If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a "Christian" baker participated in the marriage...

[JoeB131]

The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.

True, a baker should bake a cake for anyone who asks with a couple of exceptions. 1. An unruly customer & 2. A customer who just informed them that the cake is to celebrate an ideal or ritual repugnant to the baker’s moral code.

I have no problem with 1.

2 is ridiculous. 'Moral code' can be anything you want. What if my moral code is I hate black people. Or Mormons?

 

[hadit]

Sorry that's not what the First Amendment says. You don't like it, take your totalitarian self somewhere else. Maybe China. They hate Christians there too. You'll love the pollution I"m sure

the First Amendment is not a license to break other laws.

you are perfectly free to hate on gay people if your Minister or Priest tells you to. In 50 years, they won't, and they'll look back at this with the kind of embarrassment they had when someone reminds them they all supported Segregation 50 years go.

What you aren't free to do is break other laws, like Public Accommodation Laws.

That’s what the Court found the last time the LGBT cult agitators tested the waters with this baker.

Oh look. Sparky is back posting again...

The courts found they shouldn't have made fun of his beliefs while pointing out he was in violation of the law. Really, nothing more than that.

Yes Sparky. But the trouble is that just some deviant sex behaviors decriminalized behind closed doors don’t have legal weight to throw around & for others to participate in their ideas & rituals.

If you are that this is not true, the 14th Amendment requires that you give a complete listing of all deviant sex kinks that bakers must be forced to promote. Don’t forget polygamy!

Sure. Any sex act between consenting adults who aren't related is perfectly okay. I have no problem with polygamy. Some guys are just alpha male studs. We already have polygamy in this country. One is called "the wife' and the other is called "the Mistress". Just ask your Trumpenfuhrer.

Bakers should provide the services they promise regardless of who asks for them.

Why set the bar at related? In this day of cheap, reliable BC and readily available abortion at any time for any reason, why prevent brothers and sisters from getting married?

We have the legal means to prevent and destroy any babies created from such unions, so what's your reluctance?

 

[JoeB131]

If the Supreme Court thought it was an "absurd argument on its face" they never would have taken it up. You lose again, Joe.

Except they didn't rule on that point, they just ruled that the Commission was mean to him.

and really, I kind of don't care what SCOTUS says.. If they strike down the law, just pass another that says the same thing a little different. The bakers will run out of money before the states do.

Big business has already slapped down states that have tried to codify homophobia as okay. End of the day, even the Churches will look all hang-dog when you bring this subject up.

 

[SweetSue92]

If the Supreme Court thought it was an "absurd argument on its face" they never would have taken it up. You lose again, Joe.

Except they didn't rule on that point, they just ruled that the Commission was mean to him.

and really, I kind of don't care what SCOTUS says.. If they strike down the law, just pass another that says the same thing a little different. The bakers will run out of money before the states do.

Big business has already slapped down states that have tried to codify homophobia as okay. End of the day, even the Churches will look all hang-dog when you bring this subject up.

Right you don't care what the SC says because you know you will lose in the SC. Just like I said.

 

[Silhouette]

The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.

True, a baker should bake a cake for anyone who asks with a couple of exceptions. 1. An unruly customer & 2. A customer who just informed them that the cake is to celebrate an ideal or ritual repugnant to the baker’s moral code.

I have no problem with 1.

2 is ridiculous. 'Moral code' can be anything you want. What if my moral code is I hate black people. Or Mormons?

Your moral code may be “I hate black people” but because race has specific protection & deviant sex addictions don’t, the point is moot. You can’t force people to promote behaviors, ideals or rituals.

Until you give the Court a complete listing of all deviant sex addictions & convince the Court that that still- incomplete list of the potential for repugnant behaviors wanting freedom from regulation by the majority gets a special pass, you’re going to have to accept that Lawrence v Texas doesn’t grant you rights outside your bedroom. Its bastard child Obergefell is born from a false premise.

Good luck pitching your arguments to a much more intelligent, focused & investigative USSC. And for your sake, I wouldn’t keep comparing race to butt sex in front of Justice Thomas...

