Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[P@triot]

I'm saying it will invite business owners already likely to discriminate based on a number of subsets (religion, race, ethnicity, political orientation,etc.) to bring back a sort of Jim Crow-esque shadow over the country that will be hard to get out from under.

And? So? What's the problem? This is America. A private citizen on private land has a right to decide for themselves who they enter into business with and who they don't.

 

[P@triot]

I'm saying that of the two evils, businesses being run by politicians and public accommodation laws, I would come down reluctantly in favor of PA laws.

Of course you do. I prefer to come down in favor of liberty.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't understand. Why would you presume we must choose between those two options? As far as I see it, PA laws are "businesses being run by politicians".

What's the third option?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And? So? What's the problem? This is America. A private citizen on private land has a right to decide for themselves who they enter into business with and who they don't.

So you can choose to rent your apartment to black people but not whites....is that okay with you?
Or to leftists but not patriots. I thought we left the Jim Crow era behind.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

He did not get what he was seeking. He got a consolation prize, leaving the entire question still open.

He was seeking a ruling exonerating him so he didn't have to make a cake for some homos and that's just what he got. Some "consolation prize". That's the jibber jabber of losers right there.

He and every other person who provides public accommodations and services still have to bake cakes for gay weddings and if they refuse it will still go to court.

And with the Phillips case as a precedent they can tell the gays no thanks if they can provide evidence of strong Christian convictions.

No you haven't. People that support gays don't use words like "homo" or "sodomites". You can try to lie to yourself, but we all see your homophobia.

They do when dealing with an ignorant asshole like yourself. I don't give gays any respect as a symbol of how much I
detest your lies and willful ignorance when I post in response to you. You are welcome.

I've made some overtly pro gay comments to you and gotten nothing in return but hostile pejoratives so now I say fuck you!
I don't care what you think.

An interracial couple walks into a bakery to buy a wedding cake. The baker says "my religion says that your relationship is a sin and I cannot bake a wedding cake for you. Here have some cookies". Do you side with the baker or the couple?

You are trying the racial/religious angle again after I've answered the question many many times. Are you that stupid that you cannot understand what has been plainly posted? You don't deserve yet another answer that will be the same as all the others.

How many times do I have to tell you it doesn't matter what YOU think the bible says about it, it's what THEY think the bible says about it and they believe the bible justifies their racism just as much as you think it justifies your homophobia.

Same thing. It's been answered over and over again.
What you believe the bible says is irrelevant. This "Mark of Cain" bullshit cannot be justified in an open court room.
So add that to the list of things I'm tired of babysitting you over. I shouldn't be placating you at all. You are a hateful shit bag.

 

[P@triot]

And? So? What's the problem? This is America. A private citizen on private land has a right to decide for themselves who they enter into business with and who they don't.

So you can choose to rent your apartment to black people but not whites....is that okay with you?
Or to leftists but not patriots. I thought we left the Jim Crow era behind.

Yeah...that is completely ok with me. Because if you create a business, that is your business to do with as you see fit. The problem is, you were born after the "Jim Crow era" bullshit and thus you just assume it's ok. It's not. The federal government egregiously over-stepped their authority and violated the U.S. Constitution in the process.

The government has absolutely no constitutional authority to force a private citizen on private property to enter into a business transaction. None.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yeah...that is completely ok with me. Because if you create a business, that is your business to do with as you see fit. The problem is, you were born after the "Jim Crow era" bullshit and thus you just assume it's ok. It's not. The federal government egregiously over-stepped their authority and violated the U.S. Constitution in the process.

The government has absolutely no constitutional authority to force a private citizen on private property to enter into a business transaction. None.

Okay. I clearly have a different view and you seem to think the government should justify and certify out and out bigotry.
We al have a right to be bigots in our opinions and views as private individuals. I think access to public services should be where a line is drawn.
And by the way, no can make you sell a product to anyone. But if you sell something to one party, but not another based purely on bigoted animus, that's an appropriate role for government to play in correcting that situation.

In the case of the cake makers the Supreme Court acted properly in ruling the Constitution and First Amendment guarantees justify an exemption to Public Accommodation laws in this instance.

 

[P@triot]

And by the way, no can make you sell a product to anyone. But if you sell something to one party, but not another based purely on bigoted animus, that's an appropriate role for government to play in correcting that situation.

Um...not it's not. Not at all. Not according to the U.S. Constitution. And the constitution dictates what government can and cannot do.

If you want that to be "an appropriate role for government to play", then you need to amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that. Until then, what you're saying is flat out incorrect.

