Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[martybegan]

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

It's flawed to you maybe, but again, you don't have a say in it, and neither should government.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Perhaps you might actually read the decision? Very narrow ruling..with Justice Kennedy making sure to point out the importance of protecting gay rights. This decision was all about the Colorado commission and their open hostility to religion. They got slapped down..and rightfully so.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Nah, not what they said.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Perhaps you might actually read the decision? Very narrow ruling..with Justice Kennedy making sure to point out the importance of protecting gay rights. This decision was all about the Colorado commission and their open hostility to religion. They got slapped down..and rightfully so.

You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude

 

[Flash]

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?

Nah, not what they said.

Read the part where Kennedy (in the majority opinion) admonished the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for way over stepping their authority to interfere with the man's business.

 

[boedicca]

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

It's flawed to you maybe, but again, you don't have a say in it, and neither should government.

BINGO. The government should not be a way for one group to punish others for (in their viewpoint) NoGoodBadThink.

 

[52ndStreet]

This is a correct decision by the supreme court. Its time that these Homosexuals and other deviants accept that everyone does not have to accept, or be forced to accept their perverted lifestyle.

 

[OldLady]

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

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.

You must be confusing this with another bake-a-cake case. This baker DID refuse to make the cake, saying it was a creative work of art and it was inappropriate to force him to create artwork that violates his beliefs.
However, the Court didn't like how he was treated by the Civil Rights Commission and therefore his case was upheld.
It didn't solve anything. The argument can continue.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

How does the baker know that if they do not come right out and proclaim it?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

You must be confusing this with another bake-a-cake case. This baker DID refuse to make the cake, saying it was a creative work of art and it was inappropriate to force him to create artwork that violates his beliefs.
However, the Court didn't like how he was treated by the Civil Rights Commission and therefore his case was upheld.
It didn't solve anything. The argument can continue.

You'll lose....like we told you would from the get go

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The gay couple certainly deserves some responsibility. They went to every bakery but muslim bakeries in 120 miles. All of those bakeries would have baked the cake but the couple was looking for a test case to take to court.

r/CringeAnarchy - So apparently the gay couple went out of their own way to target the Christian bakery.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The gay couple certainly deserves some responsibility. They went to every bakery but muslim bakeries in 120 miles. All of those bakeries would have baked the cake but the couple was looking for a test case to take to court.

r/CringeAnarchy - So apparently the gay couple went out of their own way to target the Christian bakery.

Exactly and they end up getting stuffed. Karma

 

[Fang]

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.

The mistake your side made is you tried to ruin people's lives over this. The Baker has a religious belief that even I don't agree with, but I have no interest in shutting his bakery down. Even when I agree with your side I still have to applaud the SCOTUS decision because I have no interest in taking it to the level the Left does.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

It considers homosexuality to be a sin. One doesn't have to jump that far to assume a wedding celebrating a homosexual union is a no-go.

And in none of these cases was there a denial of point of sale services, it was for a specific cake for a specific event.

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

You don't think 600 lbs people could not have a medical condition which causes their excessive weight and not because they are gluttons?

 

[boedicca]

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.

Well, that's a lie. The baker sells his regular products to everyone. He just doesn't want to do custom work for things which violate his religious beliefs. The couple could have bought a regular cake.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The gay couple certainly deserves some responsibility. They went to every bakery but muslim bakeries in 120 miles. All of those bakeries would have baked the cake but the couple was looking for a test case to take to court.

r/CringeAnarchy - So apparently the gay couple went out of their own way to target the Christian bakery.

Someone said so on Reddit. Must be true.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

you're saying, if Al Capone and Ma Barker wanted a cake baked celebrating the St Valentines Day Massacre, they should be out of luck?

Wouldn't it be a sin to bake a cake for them since baking a cake is an acceptance of their lifestyle?

Might work for Al and Ma.

how about baking a cake for the Boston Strangler?

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?

Again, how will you know?

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Nah, not what they said.

Read the part where Kennedy (in the majority opinion) admonished the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for way over stepping their authority to interfere with the man's business.

The 7-2 decision sends the case back to Co. with an explicit order to take the baker's religious objection into consideration. That is where the next decision will come from. As has been pointed out by several posters, the baker is inconsistent with the sins he objects too. Remember there is precedent against using religion as a tool to discriminate.

I think the Co. Commission will again rule in the couples favor.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Local laws are local laws

Local Laws ? You mean like Dred Scott ? Oh My...

Dred Scott was a person, not a law.

 

[Penelope]

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.

Sounds like a crazy zealot.