Search for: "United States v. Jack Phillips"
Results 21 - 40
of 102
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2020, 4:11 am
At the Second Thoughts Blog from the Duke Center for Firearms Law, Daniel Rice examines the court’s “void for vagueness” doctrine and how it might relate to the Second Amendment, drawing on Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in United States v. [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 3:00 am
As Trump Moves to Bully Witnesses and Derail Impeachment, Democrats See Obstruction Anchorage Daily News – Phillip Rucker, Rachael Bade, and Roisalind Helderman (Washington Post) | Published: 11/1/2019 The centerpiece of House Democrats’ eventual impeachment charges is widely expected to be President Trump’s alleged abuse of power over Ukraine. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:30 am
Connecticut or Roe v. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:10 am
” At The World and Everything in It, Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 4:04 am
At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “Christian baker Jack Phillips and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission … have resolved a legal dispute that set Phillips’ religious beliefs against the state’s public accommodations law”; the settlement “provides that the Commission will close an ongoing anti-discrimination probe of Phillips’s Masterpiece Cakeshop,” the subject of a high-profile Supreme Court… [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 3:07 am
Kennedy said the baker, Jack Phillips, was “entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case,” but the statements of some commission officials cast doubts on the neutrality of their decision. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 2:30 pm
But unlike the McArthurs' argument in Lee, Jack Phillips' argument that he did not discriminate based on sexual orientation was rejected by the Colorado Appeals Court in its opinion (reversed on other grounds by the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop): In these decisions [e.g., Lawrence v. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 2:30 pm
But unlike the McArthurs' argument in Lee, Jack Phillips' argument that he did not discriminate based on sexual orientation was rejected by the Colorado Appeals Court in its opinion (reversed on other grounds by the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop): In these decisions [e.g., Lawrence v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 4:34 pm
Srinivasan challenges Phillips’ third contention, suggesting that United States v. [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 4:12 am
” At In a Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg looks at a new case involving Jack Phillips, the cake artist whose refusal to create a cake for a same-sex wedding led to last term’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
1 Sep 2018, 9:28 am
State, 12 S.W.3d 6, 30 (Tex. 1999); see Walker v. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 3:39 pm
Testimony of Phillip C. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:02 am
Indeed, this admonition sheds light on the Supreme Court’s unsigned order from December in In Re United States. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 7:14 pm
Jack Phillips, refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple on religious grounds. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 4:00 am
United States. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 9:01 pm
At the time of his alleged violation of the state’s civil rights statute, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages as a matter of state law, and the United States Supreme Court had said nothing to suggest that limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 4:23 am
At The World and Everything In It, Mary Reichard talks to the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, about Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 6:50 am
The United States Supreme Court has ruled against a gay couple in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for their wedding in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 1:55 pm
The LGBTQ community’s long battle to legalize same-sex marriages finally ended on June 26, 2015 when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered its opinion in Obergefell v. [read post]