 

[sparky]

The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace

That they did, tiebreaker Kennedy's supreme word salad w/croutons...>>>>
Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated] - SCOTUSblog

On the one hand, society has recognized that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” and their rights are protected by the Constitution. On the other hand, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

<<<<snip>>>>

It is clear, Kennedy continued, that in at least some scenarios sincerely held religious beliefs can trump such laws – for example, a member of the clergy who objects to same-sex marriage cannot be required to perform such marriages. But at the same time, Kennedy explained, the exception cannot be allowed to swallow the rule, with the result that “a long list” of people would be allowed to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages

<<<<snip>>>>

But the majority left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently, particularly if the decisionmaker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly.

<<<<snip>>>>

Using strong language, Gorsuch emphasized that, in the United States, “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

<<<<snip>>>>

In short, today’s ruling seemed to leave open as least as many questions as it resolved. The only thing we can be sure of is that these issues will return to the courts, and in all likelihood the Supreme Court, before long.

when's IM2's bday?

 

[sparky]

And for your sake, I wouldn’t keep comparing race to butt sex in front of Justice Thomas.

slice?

~S~

 

[Silhouette]

Joe, that cake you just posted is one I wouldn’t serve Justice Thomas just before the hearing on this matter that is pending.


vv I bet since "Sparky" just agreed with me below, that he "isn't" the same poster as Joe! That settles it then... You blew it on Christmas at that hour Joe to pull in your sockophant. Too late now.

 

[sparky]

Joe, that cake you just posted is one I wouldn’t serve Justice Thomas just before the hearing on this matter that is pending.

probably not a good idea......~S~

 

[boedicca]

Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?

What a totalitarian creep you are.

Um, yeah, that's the reality. It's why I don't have to put up with a coworker trying to tell me all day what a great guy Jesus is... because that's not what he's being paid for.

If your silly bronze age superstitions mean you can't fulfill the promises you make as a business, then you'd probably be happier doing something else.

Sorry that's not what the First Amendment says. You don't like it, take your totalitarian self somewhere else. Maybe China. They hate Christians there too. You'll love the pollution I"m sure

True that we've freedom of religion, not from it ,ergo discrimination against those of 'alternate faith' is discriminatory

A christian cake rates no more or less than a satanic cake , straight, gay, or martian cake.....

They are all viewed EQUALLY

~S~

And if someone want a satanic cake, he can find someone who is willing to make it instead of forcing a Christian to do so.

Take your choice (you can only pick one):

1) Freedom to be left alone to do your own thing

2) Forced compulsion at the point of a gun to perform labor against your will (i.e. slavery) for others

Freedom does not mean that the government takes away the freedom of others because your FEELZ are hurt.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?

What a totalitarian creep you are.

Um, yeah, that's the reality. It's why I don't have to put up with a coworker trying to tell me all day what a great guy Jesus is... because that's not what he's being paid for.

If your silly bronze age superstitions mean you can't fulfill the promises you make as a business, then you'd probably be happier doing something else.

Hey stupid, the government has NO input into what your coworker tells you about Jesus.

You're a brain dead moron. "Freedom of religion means you can close your business if you don't want to bake a cake for homosexuals" are you kidding me

Not to mention the obvious freedom of religion isn't even the point here because an atheist also has the right to refuse service to gays if he simply doesn't like gays.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.

True, a baker should bake a cake for anyone who asks with a couple of exceptions. 1. An unruly customer & 2. A customer who just informed them that the cake is to celebrate an ideal or ritual repugnant to the baker’s moral code.

I have no problem with 1.

2 is ridiculous. 'Moral code' can be anything you want. What if my moral code is I hate black people. Or Mormons?

That's the point, queers such as yourself also should have the right to discriminate. It's YOUR business.

 

[hadit]

Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?

What a totalitarian creep you are.

Um, yeah, that's the reality. It's why I don't have to put up with a coworker trying to tell me all day what a great guy Jesus is... because that's not what he's being paid for.

