Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[JoeB131]

Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace.

No, they found nothing of the sort.

here's the thing, by the logic the homophobes have constructed on this one, I could cut the heart out of people I don't like if I can sincerely claim to be a follower of Quezacoatl....

You know a "God" who fed on the hearts of his worshiper's enemies.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm saying if you avoid hiring or discouraging customers that are Gay, Latino, Black, Foreign, or Women you are most likely making a bad business decisions.

I like how you almost seamlessly wove the word "gay" into the list of other categories that actually are Constitutionally protected.

And if you argue next that sexual orientation is protected, I'll ask you to list them all. And; why some could be excluded.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace.

No, they found nothing of the sort.

here's the thing, by the logic the homophobes have constructed on this one, I could cut the heart out of people I don't like if I can sincerely claim to be a follower of Quezacoatl....

You know a "God" who fed on the hearts of his worshiper's enemies.

Passively refusing to promote another faith's (cult of buttsex's) values is not equivalent to murder.

The Court said government needs to be neutral and respectful towards the baker's benign resistance.

 

[Flopper]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

We ran into that in the 60's when whites in the south were forced to serve blacks in restaurants. You bet they were unwelcome but over time businesses saw the value of having more customers. Overcoming bigotry and racism takes time, not years but decades.

 

[JoeB131]

Passively refusing to promote another faith's (cult of buttsex's) values is not equivalent to murder.

And how does this effect you?

 

[Silhouette]

Passively refusing to promote another faith's (cult of buttsex's) values is not equivalent to murder.

And how does this effect you?

You mean "affect"?

It means if I have deep convictions that two men can't use each other's assholes as artificial vaginas in a weird quasi-hetero deviant sex fetish & befoul the word marriage with that lifestyle then I'm free in the marketplace to passively refuse to promote that abomination.

I hope that answers your question?

 

[task0778]

The only thing they found was that the Commission was rude to the cake maker...

Saying that discrimination is a religious right is going to cause all sorts of problems.

Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace. And that the city violated the bakers Constitutional rights by punishing him for practicing his faith at his business.

Not sure that's totally correct, I thought what the SCOTUS did was rule that the state was biased and unfair in their treatment of the baker, thereby violating his right to an impartial decision. So they threw out the case against the baker because it was not adjudicated properly. They really didn't address the baker's rights to freedom of speech and religion relative to the gay couple's protections against discrimination. Sooner or later they're going to have to rule on that problem.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah they did. Kennedy said that he could not be punished for exercising his faith at his business. That's another way of saying a mans faith never leaves him and as such he cannot be made to even temporarily suspend it as a state requirement to stay in or join the marketplace.

A lot of people seemed to have skimmed over that Trojan horse in the recent Opinion.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The only thing they found was that the Commission was rude to the cake maker...

Saying that discrimination is a religious right is going to cause all sorts of problems.

Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace. And that the city violated the bakers Constitutional rights by punishing him for practicing his faith at his business.

Not sure that's totally correct, I thought what the SCOTUS did was rule that the state was biased and unfair in their treatment of the baker, thereby violating his right to an impartial decision. So they threw out the case against the baker because it was not adjudicated properly. They really didn't address the baker's rights to freedom of speech and religion relative to the gay couple's protections against discrimination. Sooner or later they're going to have to rule on that problem.

You didn't read that excerpt from the AP article on the 1st page.

 

[task0778]

The only thing they found was that the Commission was rude to the cake maker...

Saying that discrimination is a religious right is going to cause all sorts of problems.

Actually they found that 1st Amendment protections extend to the marketplace. And that the city violated the bakers Constitutional rights by punishing him for practicing his faith at his business.

Not sure that's totally correct, I thought what the SCOTUS did was rule that the state was biased and unfair in their treatment of the baker, thereby violating his right to an impartial decision. So they threw out the case against the baker because it was not adjudicated properly. They really didn't address the baker's rights to freedom of speech and religion relative to the gay couple's protections against discrimination. Sooner or later they're going to have to rule on that problem.

You didn't read that excerpt from the AP article on the 1st page.

I don't see any excerpt on the 1st page.

 

[Flopper]

I'm saying if you avoid hiring or discouraging customers that are Gay, Latino, Black, Foreign, or Women you are most likely making a bad business decisions.

I like how you almost seamlessly wove the word "gay" into the list of other categories that actually are Constitutionally protected.

And if you argue next that sexual orientation is protected, I'll ask you to list them all. And; why some could be excluded.

It is protect but not in the US Constitution. There is blanket protection against sexual orientation and gender discrimination in 19 states, one of the them being Colorado. In addition, 2 states have laws against sexual orientation discrimination only, and 12 states have communities that have passed laws.
https://lifehacker.com/this-map-shows-which-states-protect-lgbt-people-from-di-1793305575

 

[Leo123]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated. We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I addressed that earlier. There is the traditional interpretation of religious freedom and the new , contrived view that religious freedom means imposing your religious views on others.

Since homosexuality is not a scientific fact (there is no 3rd sex) then it is only a belief. Belief can be construed as religion so, apparently, the gay couple were trying to impose their gay, religious dogma on the baker.

