down on the issue with all the humiliation that comes with it. The message was pretty clear from the Justices.

They had 3 choices. They could have left the lower case ruling stand / dismissed the appeal, they could have over-ruled or they could have sent it back down to the lower courts and force them to correct themselves, and recognize every person's right to worship in the name of Jesus Christ.

I know that some of the language in this was crass but none of it was aimed at you ; States have messed with Christianity too long and Kennedy has both defended the belief that Christians have, and has protected state's rights from an overarching federal statute by dictating that the states must recognize the religious freedom of the land.

Do not mess with God was the loud and clear message here. Every state that now rules injudiciously (in accordance with the precedent set by the previous ruling) will now be open to punitive civil and criminal punishment. This was as decisive a ruling as you can get Damien.

Like you said, the majority of opinions on the original ruling may have thought otherwise but they were wrong. Woefully so. I knew that I was correct on the issue and I stand by it - religious freedom wins the day and the media opinions that ruled it a "narrow" opinion were wrong, plain and simple. It was not narrow in scope and it was not narrow in majority. The ruling stands, sets precedent an the media got it wrong plain and simple.