If your silly bronze age superstitions mean you can't fulfill the promises you make as a business, then you'd probably be happier doing something else.

It's legal for a company to allow employees to talk about their faith. As you like to say about business owners, if you don't like where you've agreed to work, you are free to work elsewhere. IOW, you can accommodate others just like you want to force them to accommodate you.

 

[Silhouette]

Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?

What a totalitarian creep you are.

Um, yeah, that's the reality. It's why I don't have to put up with a coworker trying to tell me all day what a great guy Jesus is... because that's not what he's being paid for.

If your silly bronze age superstitions mean you can't fulfill the promises you make as a business, then you'd probably be happier doing something else.

Hey stupid, the government has NO input into what your coworker tells you about Jesus.

You're a brain dead moron. "Freedom of religion means you can close your business if you don't want to bake a cake for homosexuals" are you kidding me

Not to mention the obvious freedom of religion isn't even the point here because an atheist also has the right to refuse service to gays if he simply doesn't like gays.

You are wrong. Individuals who arent unruly will be served. But once they announce an intent for a product to be used to celebrate an idea, behavior or ritual that is repugnant to the merchant’s moral code, the merchant can opt out of service.

It doesn’t matter what you say about stupid this or stupid that. That is how the Court will Rule. Ready yourselves folks.

 

[Silhouette]

The Court said a man can’t be expected to ditch his faith in the marketplace. Your spin on that pivotal slap to your cult isn’t going to save the day Sparky.

True, a baker should bake a cake for anyone who asks with a couple of exceptions. 1. An unruly customer & 2. A customer who just informed them that the cake is to celebrate an ideal or ritual repugnant to the baker’s moral code.

I have no problem with 1.

2 is ridiculous. 'Moral code' can be anything you want. What if my moral code is I hate black people. Or Mormons?

That's the point, queers such as yourself also should have the right to discriminate. It's YOUR business.

Against individuals, no; unless they are unruly. If against rituals or ideals or behaviors? Yes.

 

[WEATHER53]

The thought police want your thoughts to be limited to their thoughts and any actions that don’t match their thoughts (feelings really) must Never be put into play. It’s called totalitarianism and if the bakers utilize evaluation as to whom they will provide work for, and even if there is an element of discrimination in it, that is Far Better for society than totalitarianism.

 

[sparky]

2) Forced compulsion at the point of a gun to perform labor against your will (i.e. slavery) for others

And so i can openly inform any religion, any gender, any race , to go pound sand if they want my services ,based on my religion Boe?

That's where this is going....

your serve...

~S~

 

[sparky]

The thought police want your thoughts to be limited to their thoughts and any actions that don’t match their thoughts (feelings really) must Never be put into play. It’s called totalitarianism and if the bakers utilize evaluation as to whom they will provide work for, and even if there is an element of discrimination in it, that is Far Better for society than totalitarianism.

 

[boedicca]

2) Forced compulsion at the point of a gun to perform labor against your will (i.e. slavery) for others

And so i can openly inform any religion, any gender, any race , to go pound sand if they want my services ,based on my religion Boe?

That's where this is going....

your serve...

~S~

Sounds fine to me. In a free society, people who turn down customers will lose out to their competition.

I'd rather preserve my Freedom To Be Left Alone than to be forced against my will into servitude for others. As I have no desire to force others to serve me against their wills, I am quite happy to give my commerce to willing vendors instead.

 

[sparky]

2) Forced compulsion at the point of a gun to perform labor against your will (i.e. slavery) for others

And so i can openly inform any religion, any gender, any race , to go pound sand if they want my services ,based on my religion Boe?

That's where this is going....

your serve...

~S~

Sounds fine to me. In a free society, people who turn down customers will lose out to their competition.

I'd rather preserve my Freedom To Be Left Alone than to be forced against my will into servitude for others. As I have no desire to force others to serve me against their wills, I am quite happy to give my commerce to willing vendors instead.

Don't you see that's just the tip of our civil rights iceberg Boe?

Look, i don't mean to be a hardazz over it, but you need to realize your in a minority opening advocating discrimination

~S~