Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Flopper]

The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane. Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.

Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights. But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions. Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime". The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face. He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."

The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...

Gay is a lifestyle. We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in. If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works? What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching? No, I mean really. What is more repugnant than that? If that clears the bar, then they all do. Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?

Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles. The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion.

Since you are so intent on discussing the gay lifestyle and apparently have knowledge of such, how about telling the rest of us about that lifestyle.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The Supreme Court has never defined religion but the courts do not in general uphold religious beliefs as a justification for crime unless the person is brainwashed or is criminally insane. Where things get murky is when one constitution right, the freedom to worship is claimed to result in the violation of another person's constitutional right.

Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights. But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions. Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime". The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face. He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."

The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...

Gay is a lifestyle. We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in. If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works? What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching? No, I mean really. What is more repugnant than that? If that clears the bar, then they all do. Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?

Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles. The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion.

Since you are so intent on discussing the gay lifestyle and apparently have knowledge of such, how about telling the rest of us about that lifestyle.

It's full of the aids, degradation, and death. To call it gay is like saying that abortion is for the children.

 

[Flopper]

If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.

You?

I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.

You?

The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.

The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.

if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!

Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.

 

[Aba Incieni]

If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.

You?

I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.

You?

The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.

The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.

if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!

Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.

I'm sure there are many cakes he would refuse to decorate. Say, a grown man sexually abusing children, or Dems celebrating another KKK lynching of a black man.

Let's force him to, since they're part of the public, too.

 

[Silhouette]

Lifestyles don't have Constitutional rights. But a person does have the right to their deep spiritual convictions. Passively refusing to condone or promote another lifestyle is not "a crime". The baker didn't whip the gay lifestyle men with a cat 'o nine tails or throw a brick in their face. He merely said "no, my deeply held convictions will not allow me to do that."

The courts just began to clear away the murkiness by saying others must be "respectful" of the baker's passive pass on baking a "gay wedding" cake. Making the repugnant (see gay pride parades put on in anticipation of children attending for details) gay lifestyle more special than others was a miscarriage of justice and unconstitutional. It was subjective and done by just 5 unelected lawyers in DC; one of which who was telling the press weeks before the Hearing about her clear and undeniable bias on the case...

Gay is a lifestyle. We will come back to this point again and again until it sinks in. If one repugnant lifestyle gets special rights and privileges then all repugnant lifestyles must. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment and how it works? What is more repugnant than a group that loosely identifies their lifestyles by deviant sex acts and who celebrate that lifestlye by performing those deviant sex acts in a public "pride" parade, hoping children will be watching? No, I mean really. What is more repugnant than that? If that clears the bar, then they all do. Will a Christian have to condone and promote ALL of the potential lifestyles or face banishment from the marketplace?

Let’s get something straight. Lifestyle is not the issue. Courts do not rule on lifestyles. The only issue is whether the baker has the right to violate the state public accommodation law because doing so would keep him from practicing his religion.

Since you are so intent on discussing the gay lifestyle and apparently have knowledge of such, how about telling the rest of us about that lifestyle.

The Courts would rule on lifestyle when they understand that is the premise of the entire LGBTQ etc. etc. argument. Because theirs is a lifestyle. It shifts, it's "fluid" and behavioral under quite a wide umbrella loosely knitted around deviant sex behaviors and mental problems surrounding the acceptance of reality on its terms between the legs.

Since LGBTQ etc. etc. is a lifestyle, or more properly a neo-cult, it doesn't have any expressed protections under the Constitution. Like I said before, any group of adults who lump their deviant sex behaviors under an umbrella and then march in public flaunting those deviant sex acts where they hope children will be watching as they do so "in pride", is a repugnant minority behavior. Once you allow one of the most vile repugnant behavioral lifestyles to do such things as subjectively special and privileged, then all deviant minority lifestyles must be able to enjoy same protections. And this is legally unworkable. So eventually the Court will have to rule on lifestyles having special rights and privileges vs the written and secure rights of people of faith to passively refuse to condone, participate in or promote such repugnant lifestyles.

His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.

Nope. The Court just said that a Christian cannot be penalized for their faith 24/7, even into the public marketplace. Read the Opinion carefully. Kennedy said that a person of faith carries those deeply held convictions with them 24/7 and to force them to abdicate those values to enter or stay in the marketplace is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. That is discrimination and the baker now actually has a lawsuit against the city in Colorado who punished him for exercising his 1st Amendment rights; sending him a clear punitive message that if he wanted to continue to do business, he had to give up those rights at least temporarily to accommodate a non-protected repugnant lifestyle. If this was about racial discrimination or gender discrimination this conversation would be vastly different because they are static and innate; immutable and have nothing at all to do with a lifestyle or secular ideologies.

