NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
[There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake.... .
Except in the sense that all wedding cakes are very very very very gay.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake.... .
So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.
A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.
Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.
I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.
Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?
A groom and a groom would be gay, sorry. I'd be OK with what you say if they get their figurines elsewhere and kept their private affairs private.There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake just like there's no such thing as a straight wedding cake. It's just a cake regardless of the sexual orientation of who it's made for. So, regardless of whether the wedding cake is made for a straight or a gay couple, it's still just a damn cake. Consequently, if the baker is ever asked if he makes gay wedding cakes, he can say no. He just makes wedding cakes. What happens to the cake after it leaves his bakery, should be none of his concern.
Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?
DOMA has zip to do with this and if it was a federal issue, it wouldn't be a state issue.The supremes torpedoed DOMA
Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.
DOMA has zip to do with this and if it was a federal issue, it wouldn't be a state issue.The supremes torpedoed DOMA
Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.
So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes.
Why would he not? It's business.
So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.
Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.
I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.
I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.
If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for Jews - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.
If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for an black couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.
If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a 90 year old couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.
If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for two women - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.
The difference between myself and many here is that mandatory compliance with Public Accommodation laws is just fine with them for race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation (for non-secular reasons), etc., etc. That's just fine. But when it comes to "The Gheys", Oh no in that case special exemptions have to be given to "sincerely held religious beliefs" - but only if those beliefs are about "The Gheys".
Kind of hypocritical, IMHO, if the position is supposed to be about freedom of association and rights of property.
>>>>
So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.
Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.
I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.
Why would he not? It's business.
DOMA has zip to do with this and if it was a federal issue, it wouldn't be a state issue.The supremes torpedoed DOMA
Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.
What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.
Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.
>>>>
Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?
The supremes torpedoed DOMA
Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.
How is that logical to you? DOMA was the protection of tradtiionally defined marriage if it was foisted on them by minority decree, especially judicial. Yes, gay is in both concepts but different topics.What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.
I haven't spoken about DOMA but you think that forces bakery owners to make gay themed wedding cakes? That's creative, I'll give you that.Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.
DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause. The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say. They are dictators in robes. Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.
Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.
The supremes torpedoed DOMA
Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.
No the supremes didn't. obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts. It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.
Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.
The supremes torpedoed DOMA
Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.
No the supremes didn't. obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts. It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.
How is that logical to you? DOMA was the protection of tradtiionally defined marriage if it was foisted on them by minority decree, especially judicial. Yes, gay is in both concepts but different topics.What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.
I haven't spoken about DOMA but you think that forces bakery owners to make gay themed wedding cakes? That's creative, I'll give you that.Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.
DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause. The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say. They are dictators in robes. Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.
DOMA had two Sections. Section 2 was an exercise of Congresses full faith and credit clause, that section was not addressed by the courts.
Section 3 having to do with Federal recognition (not state to state recognition, which was Section 2) was a violation of equal protection. Section 3 had nothing to do with full faith and credit between the states.
>>>>
In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.
That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.
The supremes torpedoed DOMA
Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.
No the supremes didn't. obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts. It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.
What the hell????
SCOTUS struck Section 3 of the Federal DOMA in the case of United States v. Windsor.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
>>>>