Remember The Baker Cleared By SCOTUS? Well, Guess What

[Harpy Eagle]

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good fucking grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. Fuck you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

Constitutionally, yes. The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating and it says that the government must provide equal protection under the law. Protected classes are the opposite of equal protection.

 

[Seawytch]

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. Fuck you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

Constitutionally, yes. The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating and it says that the government must provide equal protection under the law. Protected classes are the opposite of equal protection.

And yet, constitutionally, years of court precedent says differently. Why?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. Fuck you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

Constitutionally, yes. The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating and it says that the government must provide equal protection under the law. Protected classes are the opposite of equal protection.

And yet, constitutionally, years of court precedent says differently. Why?

Practicality at first and then precedent after that. Same reason RvW will never go away, the justices know we cannot absorb an extra 750,000 to a 1,000,000 babies a year. Thus abortion will still be about privacy.

And still not a single person can tell me how you can have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

 

[Seawytch]

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. Fuck you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

You say that in this perfect tone of shock, as though you take it for granted that EVERYONE agrees with you that there are people who "owe" their services to others, whether they want to or not.

You can read tone absent any punctuation that would have indicated "shock". My, aren't you the Amazing Kreskin...

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

Emotional argument? It’s not but you’ll lose so I don’t give a fuck what you call it.

Yes, pure emotion with no logic at all in your argument. you are comparing slavery to not baking a cake, that is pure emotion since it lacks any logic at all.

Tell me, if you can...if some groups have more protections than other groups, how can there be equal protection? More is the antithesis of equal.

I compared it to Civil Rights, and your brain fizzled. I had to give you something more clear cut, and you’re using it to back away from the conversation.

This is the definition of civil rights....the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

Not baking a cake does not deprive someone of political or social freedom, it merely means they have walk down the street to one of the other 20 bakers in the area.

Slavery on the other hand did deprive people of both political and social freedom.

By the way...if some groups have more protections than other groups, how can there be equal protection?

Not baking a cake does not deprive someone of political or social freedom, it merely means they have walk down the street to one of the other 20 bakers in the area.

So as long as you can walk to the back of the bus or to the negro side of town it is no impact on social or political freedom

 

[task0778]

"In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests."

Colorado Is Going After Jack Phillips Of Masterpiece Cakeshop Again

You Lefties, are you okay with this?

 

[rightwinger]

You celebrate the “dimocrap scum (God you’re a retard)” that fought those reublicans. You celebrate their flag, their cause, and their statues. Why is that?

Slaves were discriminated and oppressed, like the gay people your bakers were discriminating against. That’s what it has to do with it.

Gays are oppressed? Where? In this Country?

Are you really THAT fucking stupid?

They OWN Hollywood. They OWN the New Yawk Media. They control most College Campuses.

Nobody is oppressing gays, shithead. We're trying to prevent them from attaining their goal as a privileged class of people, jerkoff.

Besides, I've never seen a former Black Man.

You are a truly stupid human being. You take you cues straight from the Media.

Being able to get married and buy a cake makes people part of a privileged class? Holy shit, did you know that YOU’RE part of a privileged class then? Retard.

Is it just baking a cake or does it apply to all wedding services?

Can a same sex couple be denied photography, limo, flowers, invitations, a reception hall, hotel room .......just because you object to gay weddings?

 

[Lysistrata]

Anybody surprised about this? I'm not. They never quit. They respect nothing, not you, not me, not your religion, not even the Supreme Court

Colorado Officials Are Once Again Vindictively Prosecuting Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ignoring Supreme Court Decision
Ace of Spades HQ


Actually, Anthony Kennedy permitted this, by claiming that the Court couldn't reach the merits of the case but could say that the procedure in the original prosecution was biased.

But how can this prosecution be non-biased when the same people are going after him?

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.

Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

...

"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."



And here's the new cake that someone looking to file a complaint demanded he bake:

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.



And so the Civil Rights Commission is going after him again based on this very complainey complainant.

Edge:

dimocraps is what they is. You know what I call them......... You??

Who "never quits" and "respect nothing"? Do all Americans have to kneel down to bimbos like Phillips? Not likely.

Sorry. the overstrike is due to a cumputer glitch.