 

[P@triot]

In the case of the cake makers the Supreme Court acted properly in ruling the Constitution and First Amendment guarantees justify an exemption to Public Accommodation laws in this instance.

Do you even hear yourself? If this was correct, then all instances are correct. I can easily say that my faith rejects n*ggers and therefore I don't have to allow n*ggers into my establishment.

And there would be nothing you could do to prove otherwise. A faith is what the individual says it is. Look at the bat-shit crazy scientologists. The most absurd thing ever. But the U.S. Constitution protects it.

 

[P@triot]

Okay. I clearly have a different view and you seem to think the government should justify and certify out and out bigotry.

No, I think the government should never overstep their constitutional authority. You seem to think they should wield unlimited power as long as you believe what they are doing is "good". Gee...that should end well.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Um...not it's not. Not at all. Not according to the U.S. Constitution. And the constitution dictates what government can and cannot do.

If you want that to be "an appropriate role for government to play", then you need to amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that. Until then, what you're saying is flat out incorrect.

Well go ahead, son, and demonstrate where exactly the Constitution forbids the government from battling discrimination amongst it's citizenry. I'd love a good laugh.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, I think the government should never overstep their constitutional authority. You seem to think they should wield unlimited power as long as you believe what they are doing is "good". Gee...that should end well.

You mentioned "unlimited power". Not me.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Do you even hear yourself?

Yes. All the time.

If this was correct, then all instances are correct. I can easily say that my faith rejects n*ggers and therefore I don't have to allow n*ggers into my establishment.

Yes. You can easily claim anything.
Proving that claim will be impossible to justify though. Just go ahead and cite in the bible where Jesus tells you to reject
the n-people in God's name. Yes...that's right. Go ahead and cite it.

And there would be nothing you could do to prove otherwise. A faith is what the individual says it is. Look at the bat-shit crazy scientologists. The most absurd thing ever. But the U.S. Constitution protects it.

Sure thing, champ.

 

[dblack]

I don't understand. Why would you presume we must choose between those two options? As far as I see it, PA laws are "businesses being run by politicians".

What's the third option?

Well, you're saying we have to choose between businesses being run by politicians and PA laws. Third option: neither. Why is that so hard to imagine?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, I think the government should never overstep their constitutional authority. You seem to think they should wield unlimited power as long as you believe what they are doing is "good". Gee...that should end well.

Not what I think, but okay. Whatever.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Well, you're saying we have to choose between businesses being run by politicians and PA laws. Third option: neither. Why is that so hard to imagine?

Mostly because you've never even hinted at how you would come up with this third option and what it would mean.
You are spouting theoretical bullshit, in other words. Not even worth my time to discuss this what if nonsense.

Either we follow public accommodation law or sink back into Jim Crow America. It's not really a choice as far as I'm concerned.

 

[P@triot]

Well go ahead, son, and demonstrate where exactly the Constitution forbids the government from battling discrimination amongst it's citizenry. I'd love a good laugh.

The constitution explicitly limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. "Battling discrimination" is not one of those powers, snowflake.

Hope you're able to laugh at yourself, because that's the only way you're getting a good laugh now.

 

[P@triot]

If this was correct, then all instances are correct. I can easily say that my faith rejects n*ggers and therefore I don't have to allow n*ggers into my establishment.

Yes. You can easily claim anything.
Proving that claim will be impossible to justify though. Just go ahead and cite in the bible where Jesus tells you to reject the n-people in God's name. Yes...that's right. Go ahead and cite it.

Christianity isn't the only faith in the world, dumb shit.

I don't need the Bible to "prove" anything. My faith is whatever I say it is, and the federal government must respect that per the U.S. Constitution.

God damn you are dumb. You literally think Christianity is the only faith. There is judaism, islam, buddhism, scientology, satanism, and a shit-ton more son.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The constitution explicitly limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. "Battling discrimination" is not one of those powers, snowflake.

Hope you're able to laugh at yourself, because that's the only way you're getting a good laugh now

I asked you to show where the Constitution forbids the government from dissuading discrimination.
You couldn't do it. Too bad you are better at tossing out little insults than legitimizing your own claims.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Christianity isn't the only faith in the world, dumb shit.

I don't need the Bible to "prove" anything. My faith is whatever I say it is, and the federal government must respect that per the U.S. Constitution.

God damn you are dumb. You literally think Christianity is the only faith. There is judaism, islam, buddhism, scientology, satanism, and a shit-ton more son.

You're an ad hom spewing shit bag. Make this worth my while.