Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[martybegan]

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

How many people ask for a cake celebrating murder, thievery, or rape?

 

[Pop23]

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.

I may be wrong, I’ve only heard this on the radio, but wasn’t the focus about the commissioner who expressed bias about religion in the first place?

If so, future cases could also reflect this and commissioner social posts better be as clean as the driven snow.

 

[LoneLaugher]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

No it won't. Please learn what happened and then comment.

 

[LoneLaugher]

7-2 decision.

And that means nothing.

 

[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

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?

Wouldn't it be a sin to bake a cake for them since baking a cake is an acceptance of their lifestyle?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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!

The decision was narrow. Meaning very narrow legally. Not the vote count.

I love how stupid you are and how proud you are to tell everyone.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

Another one. Awesome.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is huge. Up until this point this guy had lost every legal battle but he finally won in the Supreme Court. There is hope for this country.

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

I use that link because it was hilarious they said they ruled narrowly in favor. It was a 7-2 to vote it wasn't even close

One more who doesn't understand what narrow means in legal opinions.

 

[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

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.

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

 

[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?

Wouldn't it be a sin to bake a cake for them since baking a cake is an acceptance of their lifestyle?

Might work for Al and Ma.

how about baking a cake for the Boston Strangler?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow, 7-2. Boy, that sure was a close one!

And another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, the point is not moot, marty. Inspecting the consistency of the baker's religious opinion is the point.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Wouldn't it be a sin to bake a cake for them since baking a cake is an acceptance of their lifestyle?

Might work for Al and Ma.

how about baking a cake for the Boston Strangler?

Does it need a file baked inside?

 

[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

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?

Wouldn't it be a sin to bake a cake for them since baking a cake is an acceptance of their lifestyle?

Might work for Al and Ma.

how about baking a cake for the Boston Strangler?

same thing isn't it?

If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?

 

[Flash]

Good for the Supremes for doing the right thing.

They determined that freedom of religion is greater than the freedom of a queer to demand services from someone that doesn't want to provide the services.

I am glad SCOTUS decided to apply strict scrutiny to freedom of religion. They also need to do that for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The best part of the decision was the admonishment to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for acting like Politically Correctness Nazis.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Oh my. You are persecuted. It's horrible.

 

[GreenBean]

Local laws are local laws

Local Laws ? You mean like Dred Scott ? Oh My...

 

[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.

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony

 

[martybegan]

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.

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony

Again, government shouldn't get involved in it. It's up to the person's own beliefs.

And your second statement is splitting hairs. the party after the ceremony is part of the same celebration, honoring the same thing as the ceremony.

Are you such an anti-religious bigot that you have to make other's miserable to satisfy your own hatred?

And use government to do your dirty work?