 

[kaz]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good fucking grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. Fuck you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

No one argued the government could force restaurants to serve anyone, simpleton

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. Fuck you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

You say that in this perfect tone of shock, as though you take it for granted that EVERYONE agrees with you that there are people who "owe" their services to others, whether they want to or not.

You can read tone absent any punctuation that would have indicated "shock". My, aren't you the Amazing Kreskin...

No, just literate. And familiar with your bullshit.

 

[Seawytch]

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

You say that in this perfect tone of shock, as though you take it for granted that EVERYONE agrees with you that there are people who "owe" their services to others, whether they want to or not.

You can read tone absent any punctuation that would have indicated "shock". My, aren't you the Amazing Kreskin...

No, just literate. And familiar with your bullshit.

Obviously not since I wasn’t asking with anything resembling shock.

 

[Seawytch]

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

Constitutionally, yes. The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating and it says that the government must provide equal protection under the law. Protected classes are the opposite of equal protection.

And yet, constitutionally, years of court precedent says differently. Why?

Practicality at first and then precedent after that. Same reason RvW will never go away, the justices know we cannot absorb an extra 750,000 to a 1,000,000 babies a year. Thus abortion will still be about privacy.

And still not a single person can tell me how you can have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

The courts have managed to thread the needle. Could it be because protected classes have to show a history of institutionalized discrimination?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

Constitutionally, yes. The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating and it says that the government must provide equal protection under the law. Protected classes are the opposite of equal protection.

And yet, constitutionally, years of court precedent says differently. Why?

Practicality at first and then precedent after that. Same reason RvW will never go away, the justices know we cannot absorb an extra 750,000 to a 1,000,000 babies a year. Thus abortion will still be about privacy.

And still not a single person can tell me how you can have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

The courts have managed to thread the needle. Could it be because protected classes have to show a history of institutionalized discrimination?

Does that remove the equal protection clause from the Constitution? Or make it ok to just ignore it?

 

[Dragonlady]

Anybody surprised about this? I'm not. They never quit. They respect nothing, not you, not me, not your religion, not even the Supreme Court

Colorado Officials Are Once Again Vindictively Prosecuting Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ignoring Supreme Court Decision
Ace of Spades HQ


Actually, Anthony Kennedy permitted this, by claiming that the Court couldn't reach the merits of the case but could say that the procedure in the original prosecution was biased.

But how can this prosecution be non-biased when the same people are going after him?

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.

Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

...

"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."



And here's the new cake that someone looking to file a complaint demanded he bake:

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.



And so the Civil Rights Commission is going after him again based on this very complainey complainant.

Edge:

dimocraps is what they is. You know what I call them......... You??

The baker was NOT CLEARED of anything. The SC found that the baker’s rights were violated in the Tribunal hearing because of the bias displayed by the adjudicants, who mocked his religion during the proceedings and questioned his sincerity.

The State of Colorado is well within their rights to prosecute every legitimate complaint they get about the guy. Marijuana users are not a protected class. Satan worshippers might be - that “freedom of religion” thing cuts both ways.

I hope the Tribunal gives this guy an unbiased hearing this time, and I expect him to lose all the way to the SC. If I recall correctly, in rendering their decision they did say that if the Tribunal hadn’t violated the baker’s right to a fair and impartial hearing, he would have lost this case.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Read the post, fuckface. Nobody said they were 'cleared' by SCOTUS.

You did. In the thread title. That you created. Read it. Fuck face.

 

[Seawytch]

Just the government? Doctors can refuse? Gas stations? Hotels? Grocery stores?

Constitutionally, yes. The Constitution forbids the government from discriminating and it says that the government must provide equal protection under the law. Protected classes are the opposite of equal protection.

And yet, constitutionally, years of court precedent says differently. Why?

Practicality at first and then precedent after that. Same reason RvW will never go away, the justices know we cannot absorb an extra 750,000 to a 1,000,000 babies a year. Thus abortion will still be about privacy.

And still not a single person can tell me how you can have protected classes and equal protection at the same time.

The courts have managed to thread the needle. Could it be because protected classes have to show a history of institutionalized discrimination?

Does that remove the equal protection clause from the Constitution? Or make it ok to just ignore it?

If the suspect class is being treated less equally, apparently so.