Baker must make gay cakes

[WorldWatcher]

A customer cannot force a business owner not to make a product. And a business owner cannot be forced into "speaking" via his product in favor of a new age cult like LGBT. If we were talking about a race of people wanting two black figures on a cake getting married then, yes. The 14th covers that. However, the 14th does not force people to condone [speak in action] others' behaviors in violation of their 1st Amendment rights.\

Put it to the Supreme Court Wordwatcher. How do you think they'll decide when the premise is known to be "behavior" and not "race"?

It was put before the Supreme court. Those very arguments were made. The case was Elane Photography v. Willock.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and they declined to review the case making the New Mexico Supreme Court the final word in that case.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock


>>>>

No such thing as "the final word" on issues of 1st amendment rights when the case was handled poorly.

Let me guess, the attorneys for the christian baker didn't introduce the premise that gays are a behavior and not a race? Right?

And then, they didn't bring up a person being forced to speak when they don't want to. A first Amendment issue.

They probably just said the person didn't think it was right. Sometimes these attorneys "for" christians make me wonder. I've had more than one attorney in my life throw the case to the other side for money.

I'd try it again. And again. And again. Never give up.

#1 Show's your famiiarity with the case............... Elane Photography wasn't a baker case.

#2 Yes they raised religous and free speech arguments, they lost and the SCOTUS let it stand.

#3 You can try the "behavior" aspect, probably won't go far. The SCOTUS has already ruled in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evan's that States can't target homosexuals for discrimination. Whether it was biological or behavioral was irrelevant.

#4 Have fun making the same failed arguments over and over gain and never quiting. There's an old saying that has something to do with doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Hmmm - I'll remember it sometime.




>>>>

 

[BobPlumb]

Does gay cake taste better or worse than straight cake?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Does gay cake taste better or worse than straight cake?

I don't know, but by name alone we can hypothesize that gay cake tastes like rainbows.

 

[BobPlumb]

Does gay cake taste better or worse than straight cake?

I don't know, but by name alone we can hypothesize that gay cake tastes like rainbows.

I like rainbows! Wish they were not hijacked for the gay cause!

 

[Silhouette]

#4 Have fun making the same failed arguments over and over gain and never quiting. There's an old saying that has something to do with doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Hmmm - I'll remember it sometime.




>>>>

No, you see, that's the thing. They won't be the same arguments. The premise will be changed from "gays are a race" to "gays are behaviors".

That's what you call a legal fork in the road. We haven't explored the other branch legally. But we soon will.... Prepare to prove that Anne Heche was born a lesbian...

 

[WorldWatcher]

#4 Have fun making the same failed arguments over and over gain and never quiting. There's an old saying that has something to do with doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Hmmm - I'll remember it sometime.




>>>>

No, you see, that's the thing. They won't be the same arguments. The premise will be changed from "gays are a race" to "gays are behaviors".

That's what you call a legal fork in the road. We haven't explored the other branch legally. But we soon will.... Prepare to prove that Anne Heche was born a lesbian...

No, you see, that's the thing. Whether "gays are a race" to "gays are behaviors" is totally irrelevant to the discussion from a legal framework.

Colorado's Public Accommodation laws also protect "marital status" - that is a behavior.

The SCOTUS already ruled that government can't discriminate based on behavior in Lawrence v. Texas.

The SCOTUS already ruled that government can't target homosexuals for discrimination in Romer v. Evans.

Interracial Marriage is a behavior. Blacks could marry. Whites could marry. They were treated equally under that perspective. It was barring the behavior of blacks wanting to marry whites that was found unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.​

You think you've had an epiphany with the "behavior" schtick, but not really - it's just repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

The court order wasn't for any fine, it was a court order issued in December 2013, ordering Mr. Phillips to bake the gay wedding cakes...

Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail

Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake

Again don't believe what you read in the press, try going to the source documents for a change.

Here is the actual ruling of the Administrative Law Judge from -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


The Judge DID NOT order Mr. Phillips to bake anyone a wedding cake, the ruling was to stop discriminating against same-sex couples, specifically to "Cease and desist from discriminatng against Complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product Respondents would provide to heterosexual couples..."

No fine, no jail time, just a cease and desist order.




Now, if Masterpiece Cakeshop doesn't provide wedding cakes to heterosexual couples then they are not required to sell them to homosexual couples. That places him in full compliance with the order and there is no other action needed. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had already indicated that he didn't have problems selling brownies, cookies, or other cakes to homosexuals - so there is no problem.



>>>>

Nothing like the banality of governmental thuggery explained in nice wording.