Finally! Supreme Court rules in favor of First Amendment rights for Christians etc.

[Foxfyre]

In Gorsuch's closing comments....I got the feeling he was saying....

"Really ? We gotta deal with this stupidity. This is America....be Americans and figure it out."

I'm not real keen on the whole case, but I like that religious freedom finally caught a break. Even if it is a weak one.

Others such as Jonathan Turley don't see it as weak though and see it as much a win for free speech as for religious freedom. Nobody should be forced to contribute to or participate in anything with which they have moral or ethical issues with.

It is really REALLY hard not to resent and hold in contempt the double standard we get from the left on these issues. They absolutely refuse to look at how this kind of ruling protects them as much as the people they hate like a Christian baker or Christian website designer.

And when the high court rules in their favor on something which it has many many times, they praise it and hold up those rulings as the gospel law that everybody should appreciate, respect and obey.

But if a ruling goes in favor of something on the right, they condemn the court, call for the Justices resignation or impeachment and applaud those in Congress or the White House who intend to ignore the ruling.

And they cannot fathom how hypocritical that is.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I read most of the decision. They were squarely focused on the "compelled speech" aspect. Freedom of Religion wasn't the issue (at least in the eyes of the Court).

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought she was given license to deny based on her religious beliefs.....

Essentially, you can't be compelled to create something that you disagree with. In this case it was based on religion. It could have been something else.

 

[HikerGuy83]

And they cannot fathom how hypocritical that is.

Of course not.

It's the hallmark of the left.

 

[dblack]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought she was given license to deny based on her religious beliefs.....

That's what all the headlines insinuate. Even the topic this thread. Turns out it's not the case.

Essentially, you can't be compelled to create something that you disagree with. In this case it was based on religion. It could have been something else.

That's what I got out of it. But there may have been subtleties I missed..

 

[Magnus]

Maybe if I type slowly you'll get it. The surgeon should not refuse medical treatment for a child whose parents are gay. He should not refuse treatment for the gay parents themselves. I know of absolutely no doctor anywhere who would refuse normal medical treatment for a gay person. And I know a lot of medical people.

The doctor can and should be able to refuse those gay people who want him to give a lecture saying something he doesn't agree with. He should be able to refuse to do transgender surgery if he opposes that.

I don't know why you can't see the distinction here.

LOL Maybe I should type slow.

Doctor should…shouldn’t..blah blah.

The law that you so approve of can be set as a precedent to allow a surgeon to refuse to treat a child whose family is gay or whatever. What part of that don’t you get? It is not matter of what you think should or shouldn’t be allowed.

Do you get it now? No? Read it a few times and then when you are done read it a few more times. You will eventually get it. Good luck.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL Maybe I should type slow.

Doctor should…shouldn’t..blah blah.

The law that you so approve of can be set as a precedent to allow a surgeon to refuse to treat a child whose family is gay or whatever. What part of that don’t you get? It is not matter of what you think should or shouldn’t be allowed.

Do you get it now? No? Read it a few times and then when you are done read it a few more times. You will eventually get it. Good luck.

Well due to your apparent reading disability or lack of aptitude in reading comprehension, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. So have a great afternoon.

 

[Magnus]

Well due to your apparent reading disability or lack of aptitude in reading comprehension, I don't know how to explain it to you any better. So have a great afternoon.

Still didn't get it, eh? My sympathies.

 

[JoeB131]

Same-sex marriage was put to a vote in many states and the majority of states voted it down, even California. You don't know what you're talking about.

20 years ago, when the Mormon Cult spent millions of dollars lying about it.

Today, it would have no trouble passing in CA or most of the rest of the country.

it's just not a big deal.

You lost.

Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually according to many constitutional scholars the argument was based on both free speech and freedom of religion issues. But I hope you are right that the decision was secular. Jonathan Turley seems to agree with you that it was a free speech issue. The effect will be to stop these malicious people who can easily get a product or service elsewhere but target Christians for lawsuits. Up until now 'woke' judges have ruled in favor of the harassers. That kind of thing will hopefully now be much more rare.

Or not. So why can't I discriminate against race based on "Free Speech" issues? Or religion? Should I be able to refuse service to Jews because they killed Jesus?

No. Nor is it okay for a baker to refuse to sell products he/she normally has for sale to a gay person or a website designer to refuse to design a business website for a gay person. This ruling only says that if a customer orders a product or service that requires contribution or participation that the proprietor objects to morally or ethically, the proprietor is not required to accommodate that customer.

Faulty logic. Baking the same cake for a gay couple that you'd bake for a straight couple doesn't imply contribution or participation. You drop the cake off, someone at the reception hall serves it.

Who really cares.

The past is past.

What is now happening is that asians are being selectively excluded.

Uh, Asians are only 6% of the population and are 26% of the starting class at Harvard. They are hardly being "excluded".

I also don't see you complaining about the Asian who lost his slot to a white legacy with lower grades and no Tiger Mom.

Good luck.

Might as well get ride of boy scout merit badges too.

They already do.

 

[JoeB131]

Others such as Jonathan Turley don't see it as weak though and see it as much a win for free speech as for religious freedom. Nobody should be forced to contribute to or participate in anything with which they have moral or ethical issues with.

It is really REALLY hard not to resent and hold in contempt the double standard we get from the left on these issues. They absolutely refuse to look at how this kind of ruling protects them as much as the people they hate like a Christian baker or Christian website designer.

Then they shouldn't make wedding cakes at all.

Heck, Wedding Cakes aren't even Christian... they are a Pagan Roman practice to celebrate fertility. Except Roman wedding cakes were baked in the shape of genitalia. So unless you are making a big old Dick Cake, you probably shouldn't complain about "morals".

