Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Defiant1]

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?

how are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?

He killed for years before he was caught.

same with rapists, etc.

their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.

If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?

It doesn't matter. If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

Neither government nor society has the right to tell a person what sins they can choose to commit.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

7-2 and they call it narrow!

Narrow grounds..dimwit. Means that the issue is not resolved in a over-reaching manner..but rather applies solely to the case.

Perhaps you might..i dunno..read the decision?

 

[blastoff]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

7-2 and they call it narrow!

...Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker...

They’re not referring to the 7-2 drubbing.

 

[Penelope]

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

I disagree with that, when you open your doors to the public you accept them all.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Nope..very narrow ruling..effects the case only...the larger question remains open--

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters

I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

 

[Crixus]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

7-2 and they call it narrow!

Narrow grounds..dimwit. Means that the issue is not resolved in a over-reaching manner..but rather applies solely to the case.

Perhaps you might..i dunno..read the decision?

Don't matter...no cake for you!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHA

I don’t get it. Denver Colorado is about as full of awesome bakers as a town can be. Why these to fags couldn’t just go down the street is beyond me. This was nothing but an expensive political stunt and I hope the fags get sued for damages.

 

[bodecea]

Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender. Wooot!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

I disagree with that, when you open your doors to the public you accept them all.

Then no more not serving cops, people wearing Trump hats and attire, MAGA clothing etc.

You damn loons keep forgetting that end of it

 

[Penelope]

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?

how are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?

He killed for years before he was caught.

same with rapists, etc.

their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.

If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?

It doesn't matter. If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

I hope no gays even shop at his store. If their money is ok for whatever else he sells, and not ok for a wedding cake, then boycott his store altogether.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

7-2 and they call it narrow!

Narrow grounds..dimwit. Means that the issue is not resolved in a over-reaching manner..but rather applies solely to the case.

Perhaps you might..i dunno..read the decision?

Don't matter...no cake for you!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHA

I don’t get it. Denver Colorado is about as full of awesome bakers as a town can be. Why these to fags couldn’t just go down the street is beyond me. This was nothing but an expensive political stunt and I hope the fags get sued for damages.

Targeted

 

[Pop23]

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?

I really don't care if people deny service. I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?

Of course, the baker never refused to bake the cake. His objection was, and correct me if I’m wrong, was being forced to attend the event.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I really don't care if people deny service. I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

 

[BlindBoo]

Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.

 

[Penelope]

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

I disagree with that, when you open your doors to the public you accept them all.

Then no more not serving cops, people wearing Trump hats and attire, MAGA clothing etc.

You damn loons keep forgetting that end of it

Yes everyone should be served. I agreed and yet you are calling me a loon.

 

[Crixus]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

7-2 and they call it narrow!

Narrow grounds..dimwit. Means that the issue is not resolved in a over-reaching manner..but rather applies solely to the case.

Perhaps you might..i dunno..read the decision?

Don't matter...no cake for you!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHA

I don’t get it. Denver Colorado is about as full of awesome bakers as a town can be. Why these to fags couldn’t just go down the street is beyond me. This was nothing but an expensive political stunt and I hope the fags get sued for damages.

Targeted

Big time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

I really don't care if people deny service. I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?

Of course, the baker never refused to bake the cake. His objection was, and correct me if I’m wrong, was being forced to attend the event.

Was he being forced to attend?

I've been to a lot of weddings and the guy who baked the cake was never forced to attend

 

[martybegan]

how are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?

He killed for years before he was caught.

same with rapists, etc.

their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.

If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?

It doesn't matter. If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

I hope no gays even shop at his store. If their money is ok for whatever else he sells, and not ok for a wedding cake, then boycott his store altogether.

Let them at it. Just keep government out of it.

 

[Crixus]

Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.

The baker was pretty clear about what he will and will not do. Like Halloween cakes and so on. The homos tried to make it like it was just them personally. Meh, Colorado is more red then many think. The homos will lose again.

 

[Fang]

As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.

 

[Papageorgio]

Opens up a can of worms allowing business to use religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone ....not just gays

No it doesn't the Supreme Court decided it is a case by case basis. There is a balance and it can't be just one way or the other. This is a matter of conscience, I believe that respect for religion and for homosexuals can be achieved if both sides are reasonable.

It seems the court decide that to.