Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[martybegan]

What they said is the religious beliefs of the people in question cannot be ignored, and have to be taken into account when deciding cases like this.

That's the only thing that should have been taken into account.

The words "Married / Gay" aren't even written in the constitution.

Freedom of Religion is.


.

A person's right to commerce has to be taken into account as well. What can't happen, as what happened with the CRC, is the religious aspect cannot be ignored.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The lyin' media calls a 7-2 decision "narrow"...



Here's your cake!

"Narrow" doesn't refer to the number of judges, it refers to the opinion itself.

The opinion is "narrow" in terms of the precedent it sets.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminate.

The SC ruled that the commission didn't consider the bakers religious beliefs and was very intolerant in their treatment of the baker.

 

[martybegan]

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.

The first amendment only states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As far as I can tell there was no law made that prohibited the baker from exercising his religion.

Unless of course the baker provided the quote from his religious text that expressly says baking a cake for sinners is itself a sin

It's not up to the government to decide how a person exercises their religion, unless there is a compelling government interest involved.

Saying "my religion allows me to murder people" is a compelling government interest.

To me enforcing equality in point of sale transactions is a compelling government interest.

Asking a couple to spend 15 minutes finding another baker for a non time sensitive, non nessasary, easily replaceable service is not a compelling government interest.

 

[martybegan]

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Not much to the link. This has just happened.

5 or 6 year old case where Baker refused, on religious grounds and beliefs
that he wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. SCOTUS
overruled all the other courts in this case.

Notice one thing about the link, which is from CNN. Their wording. "A narrow
decision." lol. In SCOTUS rulings 7-2 isn't narrow, it's a fucking rout.

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminate.

The SC ruled that the commission didn't consider the bakers religious beliefs and was very intolerant in their treatment of the baker.

The gist of it is just that. Commissions like this cannot ignore a person's religious beliefs and their right to free exercise.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.

The first amendment only states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As far as I can tell there was no law made that prohibited the baker from exercising his religion.

Unless of course the baker provided the quote from his religious text that expressly says baking a cake for sinners is itself a sin

It's not up to the government to decide how a person exercises their religion, unless there is a compelling government interest involved.

Saying "my religion allows me to murder people" is a compelling government interest.

To me enforcing equality in point of sale transactions is a compelling government interest.

Asking a couple to spend 15 minutes finding another baker for a non time sensitive, non nessasary, easily replaceable service is not a compelling government interest.

You can argue that all you want but doesn't the bible tell Christians how to practice their religion?

I'm just asking where in the bible it says it is a sin to bake cakes for sinners

 

[JakeStarkey]

The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.

What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Interesting development.

I think I'm beginning to smell the butthurt across the land.

 

[Circe]

Exactly. I haven't read the decision yet, but it sounds like this is another carve-out - special rights for special people. Refusing to serve another person, regardless of the reason, should be considered a basic human right. If this is just an exemption for government-approved religious beliefs, it misses the point entirely.

Good point. I entirely agree: we should all be free to limit who we sell to just as employers are generally able to fire anyone for any reason or no reason. Not being legally able to refuse to serve undesirables has led to a lot of trouble and degradation of public areas.

It seems to me the burden should be on the customers: act right, don't be weird, and get to buy more stuff and go more places. Be criminal, be perverted, and not be wanted in decent stores and other businesses.

The current meme seems to be that anyone can be as criminal and revolting as they want, and everyone still is supposed to pretend they're normal and treat it all as just fine. Well, it's NOT just fine. Most of us do whatever we have to, to get away from the aggressives, the criminals, and the perverted.

The recent flap at Starbucks is a good example. Two black males came in, were NOT customers, wanted the code for the bathroom (both at once!!) either for homosexual activity or for a drug sale. Very properly, the staff called police when they refused to leave. So now all the Starbucks people are being trained to turn Starbucks into public accommodations, like libraries where all the homeless hang out. Will that spread to all the McDonalds, the Kentucky Fried Chicken places, everywhere, so that druggies and homeless and homosexuals take over completely and there are no fast food places for normals?

 

[Skull Pilot]

This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

 

[Circe]

The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.

What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?

Naaaah, that's not relevant. Too many varieties of religion: one per person, in this sort of case.

I don't like it. I want libertarian freedom, not this religious exception thing.

I suppose it's better than nothing: People grossed out by men marrying men at least have SOME recourse --- they can lie that it's against their religious beliefs. I don't much like lying. I'd rather we were free to do without the business of people we don't want around.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is baking a cake for a morbidly obese person a sin since by doing so the baker is approving of gluttony?

 

[BookShaka]

This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.

 

[westwall]

Religion is just another tool of discrimination.

Indeed it is, and you will never see a gay couple try and do this to a Islamic fundamentalist baker either. I wonder why they only pick on christians?

 

[usmcstinger]

It is the Law of the Land. Argue all you want. It will not change any thing.

 

[Auld Phart]

This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

you're saying, if Al Capone and Ma Barker wanted a cake baked celebrating the St Valentines Day Massacre, they should be out of luck?

 

[TNHarley]

It is the Law of the Land. Argue all you want. It will not change any thing.

What is?

 

[martybegan]

The 7-2 ruling returns the case to the commission directing them to review and take into consideration the religious views of the baker.

The commission, apparently, did not take those views into consideration in the original ruling.

The original law probably did not require such consideration, but considering the 1st Amendment's protection of religious belief, the commission should have at least mentioned why they were giving the PA requirements preference.

The first amendment only states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As far as I can tell there was no law made that prohibited the baker from exercising his religion.

Unless of course the baker provided the quote from his religious text that expressly says baking a cake for sinners is itself a sin

It's not up to the government to decide how a person exercises their religion, unless there is a compelling government interest involved.

Saying "my religion allows me to murder people" is a compelling government interest.

To me enforcing equality in point of sale transactions is a compelling government interest.

Asking a couple to spend 15 minutes finding another baker for a non time sensitive, non nessasary, easily replaceable service is not a compelling government interest.

You can argue that all you want but doesn't the bible tell Christians how to practice their religion?

I'm just asking where in the bible it says it is a sin to bake cakes for sinners

It considers homosexuality to be a sin. One doesn't have to jump that far to assume a wedding celebrating a homosexual union is a no-go.

And in none of these cases was there a denial of point of sale services, it was for a specific cake for a specific event.

 

[dblack]

It is the Law of the Land. Argue all you want. It will not change any thing.

Heh.. well, no. When it comes to politics, arguing is central to changing things.

 

[martybegan]

The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.

What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?

It's a moot point because government can't get involved in the internal workings of religion, or the differences in different sects of religions, without a compelling government interest.

Even then they can only resolve the conflict using the least intrusive method possible.