On a more serious note, do these bakers ask if the couple is living together or had sex before marriage? Because they should object to THAT.

 

[BS Filter]

20 years ago, when the Mormon Cult spent millions of dollars lying about it.

Today, it would have no trouble passing in CA or most of the rest of the country.

it's just not a big deal.

You lost.

Deal with it.

They may get that chance to vote on it again when the Supreme Court returns it to the states like they did abortion. Marriage laws are state issues.

 

[BS Filter]

Then they shouldn't make wedding cakes at all.

Heck, Wedding Cakes aren't even Christian... they are a Pagan Roman practice to celebrate fertility. Except Roman wedding cakes were baked in the shape of genitalia. So unless you are making a big old Dick Cake, you probably shouldn't complain about "morals".

On a more serious note, do these bakers ask if the couple is living together or had sex before marriage? Because they should object to THAT.

Doesn't matter. American citizens have Constitutional rights. Taking our country back is gonna hurt. You might want to set up some therapy next year. More to come.

 

[BS Filter]

LOL Maybe I should type slow.

Doctor should…shouldn’t..blah blah.

The law that you so approve of can be set as a precedent to allow a surgeon to refuse to treat a child whose family is gay or whatever. What part of that don’t you get? It is not matter of what you think should or shouldn’t be allowed.

Do you get it now? No? Read it a few times and then when you are done read it a few more times. You will eventually get it. Good luck.

Treating people is the doctor's job. Now if you tell the doctor your child believes he's a pirate and wants his left leg sawn off below the knee, the doctor will probably refuse. Do you get it yet?

 

[Magnus]

Then they shouldn't make wedding cakes at all.

Heck, Wedding Cakes aren't even Christian... they are a Pagan Roman practice to celebrate fertility. Except Roman wedding cakes were baked in the shape of genitalia. So unless you are making a big old Dick Cake, you probably shouldn't complain about "morals".

On a more serious note, do these bakers ask if the couple is living together or had sex before marriage? Because they should object to THAT.

That is something that I never get. You have a huge population "living in sin" according to their Christian faith and yet... they focus on gays having sex.

The poor dears seem not to have heard about the "people in glass houses...

 

[Magnus]

Treating people is the doctor's job. Now if you tell the doctor your child believes he's a pirate and wants his left leg sawn off below the knee, the doctor will probably refuse. Do you get it yet?

Because that's what he is paid to do. Give you the right advice. Hypocritic oath and all that.

But refusing treatment to a sick child because their parents are gay? Doesn't fall in that category.

That I have to explain to you the difference is the reason why you are a retard. Let me know if you are still confused.

 

[Foxfyre]

Or not. So why can't I discriminate against race based on "Free Speech" issues? Or religion? Should I be able to refuse service to Jews because they killed Jesus?




Faulty logic. Baking the same cake for a gay couple that you'd bake for a straight couple doesn't imply contribution or participation. You drop the cake off, someone at the reception hall serves it.



Uh, Asians are only 6% of the population and are 26% of the starting class at Harvard. They are hardly being "excluded".

I also don't see you complaining about the Asian who lost his slot to a white legacy with lower grades and no Tiger Mom.



They already do.

I won't respond to these chopped up posts Joe because they destroy context and the complete thought.

It is not legal to discriminate against a Jew who walks in to buy something you have for sale in your store. It does not matter what you think of his religion or history or beliefs or anything else. And even if you think you can get away with it legally, I personally think it morally wrong to pick and choose who you will sell your products too based on prejudice, bigotry, racism.

But if that Jew should ask you to create and decorate a product that you would never choose to do yourself or prepare a cake denying that Jesus is the Messiah, you should be allowed to say no, sorry, I can't do that. \\

That is the difference between discriminating against a person for no other reason than he belongs to a particular demographic or faith and discriminating against a product or activity that for you would be wrong.

So far not one leftist has been able to grasp that particular concept or acknowledge the difference between those two things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then they shouldn't make wedding cakes at all.

Heck, Wedding Cakes aren't even Christian... they are a Pagan Roman practice to celebrate fertility. Except Roman wedding cakes were baked in the shape of genitalia. So unless you are making a big old Dick Cake, you probably shouldn't complain about "morals".

On a more serious note, do these bakers ask if the couple is living together or had sex before marriage? Because they should object to THAT.

Your opinion that ignores the simplest of concepts, i.e. to refuse to create or stock a certain product (to ANYBODY) or participate in a certain activity (for ANYBODY) is NOT discriminating against a person.

I'm pretty sure you won't make the distinction though yet again. 99.9% of those on the right can and do.

 

[BS Filter]

Because that's what he is paid to do. Give you the right advice. Hypocritic oath and all that.

But refusing treatment to a sick child because their parents are gay? Doesn't fall in that category.

That I have to explain to you the difference is the reason why you are a retard. Let me know if you are still confused.

I agree with you, idiot. Read my post again. Your analogy didn't work. The doctor doesn't give a damn whether you're queer or not. He'll most likely figure it out when you go to the Emergency with a gerbil stuck up your asshole.

 

[Magnus]

I agree with you, idiot. Read my post again. Your analogy didn't work. The doctor doesn't give a damn whether you're queer or not. He'll most likely figure it out when you go to the Emergency with a gerbil stuck up your asshole.

Agree with me, what? You just said something completely different. I know you are a retard but still...

 

[BS Filter]

Agree with me, what? You just said something completely different. I know you are a retard but still...

Never mind. Make sure you are under adult supervision tomorrow so you don't blow your damn fingers off.