Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

I don’t care what the fine is, no one should be forced to attend sodomy.

 

[martybegan]

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

Not up to you to decide, and not up to government unless there is a compelling interest.

The 1st amendment protects free exercise, it doesn't force a person to justify said exercise.

 

[Skull Pilot]

same thing isn't it?

If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?

how are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?

He killed for years before he was caught.

same with rapists, etc.

their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.

If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?

It doesn't matter. If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

Neither government nor society has the right to tell a person what sins they can choose to commit.

Never said they should

I am questioning the reasoning of the baker that is all.

If baking a cake for sinners is a sin then he is committing a sin every time he bakes a cake for a sinner

 

[Flash]

how are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?

He killed for years before he was caught.

same with rapists, etc.

their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.

If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?

It doesn't matter. If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

But the baker is not participating in the celebration. The people at the party are participating. He'll be at home reading his bible like a good boy.

The Supremes said "his business, his choice". That is a good thing.

Now if they would just do that with other things then it would be even better.

We don't need the government, especially a filthy ass Civil Rights Commission, telling us how to lead our lives, do we?

 

[TheDude]

Religion or not, a person shouldn't be forced to contribute into an absurd idea like a gay wedding. If you want a fake wedding, get a fake cake to suit.

 

[Pop23]

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony

Again, government shouldn't get involved in it. It's up to the person's own beliefs.

And your second statement is splitting hairs. the party after the ceremony is part of the same celebration, honoring the same thing as the ceremony.

Are you such an anti-religious bigot that you have to make other's miserable to satisfy your own hatred?

And use government to do your dirty work?

I really don't care if people deny service. I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?

Of course, the baker never refused to bake the cake. His objection was, and correct me if I’m wrong, was being forced to attend the event.

Was he being forced to attend?

I've been to a lot of weddings and the guy who baked the cake was never forced to attend

Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but he was willing to bake the cake, just not deliver.

 

[Crixus]

As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.

The whole point is, if you don’t like that baker, go to another one. Simple.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

Not up to you to decide, and not up to government unless there is a compelling interest.

The 1st amendment protects free exercise, it doesn't force a person to justify said exercise.

Oh so that makes this bakers reasoning sound?

I think he should have to point to where it says in the bible that it is a sin to provide services to a sinner

 

[martybegan]

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

Not up to you to decide, and not up to government unless there is a compelling interest.

The 1st amendment protects free exercise, it doesn't force a person to justify said exercise.

Oh so that makes this bakers reasoning sound?

I think he should have to point to where it says in the bible that it is a sin to provide services to a sinner

it makes the baker's reasoning none of the government's fucking business in this case.

Government cannot compel people to spell out what their free exercise will be, that impinges on free exercise.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony

Again, government shouldn't get involved in it. It's up to the person's own beliefs.

And your second statement is splitting hairs. the party after the ceremony is part of the same celebration, honoring the same thing as the ceremony.

Are you such an anti-religious bigot that you have to make other's miserable to satisfy your own hatred?

And use government to do your dirty work?

I really don't care if people deny service. I have said that before it's just that the reason this guy gives is flat out ridiculous

This guy shouldn't be in business at all if he thinks baking a cake for a sinner is a sin

How much do you want to bet if he was denied service because he is a christian that he would be suing over it?

Of course, the baker never refused to bake the cake. His objection was, and correct me if I’m wrong, was being forced to attend the event.

Was he being forced to attend?

I've been to a lot of weddings and the guy who baked the cake was never forced to attend

Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but he was willing to bake the cake, just not deliver.

I don't know. But even delivering the cake is not being forced to attend the event.

My mother was a baker and I delivered many wedding cakes. Usually the cake is delivered to the reception venue hours before the reception even starts

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

Not up to you to decide, and not up to government unless there is a compelling interest.

The 1st amendment protects free exercise, it doesn't force a person to justify said exercise.

Oh so that makes this bakers reasoning sound?

I think he should have to point to where it says in the bible that it is a sin to provide services to a sinner

it makes the baker's reasoning none of the government's fucking business in this case.

Government cannot compel people to spell out what their free exercise will be, that impinges on free exercise.

I'm not talking about the government.

I'm talking about this baker's flawed reasoning

 

[Fang]

As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.

The whole point is, if you don’t like that baker, go to another one. Simple.

Given the Left's propensity to totally ruin people's live who disagree with them, I agree with you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.

Every time you guys post this, I read it as "Pennsylvania laws" .

 

[boedicca]

As a Catholic I actually felt the baker should just bake the cake for anyone. I also don't like the idea of any business being able to withhold service. But, the Left has had such Trump Derangement Syndrome over the past 2 years and has been so unreasonable that I find myself happy for the Baker. The Left can't be reasoned with. Good for the Baker.

The whole point is, if you don’t like that baker, go to another one. Simple.

Indeed. This agenda in which one person's beliefs are violated to serve the contrary beliefs of another person is anti-Liberty.

 

[Crixus]

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

Not up to you to decide, and not up to government unless there is a compelling interest.

The 1st amendment protects free exercise, it doesn't force a person to justify said exercise.

Oh so that makes this bakers reasoning sound?

I think he should have to point to where it says in the bible that it is a sin to provide services to a sinner

It doesn’t say that anywhere in the Bible at all. Take the temple as an excample. It was built with the finest cedars from Lebanon, (not Jewish?) and all through the Bible the Hebrews are admonished to treat travelers well and not to cheat them. This isn’t a biblical thing at all, it’s a principle. It is this bakers perogative. Dont like it? Dont go there.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Praise Jesus! The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.

Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminat

LOL. Wanna bet? The decision applies to everyone, not just that baker.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

No, it's providing the cake for a celebration that promotes the lifestyle.

Again, he didn't say he never wanted to serve gay people across the board. just this one unique item in this one unique situation.

All this decision says is any regulating body has to take the person's religious beliefs into account, as per the 1st amendment.

So it's not a sin to bake a cake for people who live in sin and commit sodomy regularly but it is a sin to bake a cake for a party thrown before the sodomy occurs?

Look if baking a cake for anything that "celebrates " sin is a sin then isn't it up to the baker to ask what every cake he bakes is for?

Shouldn't protect his immortal soul by making absolutely sure he isn't sinning by baking a cake?

LoL...St.Peter to baker.."Sorry, you're going to hell..you baked a cake for gay people"

Too funny!!

 

[BlindBoo]

Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.

The baker was pretty clear about what he will and will not do. Like Halloween cakes and so on. The homos tried to make it like it was just them personally. Meh, Colorado is more red then many think. The homos will lose again.

Just have to wait and see.

If you're going to have protected persons, homophobes shouldn't be allowed to use religious "sinners" as a tool to discriminate unless they have a history of discriminating against all sinners. Since we're all sinners, nobody get cake.

Everybody loves Cake.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Interesting. I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason. Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.

The owner offered to sell them other cakes, just not a wedding cake, I wonder if he does that to fornicators, adulterers or inter-racial relationships?

Did they loudly and publicly proclaim that they were fornicators, adulterers or in inter-racial relationships?

How did the baker find out that it was for a gay wedding without being told?

 

[bodecea]

The fun part is that everyone in that city will know that baker doesn't serve gay people......let it be known far and wide. I'm sure his business will do well.