Akzed on January 12, 2012 at 9:02 AM

An interesting dilemma. Unlike most stores, the act of homosexuality may actually be committed at a B&B. The article indicates that the owner of the B&B may also discriminate against unmarried heterosexual couples.

NotCoach on January 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Civil Rights Act. Overreach. Radioactive. Electrified rail.

In a normal world this administration would understand this is a stinging rebuke to executive overreach. Again, in a normal world. Perhaps in this world we’ll hear a nice lofty insult again against SCOTUS from President Petty at his next State of the Union address.

NotCoach on January 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I’m looking forward the his State of the Union address after this oncoming one.

“I realize that the Republicans had massive voter fraud during the last election, so I’m now arresting Wilbert Huntsman on massive voter fraud and installing myself as President for Life. Elections will no longer be held. Furthermore, we are opening Adult Education Camps. Selected individuals will be sent to these camps indefinitely for further education.”

An interesting dilemma. Unlike most stores, the act of homosexuality may actually be committed at a B&B. The article indicates that the owner of the B&B may also discriminate against unmarried heterosexual couples.

NotCoach on January 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

This case wouldn’t affect those laws. This ruling does allow ministers to be denied employment for being gay, disabled or any other reason.

Akzed on January 12, 2012 at 9:02 AM

An interesting dilemma. Unlike most stores, the act of homosexuality may actually be committed at a B&B. The article indicates that the owner of the B&B may also discriminate against unmarried heterosexual couples.

When I read the transcript of the oral arguments last fall I was sure the case would be decided 6-3 in favor of the church. Glad it was 9-zip but am surprised.

The Court didn’t reach that question but it will in a later case, especially as homosexuals’ attacks on conflicts between gay rights and religious freedom become more prominent.

Two Southern California women filed a lawsuit Monday against a Hawaii bed and breakfast, saying the business denied them a room because they are gay.

Why must this ruling be limited to religious organizations? And why only to ministers, however broadly construed? A bed and breakfast may be a non-religious secular enterprise, but being forced to operate it under onerous conditions – in conflict with one’s religious conscience – is as problematic as being force e.g. to hire a Muslim to teach in a church-run kindergarten.

My bet is the two Obama libs saw were the other Justices were going and didn’t want it to be a 7-2 decision thus making Obama’s only appointments look way out of the legal mainstream.

That makes sense to me, but there ought to be some way to test the theory, to wit: Has either KD Lang or the wide Latina written anything in the case? Or did they leave that to the others, and simply sign the decision?

It seems to me that if theirs was a decision of political cowardice, they would have a hard time writing an opinion that supported it very convincingly. So — has anyone read all the attached opinions yet? *I* certainly don’t have the time…

Or maybe it’s possible that the Obama administration was so overreaching on this case that even the liberal Supreme Court Justices had to rebuke them on this.

My bet is the two Obama libs saw were the other Justices were going and didn’t want it to be a 7-2 decision thus making Obama’s only appointments look way out of the legal mainstream.

englishqueen01 on January 12, 2012 at 7:16 AM

I hope you’re right.

Why, Tim Tebow threw for 316 yards to defeat the Steelers. It’s a sign from God, doncha know?

ksbsnowowl on January 12, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Oh. a football reference.

Well, I don’t follow football, but whatever gets people to see is ok with me.

What are ’316′ coincidences?

Why, Tim Tebow threw for 316 yards to defeat the Steelers. It’s a sign from God, doncha know?

Kagan spooked by all the ’316′ coincidences????

pamplonajack on January 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM

What are ’316′ coincidences?

as his post drips with amazement that Obama’s DOJ would try to argue that religious orgs enjoy no extra freedom in their hiring practices under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

I can’t imagine why. This administration has no respect for the Constitution. They look the other way as gun-weilding Black Panthers intimidate white voters in Philadelphia but go out after faith-based organizations. It’s nothing new from this group of faithless socialists who are destroying this nation. And for all you whiners that vow to stay home if your pet social conservative doesn’t get the GOP nomination, think about this. Do you really want the jug-eared idiot and Eric Holder to have four more years shredding the Constitution?

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Obamacare this spring/summer — before the 2012 election — it will only give momentum to the candidate who vows to roll it back if elected in November.

I’m happy about this ruling, but the fly in the ointment will be sharia.

Why? Are we so irrational we can’t tell the difference between Christian ministerial doctrine and a theological-political ideology that readily oppresses women, gays, and non-Muslims?

Religious freedom and prohibiting shari’a law can exist in the same country. They aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.

Exit quotation from Olson: “The fact is that to many in the Obama administration, as to many in modern legal academia, employment discrimination law is itself pursued with the intensity of, well, a religion. And when someone else’s religion comes into conflict with theirs — well, it’s only human nature for them to want theirs to prevail.”

And that, makes for a fine defense of radical Islam and global theocracy.
:rolleyes

~(Ä)~

And yet religious liberty is specifically written into the constitution but sexual liberty is nowhere to be found. I guess sexual liberty is their idea of a religion.

I’ve long argued that the left defines freedom solely as the ability to sleep with whomever (whatever) you want, wherever and whenever, without criticism or consequence. As long as you can do that, you’re “free”…

But things like religious freedom, speech, self-defense…those are not freedoms or rights, but things to be regulated (and strangled) by the government.

The wise latina and KD Lang both agreeing about religious freedom ?
There has to be a deal in place.
Specially since Justice Roberts was defending Kagan from recusal over Obama-scare just a few days ago

Or maybe it’s possible that the Obama administration was so overreaching on this case that even the liberal Supreme Court Justices had to rebuke them on this. It’s definitely more likely than them making a deal on this — an issue that probably went unnoticed to a majority of Americans (sadly) — because Obamacare is far more unpopular and widely known than this ministerial exception case.

Also, seeing as Obama called the conservative Justices stupid during his State of the Union address last year, what on earth makes you think they’d be willing to make any sort of deal with him on this in exchange for Obamacare?

Obamacare will be a 5-4 ruling. All Obama has to do is convince Justice Kennedy to decide in favor of the Administration. There’s no deal in the works here on a case that won’t be decided for a few months.