PA laws on the gay lifestyle question just lost. It will take you awhile to assimilate that fact. But it is a fact nevertheless.

Jake vv People can read the Opinion and understand for themselves that Kennedy said exactly what I just summarized about faith being 24/7 into the marketplace. The rest is the inevitable rendering of the future jousts that will come and force the final reduction of logic on whether or not (just some but not other) repugnant lifestyles get "special protections and privileges".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your opinion, Sil, does not match the law.

It does not matter what you think about it, in terms of reality in the law.

 

[Flopper]

They can usually determine if the action required by law prevents free exercise of religion. However in some case, such as the baker, determining whether the action would prevent free exercise of religion is not clear.

Jude 1 of the New Testament makes it crystal clear. If a Christian allows gays to hijack the paramount social icon of marriage (thus uber-normalizing that lifestyle in his society), most absolutely he knows his soul will burn in hell for an eternity. The Big Guy doesn't like "blending" of the basic social fabric (with its random flaws) He created. In other words, He doesn't want the entire fabric to be flawed by attrition that always comes when perverse social trends run amok (Obergefell) and escalates over a generation or three. No soul alive then will have the faintest clue what God's basic fabric used to be.

Scalia was right for secular reasons:. Obergefell is a grave, grave fuck up. But it's a fuck up for even more important reasons as well. Hence why the Christian must be left to passively refuse.

And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it. And where is the definition of "strange flesh". It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples. In fact, just about any sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at the time would probably qualify.

In ancient times, most any sexual act that was performed without the goal of propagation was at best considered frivolous and at worst, a one way tick to hell. The reason of course is the strength of the tribe or nation was measured by size. This was certainly true of the Jews whose enemies often out numbered them.

With the formation of the church, anything that hampered the growth of the family which would certainly include homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and even the preference to save the life of the child over the mother was all aimed at producing large families and thus growth of the family, church, and the nation.

Today growth of population is not universally considered good and in many places discouraged, thus taboos and laws to promote large families are dying which include includes homosexuality, divorce, and abortion. By the end of the century when populations are pushing near 12 billion, these taboos will be as out of dated as eating the dead.

 

[Silhouette]

And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it. And where is the definition of "strange flesh". It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples. In fact, just about any sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at time would probably qualify.

My bad. I forgot to tell you the prelude to Jude 1. It's Romans 1 where it talks about men lying with men and women lying with women. Jude 1 references the destruction of Sodom for the "strange flesh" obsessions its residents espoused. You're aware that to the present day the term "Sodomy" refers to having sex with the same gender.

You can play dumb and do word salad until the cows come home but it ain't going to change that Kennedy just said that a Christian cannot be punished for carrying his faith 24/7 into the public marketplace. And that includes the dire warnings in Jude 1 for promoting the spread of homosexuality in any culture using any vehicle. Most especially the paramount one: marriage.

 

[Flopper]

If asked to bake a cake celebrating cohabitation outside of Marriage, I think he should have every right to deny.

You?

I think he should insist on having them stoned like the Bible says the should be.

You?

The interest is not forced on the person, it is agreed to. The customer is participating in the sin WILLINGLY.

The Baker IS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.

if you don’t see the difference, you are a whacko!

Then the baker shouldn't be in that line of work. This isn't complicated.

You mean he should be FORCED out of business

His business is a public accommodation. If he can't accommodate the public, then his business should not be open to the public. There is always the option of a private business, i.e. a private club. As long as membership is not open to the public and it's intent is not to avoid the law, the baker can discriminate all he likes within the club. He could also sell his cakes to church members operating with the church organization and not be subject to the law.

I'm sure there are many cakes he would refuse to decorate. Say, a grown man sexually abusing children, or Dems celebrating another KKK lynching of a black man.

Let's force him to, since they're part of the public, too.

Keep in mind there is nothing to indicated that the baker was asked to create a cake with any sexual explicit decorations. In fact, the evidence of the trial suggest that the gay couple simply said they wanted to buy a wedding cake and there was no discussion of design because the baker refused the couple.

If the baker's policy was to put nothing sexually explicit on any cake he would be within his rights to accept the order from the gay couple but refuse any sexually originated decorations. As long as his policies are same for all, there's no problem and that is the key rule for any business in regard to discrimination. Keep your policies uniform and follow them. Most businesses have no problem with that because they don't want to turn any customers away.

 

[bodecea]

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

Your position is that you want to control people you disagree with… You are not fooling anybody

Nope...if we are going to let people discriminate against others....lets get rid of PA laws across the board.

 

[Flopper]

And where in Jude 1 is there a mention of marriage much less being sent to hell for hijacking it. And where is the definition of "strange flesh". It would seem that term could well be referring to cross race relationships, bestiality, anal sex, a french kiss, or any of number of acts performed by hetro and homosexual couples. In fact, just about any sexual act that deviates from what was considered normal at time would probably qualify.

