Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[dblack]

So, this is good news. But I wonder how many people cheering for it have consistent principles? And how many are hypocrites? F'rinstance - how many of you respect Facebook's right to refuse to serve people who they think are 'sinners'?

Yeah, a baker refusing a special order is TOTALLY comparable to a social media platform censoring content . . . IF YOU'RE INSANE.

Or if you have consistent principles regarding the role of government.

No, just if you're insane and believe you can apply broad, simplistic terms across diverse situations, because feeling smug and self-righteous is so much easier if you don't have to spend time thinking first.

Yeah, yeah. I hate to beat a dead horse, but all you're saying is "it's different when we do it". Everybody's got their excuse why THIS time it's ok to trample rights, because REASONS!!!

The bottom line is, Trumpsters want government to crack down on Facebook because they're not toeing the party line. It's the same kind of authoritarian mindset driving the PA laws. That's not how a free society works.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What's with the nastiness? Just debating.

You don't know what you're debating. It's a constitutional case

 

[initforme]

Clueless? I've been in this nation for 85 years. Things haven't changed much really other than these kids today are smarter and very hard workers. Employers got it made. But the same old rhetoric has been recycled forever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What's with the nastiness? Just debating.

I think it was "I want to debate Constitutional rights, but I don't want to actually read the Constitution and be informed, because it's boring." Kind of a red flag of someone who has nothing useful to say, and never intends to.

 

[initforme]

Yes...so the judgement has been made. I'm good with it. Just wondering if other reasons for rejecting a customer exist besides religion.

 

[initforme]

Im calling on the expertise of some who have had to read it for their thoughts so I don't have to read it. I have much better things to do with my time. Much much better.

 

[bodecea]

What's with the nastiness? Just debating.

You don't know what you're debating. It's a constitutional case

https://www.quora.com/Are-public-accommodations-laws-constitutional

Chemerinsky: Is there a constitutional right for a business to not serve customers?

https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3361&context=lalrev

Religious exemption to public accommodation laws rejected by Supreme Court while those laws cannot be administered in a way that demonstrates hostility to religion or that unfairly discriminates among religious beliefs

The First Amendment Does Not Give Commercial Businesses a License to Discriminate | Take Care

Heart of Atlanta Motel: Public Accommodation Law at 50

A few links that touch on the Constitutionality of PA laws.

 

[daveman]

So, this is good news. But I wonder how many people cheering for it have consistent principles? And how many are hypocrites? F'rinstance - how many of you respect Facebook's right to refuse to serve people who they think are 'sinners'?

Yeah, a baker refusing a special order is TOTALLY comparable to a social media platform censoring content . . . IF YOU'RE INSANE.

Or if you have consistent principles regarding the role of government.

No, just if you're insane and believe you can apply broad, simplistic terms across diverse situations, because feeling smug and self-righteous is so much easier if you don't have to spend time thinking first.

Yeah, yeah. I hate to beat a dead horse, but all you're saying is "it's different when we do it". Everybody's got their excuse why THIS time it's ok to trample rights, because REASONS!!!

The bottom line is, Trumpsters want government to crack down on Facebook because they're not toeing the party line. It's the same kind of authoritarian mindset driving the PA laws. That's not how a free society works.

Trumpsters want government to crack down on Facebook because they're not toeing the party line.
​

The "party line" is freedom of speech.

I can understand why you believe that's a GOP-only thing. Because it pretty much is.

 

[initforme]

Does this only pertain to Christianity of which I am a lifelong practioner?

 

[daveman]

Does this only pertain to Christianity of which I am a lifelong practioner?

It may as well. You can be certain that no leftist will ever file suit against a Muslim-owned business for refusing to deal with them.

Conservatives are smart enough to go someplace where their custom is wanted.

 

[dblack]

Trumpsters want government to crack down on Facebook because they're not toeing the party line.
​

The "party line" is freedom of speech.

Complete horseshit. Do you really think anyone buys that? Are we supposed to believe that Trumpsters would be up in arms if Facebook was censoring Planned Parenthood ads?? Riiiiight.

The movement to crack down on social media companies is purely political. The right sees them as a political enemy and is looking for any way it can find to turn the screws.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have God to thank. Hopefully this will put an end to this harassment by Satan's disciples, aka Homosexuals.

Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

Actually, they sent it back to Colorado because the CO civil rights commission showed bias against the cake maker.

Wrong case dummy this one was Oregon.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

A few links that touch on the Constitutionality of PA laws.

Take your little case before the Supreme Court. See where it gets you.

The bakers from Gresham, Oregon did not refuse to serve gays...on the contrary. They had regular customers who were gay and that's not pertinent to the case. The Kleins objected on religious grounds to materially contributing to a
ceremony that violated their core beliefs.

Sort of like trying to force a Jewish baker to make a special birthday cake for the anniversary of Hitler's birthday.
Sort of like trying to force a black caterer to service a Klan gathering. Etc.

 

[daveman]

Trumpsters want government to crack down on Facebook because they're not toeing the party line.
​

The "party line" is freedom of speech.

Complete horseshit. Do you really think anyone buys that? Are we supposed to believe that Trumpsters would be up in arms if Facebook was censoring Planned Parenthood ads?? Riiiiight.

The movement to crack down on social media companies is purely political. The right sees them as a political enemy and is looking for any way it can find to turn the screws.

You project more than a 12-theater multiplex.

 

[dblack]

Trumpsters want government to crack down on Facebook because they're not toeing the party line.
​

The "party line" is freedom of speech.

Complete horseshit. Do you really think anyone buys that? Are we supposed to believe that Trumpsters would be up in arms if Facebook was censoring Planned Parenthood ads?? Riiiiight.

