Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[AvgGuyIA]

Bullshit. Homophobia is not about wanting or not wanting to have sex with another male. It's about hating some else for their decisions or who they are. What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to do with another consenting adult?

Wrong. What pisses you off is that men puke at the thought of sucking dick. And because men deplore it and think it is abnormal, they are called homophobic. I don't hate gays but I'll bet you would say I'm homophobic.

 

[Crixus]

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.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights

It’s much more simple then that. Today I saw a black man refused service at a store because he was dressed in a hospital gown and that’s about it.


Take it a step further, you run a Jewish bakery. I come in clad in a black jacket, jack boots with my red laces and I want a cake that’s a rebel flag with swastikas in the middle of every star. Should that Jewish baker have to make the cake? No, he would be well within his rights to tell the skinheads to go pound sand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fallacy that, Crixus, of false equivalency.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Bullshit. Homophobia is not about wanting or not wanting to have sex with another male. It's about hating some else for their decisions or who they are. What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to do with another consenting adult?

Wrong. What pisses you off is that men puke at the thought of sucking dick. And because men deplore it and think it is abnormal, they are called homophobic. I don't hate gays but I'll bet you would say I'm homophobic.

Dunno about whether you are or not. I do know this..that while I have no desire for sex with another man...I don't care if other men chose to engage in sex with each-other.

If I'm reading you correctly..you are saying that 'real' men are homophobic..and that's absurd. Not wanting to engage in Gay sex is not homophobic...just means you're hetero. To you, that's another word for normal..to me..it's just a fact..with no moral implications, one way or the other--just like being gay.

What pisses me off...is prejudice of all forms..sexual being one of them.

 

[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.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights

It’s much more simple then that. Today I saw a black man refused service at a store because he was dressed in a hospital gown and that’s about it.


Take it a step further, you run a Jewish bakery. I come in clad in a black jacket, jack boots with my red laces and I want a cake that’s a rebel flag with swastikas in the middle of every star. Should that Jewish baker have to make the cake? No, he would be well within his rights to tell the skinheads to go pound sand.

But so very stupid....he should charge them double..at least!

Then piss in the batter..lol!

 

[Leo123]

SCOTUS' ruling was very limited to THIS case only. That's because SCOTUS found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commision may have made prejudicial statements regarding the baker's religion. This is not a 'blanket' ruling and, in fact, if a gay couple were to go to his bakery today and request a wedding cake they could start the whole process over again. That being said, the baker is NOT baking wedding cakes right now and, I for one, don't blame him.

 

[Crixus]

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.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights

It’s much more simple then that. Today I saw a black man refused service at a store because he was dressed in a hospital gown and that’s about it.


Take it a step further, you run a Jewish bakery. I come in clad in a black jacket, jack boots with my red laces and I want a cake that’s a rebel flag with swastikas in the middle of every star. Should that Jewish baker have to make the cake? No, he would be well within his rights to tell the skinheads to go pound sand.

But so very stupid....he should charge them double..at least!

Then piss in the batter..lol!

Pfsthppppt RACIST! Seriously, it is a business owners perogative to tell whomever to go get what they need some place else. The men who filed this sute went shopping for this guy, who, by the way makes stuff for gay people all the time. He just won’t do a wedding cake. That’s his business. The two gay dudes should just get a cake from a gay guy and move on and be happy they got eachother.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights

It’s much more simple then that. Today I saw a black man refused service at a store because he was dressed in a hospital gown and that’s about it.


Take it a step further, you run a Jewish bakery. I come in clad in a black jacket, jack boots with my red laces and I want a cake that’s a rebel flag with swastikas in the middle of every star. Should that Jewish baker have to make the cake? No, he would be well within his rights to tell the skinheads to go pound sand.

You never heard of no shoes, no shirt no service?



.

 

[Leo123]

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.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

You do know this is about perverts rights vs religious rights?

It appears gay rights don't triumph Christian rights

It’s much more simple then that. Today I saw a black man refused service at a store because he was dressed in a hospital gown and that’s about it.


Take it a step further, you run a Jewish bakery. I come in clad in a black jacket, jack boots with my red laces and I want a cake that’s a rebel flag with swastikas in the middle of every star. Should that Jewish baker have to make the cake? No, he would be well within his rights to tell the skinheads to go pound sand.

You never heard of no shoes, no shirt no service?



.

That can be said to be a a health-code regulation. Like employees having to wash their hands.

 

[Flash]

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.

A link to the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.

Yup. Those beliefs were discounted in the original case. Now the free exercise clause must be applied. It's quite a significant decision in the overall order of things.

The key is will the commission do the right thing, or double down on persecution.

I don't think this particular commission can do anything. It has already condemned the baker's religious beliefs.

That is not exactly true.

From the ruling

The Commission holds a public
hearing and deliberative session before voting on the case.
If the Commission determines that the evidence proves a
CADA violation, it may impose remedial measures as
provided by statute. See §24–34–306(9). Available reme-
dies include, among other things, orders to cease-and-
desist a discriminatory policy, to file regular compliance
reports with the Commission, and “to take affirmative
action, including the postingof notices setting forth the
substantive rights of the public.” §24–34–605. Colorado
law does not permit the Commission to assess money
damages or fines. §§24–34–306(9), 24–34–605.



The thing that is despicable to me is what sicko legislature would give a commission of Moon Bats authority like that? That kind of authority is asking for trouble. No wonder they were admonished by the SC for being assholes.

 

[hjmick]

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.

Not so fast, it may not. It seems to be a rather narrow ruling, applying only to the case in question and how the state applied the law to this particular baker and bakery...

 

[asaratis]

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

....as does the allowing of a theocracy to do the same. Radical Islam is not a religion...it is a maniacal theocracy...one that Obama did his best efforts to enable.

 

[Flash]

[


BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

There is nothing wrong with what the Moon Bats call homophobia.

 

[asaratis]

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.

It correctly limits itself to that case. In that regard, all decisions should be considered "narrow". Oftentimes when they point out unconstitutional behavior that is applicable to other cases, they are not "narrow"....such as Roe v. Wade.

 

[asaratis]

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

I think it is not a sin, but it is wrong to try to force a baker to do so. To attempt to force an artistic baker to provide a cake extolling the virtues of gay marriage is akin to demanding that an accomplished portrait artist paint a portrait of one's fully nude wife with her legs spread wide.

The gay couple's agenda was to gain notoriety and acclamation from the gay community. They were not so interested in obtaining the baker's cake as they were in feigning victim status.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?

 

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision

They set no precedent and failed to enforce guidelines for business that were established 50 years ago

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?

Why should an artist be forced to create art that offends his religious beliefs?

 

[asaratis]

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?

What if this? What if that?

Not all Christians hold the same beliefs. The couple could easily have gone to any other baker, Christian or not, that happily makes cakes for same sex marriage ceremonies.

 

[Doc1]

It's settled law. You'll just have to live with it.