My bad. I forgot to tell you the prelude to Jude 1. It's Romans 1 where it talks about men lying with men and women lying with women. Jude 1 references the destruction of Sodom for the "strange flesh" obsessions its residents espoused. You're aware that to the present day the term "Sodomy" refers to having sex with the same gender.

You can play dumb and do word salad until the cows come home but it ain't going to change that Kennedy just said that a Christian cannot be punished for carrying his faith 24/7 into the public marketplace. And that includes the dire warnings in Jude 1 for promoting the spread of homosexuality in any culture using any vehicle. Most especially the paramount one: marriage.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the bible because, I'm not a biblical scholar. However, one thing you said is incorrect. Sodomy both now and in the past refers to sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. In religious text in also includes bestiality.

Since people have always mistakenly thought anal and oral sex as being exclusively homosexual sex, some people do use the word Sodomy for homosexual intercourse, although it is not correct.

A study of 24,000 gay men revealed that only 35% routinely practice anal sex or oral sex, slightly more for oral and slightly less for anal. A study of 8,000 heterosexual couples released last year showed that 29% have participated in oral sex and 23% participated in anal sex in the last 30 days. Clearly anal and oral sex is not an exclusive activity of homosexual couples.

The most common form of sexual activity among both homosexual and heterosexual couples was kissing, hugging, and petting.

Since anal and oral sex is common among both homosexual and heterosexual couples, why do heterosexuals consider the activity so revolting if practices by same sex couples but ok if practiced by opposite sex couples?

 

[JimBowie1958]

We dont have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!

roflmao

 

[Pop23]

Duress and fines are considered force.

I thought all adults knew that.

See, you thought. Clearly no help to be found there! Stop doing that.

I’m sorry, this whole time I thought you were an adult.

My bad

 

[Pop23]

No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.

except this is a perfectly fine law. If you are a homophobic baker, then you have options.

1) Do the service you promised to do.
2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.

Should a song writer, ask to write a song about something he can’t relate to be forced to quit writing songs about things he can?

Interesting

 

[Grumblenuts]

I’m sorry, this whole time I thought you were an adult.

My bad

Thanks. Apology accepted. Way beyond merely adult.
Now take my advice and stop trying to think..
Mark my words. You'll soon knock your eye out with that thing!

 

[Flopper]

No excuse for a bad law. You do get that, right? There are bad laws that need to be corrected. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean those who want them corrected are miscreants or want some terrible outcome. You're just clinging to a strawman.

except this is a perfectly fine law. If you are a homophobic baker, then you have options.

1) Do the service you promised to do.
2) Find something else to do for a living where you won't have to deal with icky, icky, gay folks.

Should a song writer, ask to write a song about something he can’t relate to be forced to quit writing songs about things he can?

Interesting

A song writer is not a public accommodation so the law does not apply to him. In fact, public accommodations laws only applies to businesses open to public.

 

[JoeB131]

We dont have to bake no Gawd Damned cakes, libtards!

Actually, you still do.... or we put you out of business.

This is a good thing.

Should a song writer, ask to write a song about something he can’t relate to be forced to quit writing songs about things he can?

Interesting

Did he offer to write songs about things he knows nothing about? I mean, if he says, "I don't know enough about Quantum Physics to find words that Rhyme", that might be a valid excuse. Of course, a good writer would simply work with the client to find out more about the subject they want him to write about.

For those playing along at home, I have a very nice resume writing business. I am frequently called upon to write resumes for industries I've never worked in. (Although at this point, I've pretty much written at least one for every industry out there.) Do you know what I do?

I work with the client to find out more about his job. I do some online research into those companies and industries.

What I don't do as a writer... Say that a Magic Man in the Sky is totally opposed to what you do for a living so I can't write about it. Because that would be stupid.

It doesn't mean that I don't tell people things they don't want to hear. I often have to tell people certain things have no place in a resume. (Hobbies, why it was totally not your fault you got let go from a job, and so on.)

So going back to the whole cake thing and how it applies. A gay wedding cake is pretty much just the same thing as a straight wedding cake. I guess you still have to special order those two plastic dudes on the top.

"oh, my God, the horror, the horror of it all!"

But the point is, there's really nothing to keep a baker from making it. He could make it if world peace or the second coming depended on it.. He just does't want to because he's a terrible bigot trying to use religion as an excuse.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Happy Father's Day all you fellow mothaf'ers, everyone else too!

 

[Silhouette]

Yes happy Father's Day for all the kids bound in a lesbian marriage contract. Sorry this day will never involve you!

 

[JoeB131]

Yes happy Father's Day for all the kids bound in a lesbian marriage contract. Sorry this day will never involve you!

Again, they are better off than the millions of marriages where the sperm donor took off and was never heard from again.