The movement to crack down on social media companies is purely political. The right sees them as a political enemy and is looking for any way it can find to turn the screws.

You project more than a 12-theater multiplex.

Nothin?

 

[daveman]

Trumpsters want government to crack down on Facebook because they're not toeing the party line.
​

The "party line" is freedom of speech.

Complete horseshit. Do you really think anyone buys that? Are we supposed to believe that Trumpsters would be up in arms if Facebook was censoring Planned Parenthood ads?? Riiiiight.

The movement to crack down on social media companies is purely political. The right sees them as a political enemy and is looking for any way it can find to turn the screws.

You project more than a 12-theater multiplex.

Nothin?

Is there anything I could say that would convince you you're wrong?

No. We both know the answer is no.

Then why bother? You believe the horseshit you believe and nothing will ever sway you.

 

[dblack]

Is there anything I could say that would convince you you're wrong?

Sure, you could post examples of Trump defending the freedom of speech of those he disagrees with. You could find examples of Trump supporters complaining about Facebook censorship before it started focusing on right wing groups. But you won't find them. What you'll find is the opposite. You'll find examples of Trumpsters defending the rights of businesses like Facebook to censor their content - as long as it's content the right wing doesn't like.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I think you're misrepresenting this case. The SCOTUS just told Oregon to reconsider their decisions based on the Masterpiece case. That ruling was so specific and narrow, the Oregon courts are going to rule exactly the same way they did before.

The SCOTUS punted and bought themselves time, that's it.​

​

SCOTUS gave Oregon a hint...like they did Colorado. You got stuffed...deal with it.

No, they punted. Do you even know what the Masterpiece ruling was?

Thus, the Court said, we don't need to look at the validity of the general law (at least not today). We can look more specifically at the Colorado adjudication to end the case. The Court did not, then, consider the strength of the First Amendment versus LGBT rights. It merely sent the case back to Colorado to adjudicate it fairly. That leaves room for Colorado to make the same ruling against the cake shop, but this time the CO Commission will have to be careful that it does not disrespect Phillips' religious arguments.
​

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Decided June 4, 2018)


All anti discrimination laws protecting gays remain firmly in place...deal with it.

"Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018, stemming from an incident in June 2017. The bakery refused to bake Autumn Scardina, a Colorado lawyer, a cake to celebrate her gender transition, which would have had a pink interior and blue exterior. Philips stated later that he refused to bake such a cake based on his Christian beliefs that one does not get to choose their gender."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

"In March 2019 the suit and countersuit between Phillips and the state were dropped, with the state believing that while the core issue on the intersection of discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity and religious beliefs of service business remain in question, the specific case around Scardina was not the proper vehicle to answer those questions. The agreement allowed Scardina, should she want, to pursue her own civil action against Masterpiece.[50] In June 2019, Scardina, represented by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh, brought civil suit against Phillips in federal district court on the perceived discrimination. Greisen stated they felt the state did not represent Scardina's case well, thus taking action directly"

I wonder what did Jesus say about gender identity?

Ya got stuffed....deal. This is devine

Pretty desperate to spin this as a win. Denying gays equal services will still result in lawsuits where the bigots lose.

These cases are not cases of denying gays equal service, it's refusing to engage in an activity that contradicts their religious beliefs. It's the difference between

"I refuse to serve you because you're gay."

and

"I refuse to perform this particular service for you because I feel it would make me complicit in your sin."

 

[captkaos]

So, this is good news. But I wonder how many people cheering for it have consistent principles? And how many are hypocrites? F'rinstance - how many of you respect Facebook's right to refuse to serve people who they think are 'sinners'?

He should have a sign: "I reserve the right to not serve you for any reason I choose it's my friggin" business not yours"

 

[captkaos]

​

SCOTUS gave Oregon a hint...like they did Colorado. You got stuffed...deal with it.

No, they punted. Do you even know what the Masterpiece ruling was?

Thus, the Court said, we don't need to look at the validity of the general law (at least not today). We can look more specifically at the Colorado adjudication to end the case. The Court did not, then, consider the strength of the First Amendment versus LGBT rights. It merely sent the case back to Colorado to adjudicate it fairly. That leaves room for Colorado to make the same ruling against the cake shop, but this time the CO Commission will have to be careful that it does not disrespect Phillips' religious arguments.
​

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Decided June 4, 2018)


All anti discrimination laws protecting gays remain firmly in place...deal with it.

"Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018, stemming from an incident in June 2017. The bakery refused to bake Autumn Scardina, a Colorado lawyer, a cake to celebrate her gender transition, which would have had a pink interior and blue exterior. Philips stated later that he refused to bake such a cake based on his Christian beliefs that one does not get to choose their gender."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

"In March 2019 the suit and countersuit between Phillips and the state were dropped, with the state believing that while the core issue on the intersection of discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity and religious beliefs of service business remain in question, the specific case around Scardina was not the proper vehicle to answer those questions. The agreement allowed Scardina, should she want, to pursue her own civil action against Masterpiece.[50] In June 2019, Scardina, represented by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh, brought civil suit against Phillips in federal district court on the perceived discrimination. Greisen stated they felt the state did not represent Scardina's case well, thus taking action directly"

I wonder what did Jesus say about gender identity?

Ya got stuffed....deal. This is devine

Pretty desperate to spin this as a win. Denying gays equal services will still result in lawsuits where the bigots lose.

These cases are not cases of denying gays equal service, it's refusing to engage in an activity that contradicts their religious beliefs. It's the difference between

"I refuse to serve you because you're gay."

and

"I refuse to perform this particular service for you because I feel it would make me complicit in your sin."

There are apparently no "GAY" bakers anywhere in that area!