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.
Right. And that’s the second part of the pending ruling. Once a customer informs the merchant his talents are wanted to promote an ideal, behavior or ritual that is offensive to him, the merchant can refuse on the spot.What is on the cake is art.You either have freedom of Religion or you don't. Artist should not be forced to create art that they don't want to.
A cake isn't "art"... it's food.
Again, laws that violate the Constitution are not valid.
Free exercise is a constitutional right, and commerce rights do not automatically overrule free exercise.
No one is stopping him from excercising his bronze age superstitions...
He just can't break other laws in the process.
If he doesn't want to serve gays, there's a simple enough solution.
Find something else to do for a living.
What is on the cake is art.
Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
Race and gender, static birth conditions will be protected. Behaviors ideals & rituals can’t be forced on others to play along with.
Again, laws that violate the Constitution are not valid.
Free exercise is a constitutional right, and commerce rights do not automatically overrule free exercise.
No one is stopping him from excercising his bronze age superstitions...
He just can't break other laws in the process.
If he doesn't want to serve gays, there's a simple enough solution.
Find something else to do for a living.
Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
You are narrow minded. Not all art ends up in a museum.What is on the cake is art.
So they put it in a museum? Um... no. They eat it.
The problem isn't baking the cake. He'd bake the cake. He'd sell them a cake. What he won't do is put a pro Gay theme decoration on the cake.Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
Again... I've known gay people who've been beaten up, fired, discriminated against.
"Bake the cake or else" is hardly a imposition. Unless you want to throw out all laws related to religious objection, and let ANYONE refuse to do his job without consequence for some made up religious reason.
Shopping at WalMart would be fun.
Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
Again... I've known gay people who've been beaten up, fired, discriminated against.
"Bake the cake or else" is hardly a imposition. Unless you want to throw out all laws related to religious objection, and let ANYONE refuse to do his job without consequence for some made up religious reason.
Shopping at WalMart would be fun.
Again, laws that violate the Constitution are not valid.
Free exercise is a constitutional right, and commerce rights do not automatically overrule free exercise.
No one is stopping him from excercising his bronze age superstitions...
He just can't break other laws in the process.
If he doesn't want to serve gays, there's a simple enough solution.
Find something else to do for a living.
Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
Laws "of general applicability" do not violate the constitution. This jerk is running a business that advertises, and he violated his business' own advertising. The "simplest solution" is not to violate the law.
The discriminated-against customer has no obligation to just slink away. This couple did nothing wrong in filing a discrimination complaint as the bakery committed the offense charged. Stop pretending that it is the customer who has the responsibility.
I’ve known women beaten & raped by sexual deviants who are attracted to them. “Share the bathroom/locker room & showers, or else” with deranged men is most definitely an imposition on the 1/5 women rape survivors.Again... I've known gay people who've been beaten up....
"Bake the cake or else" is hardly a imposition. Unless you want to throw out all laws related to religious objection, and let ANYONE refuse to do his job without consequence for some made up religious reason.
Shopping at WalMart would be fun.
Again, laws that violate the Constitution are not valid.
Free exercise is a constitutional right, and commerce rights do not automatically overrule free exercise.
No one is stopping him from excercising his bronze age superstitions...
He just can't break other laws in the process.
If he doesn't want to serve gays, there's a simple enough solution.
Find something else to do for a living.
Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
Laws "of general applicability" do not violate the constitution. This jerk is running a business that advertises, and he violated his business' own advertising. The "simplest solution" is not to violate the law.
The discriminated-against customer has no obligation to just slink away. This couple did nothing wrong in filing a discrimination complaint as the bakery committed the offense charged. Stop pretending that it is the customer who has the responsibility.
Show me where general applicability is in the constitution, and specifically, where it overrides the 1st amendment.
Why does selling something automatically result in a person losing their 1st amendment rights?
No need.don't know why you are so eager to accommodate the myriad of beliefs of all the adults in our population of 325 million.
You are narrow minded. Not all art ends up in a museum.
The problem isn't baking the cake. He'd bake the cake. He'd sell them a cake. What he won't do is put a pro Gay theme decoration on the cake.
You keep ignoring the point that I have never said point of sale items are an issue when it comes to 1st amendment rights.
Show me where general applicability is in the constitution, and specifically, where it overrides the 1st amendment.
Why does selling something automatically result in a person losing their 1st amendment rights?
I’ve known women beaten & raped by sexual deviants who are attracted to them.
Unless you want to throw out all laws relating to keeping women safe from sexual predators and let ANY deranged male in hygiene quarters with women without consequences to these males for their made up “gender confusion” religion.
"
Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips can continue his lawsuit against the state, accusing them of anti-religious bias against him for refusing to make cakes that support transgender identity and gay marriage, a federal court has ruled.
Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order last Friday allowing Phillips’ lawsuit against Colorado and its Civil Rights Commission to continue.
In his order, Judge Daniel did grant the Civil Rights Division Director Aubrey Elenis’ motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims against them for compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, and the motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims for prospective relief against Governor John Hickenlooper.
However, Daniel denied the motion to dismiss the other aspects of Phillips’ litigation, among them being his claim of having the standing to sue the defendants and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s motion to dismiss the claims against her."
Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility
Let's see what happens
He didn't lose his right to freedom of religion by becoming a baker.You are narrow minded. Not all art ends up in a museum.
Um, no, it isn't... but it also doesn't get eaten...
The problem isn't baking the cake. He'd bake the cake. He'd sell them a cake. What he won't do is put a pro Gay theme decoration on the cake.
then he needs to close down his bakery so he doesn't have to deal with icky gays...
But until then, they are entitled to the same services everyone else gets.
You keep ignoring the point that I have never said point of sale items are an issue when it comes to 1st amendment rights.
No, guy, your sad attempts to find a way to allow just this bigotry but still try to ban others so you can feel good about yourself is what is hilarious.
He didn't lose his right to freedom of religion by becoming a baker.