 

[JoeB131]

It means if I have deep convictions that two men can't use each other's assholes as artificial vaginas in a weird quasi-hetero deviant sex fetish & befoul the word marriage with that lifestyle then I'm free in the marketplace to passively refuse to promote that abomination.

I hope that answers your question?

Probably more than you realize...

I always find it amusing that you homophobes describe male gay sex in such graphic terms, the kind you'd find in slashfic porn.

It's like the vegetarian who JUST CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT STEAK.

I also notice that in your weird little obsessions, you never describe lesbian sex in such graphic terms.

Here's the thing, 37% of heterosexuals have tried anal sex. It's just not that big of a deal.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah they did. Kennedy said that he could not be punished for exercising his faith at his business. That's another way of saying a mans faith never leaves him and as such he cannot be made to even temporarily suspend it as a state requirement to stay in or join the marketplace.

A lot of people seemed to have skimmed over that Trojan horse in the recent Opinion.

Because it really wasn't an issue of his faith... it was an issue of his bigotry.

By that same logic, he should refuse service to women who wear pants, braids, jewelry, men who have tattoos, couple who live together before marriage, women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights or a whole lot of other things the Bible says are bad.

For that matter, why not allow people to refuse service to anyone who doesn't belong to their church, since they are obviously getting it wrong! If they said, "We don't Serve Mormons Here!" people would be having a shit fit!

 

[WorldWatcher]

.>


I wonder if I owned a barbecue restaurant, call it "Piggie Park Enterprises", and refused to rent my banquet room to an interracial couple because my personal religious beliefs were such that I believe interracial couples shouldn't marry.

Would we be having a different discussion.

.>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

According to the Supreme Court the baker is not guilty of breaking the law. And this was decided by a large majority of the judges.

No, that wasn't what the court decided.

The court decision was the bias on the Commission tainted the process and reversed the decision. They specifically didn't answer the question of whether Mr. Phillips should be exempt from generally applicable laws because of his claim of religious belief, they left that for a future case.

And the simple fact is that a gay man who only has sex with men is discriminating in his sexual preference (try to deny that).

Who you decide (or have an innate attraction to isn't against the law.

Under PA laws refusing to sell normally offered goods and services based on certain characteristics of the customer (race, religion, national origin, sex, and (in some states - sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.) is against the law.


.>>>>

 

[LittleNipper]

Who made up the law? If you don't wish to believe in GOD that's your mistake.

No, I just refuse to believe in a God who can fix all the world's ills, and refuses to do so.

Such a being would truly be evil.

You wish to make the lawyer and judges your gods --- they are not mine. They are no better than anyone else.

Well, you mean other than they spend a lot of time studying the law and the rest of us don't? I kind of like living in a nation of laws, but at the end of the day, I kind of want experts working ont he problem harder than I am.

I want a society that is safe for children and families. I don't see that as YOUR goal.

How do gays make the world worse for children and families?

I mean other than your own sexual insecurities.

You are trying to make out that blacks and gays are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the biblical truth. Natural physical appearance is not the same as choice or personal hygiene.

Okay, here's the problem... people once argued for segregation and slavery just as passionately and they quoted the bible to justify it.

So here's the question I ask all homophobes. Do you have any argument against gays other than "I think it's icky" and "My imaginary friend in the sky says it's bad?"

GOD has fixed all the worlds ill in a way that provides each of us an opportunity for a absolutely wonderful eternity with Him. The way you wish it would require eliminating everyone and creating robots. And yes, homosexuality has been proven to be unsanitary, highly suspect as cancer causing, and seriously damaging to the anus. So GOD even thousands of years ago knew what He was talking about when He says don't do it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I thought what the SCOTUS did was rule that the state was biased and unfair in their treatment of the baker, thereby violating his right to an impartial decision. So they threw out the case against the baker because it was not adjudicated properly. They really didn't address the baker's rights to freedom of speech and religion relative to the gay couple's protections against discrimination.

Correct and well said.

Sooner or later they're going to have to rule on that problem.

Maybe not. I fail to see how federal law need bother with bigoted bakers just because one claims religious freedom to discriminate or express their bigotry in the "free market" by refusing a service for a legally secular celebration . The State of Colorado clearly didn't see it worthy of reconsidering. The case never warranted SC review.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm saying if you avoid hiring or discouraging customers that are Gay, Latino, Black, Foreign, or Women you are most likely making a bad business decisions.

I like how you almost seamlessly wove the word "gay" into the list of other categories that actually are Constitutionally protected.

And if you argue next that sexual orientation is protected, I'll ask you to list them all. And; why some could be excluded.

It is protect but not in the US Constitution. There is blanket protection against sexual orientation and gender discrimination in 19 states, one of the them being Colorado. In addition, 2 states have laws against sexual orientation discrimination only, and 12 states have communities that have passed laws.
https://lifehacker.com/this-map-shows-which-states-protect-lgbt-people-from-di-1793305575

"Protection"? You mean like from wolf attacks or chiggers? The gay lifestyle has no protection that makes anyone else accept it or promote it. The Court says religion has to have respect in the marketplace & cant be penalized there for passive refusal to promote other value systems