Growing up in the South of the 1950s, I remember the various signs in the windows and on the doors of the businesses in town saying, “No Coloreds” I also remember the outrage in certain quarters when the Johnson “civil rights” laws were passed banning such signage. It was considered “un American” to be told WHO you could serve and who you couldn’t!
Recently, this has been the stand of more and more Republicans, starting with Rand Paul – his Rachel Maddow interview points to that! A large proportion of Trump supporters are already getting the signs ready!
Granted, THIS decision does no completely clear the way for a total return to “Jim Crow” but the Supreme Court’s direction here is clearly discernible
I wonder if we’ll go all the way back to the old signage – “Help Wanted! No Irish Need Apply!” and “Papists Not Welcome!” America has a very storied history of discrimination from which to pick and choose! At various times, we even discriminated against the Chinese, Germans and Jews!
And let us not forget that this is NOT what the Justices said. They said that the treatment by the Colorado’s commission was openly hostile and slanted against him. The members of that commission stated on the record some very derogatory things about the baker.
THAT is what they said.
The baker in the case did not refuse to serve the couple. He directed them to other goods in his shop. He simply said he would not bake the wedding cake and decorate it.
The baker’s rights are just as valid as the couple’s rights. No different than the Sisters of the Poor being forced to pay for abortions on their healthcare plans and cover birth control options that they feel violate long-held beliefs of their faith. The rights of their ability to practice their religion without interference and dictates from the government are just as valid.
This cartoon is a gross overstretch of the court’s decision.
I Play One On TV almost 6 years ago
Again, religion is used as an excuse to discriminate.Who would Jesus hate?
wellis1947 Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Growing up in the South of the 1950s, I remember the various signs in the windows and on the doors of the businesses in town saying, “No Coloreds” I also remember the outrage in certain quarters when the Johnson “civil rights” laws were passed banning such signage. It was considered “un American” to be told WHO you could serve and who you couldn’t!
Recently, this has been the stand of more and more Republicans, starting with Rand Paul – his Rachel Maddow interview points to that! A large proportion of Trump supporters are already getting the signs ready!
Granted, THIS decision does no completely clear the way for a total return to “Jim Crow” but the Supreme Court’s direction here is clearly discernible
I wonder if we’ll go all the way back to the old signage – “Help Wanted! No Irish Need Apply!” and “Papists Not Welcome!” America has a very storied history of discrimination from which to pick and choose! At various times, we even discriminated against the Chinese, Germans and Jews!
martens almost 6 years ago
It looks as if it’s not that simple:
“I represented the wedding cake couple. We lost a battle but won the war.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-represented-the-wedding-cake-couple-we-lost-a-battle-but-won-the-war/2018/06/04/1072dd52-6832-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html
"It's the End of the World!!!" Premium Member almost 6 years ago
And let us not forget that this is NOT what the Justices said. They said that the treatment by the Colorado’s commission was openly hostile and slanted against him. The members of that commission stated on the record some very derogatory things about the baker.
THAT is what they said.
The baker in the case did not refuse to serve the couple. He directed them to other goods in his shop. He simply said he would not bake the wedding cake and decorate it.
The baker’s rights are just as valid as the couple’s rights. No different than the Sisters of the Poor being forced to pay for abortions on their healthcare plans and cover birth control options that they feel violate long-held beliefs of their faith. The rights of their ability to practice their religion without interference and dictates from the government are just as valid.
This cartoon is a gross overstretch of the court’s decision.
Zev almost 6 years ago
The current Supreme Court s a disaster.