If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Moonglow]

Using the law or destroying a person's life because of his thoughts when he has not actually physically harmed or damaged ANYONE tells me that these people are getting out of control with their demands. You are just as bad if not worse for targeting a person because of his religious beliefs and trying to destroy his life over it.

No one is destroying anyone’s life it is just a simple lawsuit, happens everyday, but just wait until the cops come to your house to do a so called legal breaking and entering action to terrorize and kill you over smoking weed. Yeah you think only leftist do it you are myopic to your side’s totalanism.

 

[dblack]

Religious belief is not a protected class.

You failed American Government in high school, right?

Check PA laws. See if Christians are a protected class.

Religious belief is. Apparently you missed the memo.

 

[ChrisL]

Using the law or destroying a person's life because of his thoughts when he has not actually physically harmed or damaged ANYONE tells me that these people are getting out of control with their demands. You are just as bad if not worse for targeting a person because of his religious beliefs and trying to destroy his life over it.

No one is destroying anyone’s life it is just a simple lawsuit, happens everyday, but just wait until the cops come to your house to do a so called legal breaking and entering action to terrorize and kill you over smoking weed. Yeah you think only leftist do it you are myopic to you sides totalanism.

I don't smoke weed. A "simple lawsuit" can easily destroy a person's financial well being.

Oh, and the Grammar Nazi who doesn't know his grammar speaks. Lol.

 

[Valerie]

...while the court sided with baker Jack Phillips on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the ruling does not indicate people have a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples.

What the court did instead in a 7-2 vote was issue what's being called "a narrow ruling," i.e. the justices tailored the decision to the case specifically instead of issuing a decision on the topic of religious liberty as many expected.


"The Supreme Court today reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all," the ACLU said in a statement, according to NBC News. "The court did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable, but reversed this case based on concerns specific to the facts here."

What The Supreme Court's Decision On The Colorado Cake-Baker Case Really Means






add this op to the heap of fake news headlines proving how rethuglican dumbos lack basic comprehension skills

 

[ChrisL]

Using the law or destroying a person's life because of his thoughts when he has not actually physically harmed or damaged ANYONE tells me that these people are getting out of control with their demands. You are just as bad if not worse for targeting a person because of his religious beliefs and trying to destroy his life over it.

No one is destroying anyone’s life it is just a simple lawsuit, happens everyday, but just wait until the cops come to your house to do a so called legal breaking and entering action to terrorize and kill you over smoking weed. Yeah you think only leftist do it you are myopic to your side’s totalanism.

Maybe you need to cut down on smoking the dope, dopey?

 

[tyroneweaver]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

The baker was an artist
They were forcing him to draw pornography
Just chewing thru the fat for your disengous poll (smoker)

 

[dblack]

So is straight. It's a sexual preference too.

But straight results in children having both a mother and father. So society prefers it for the proven well being of children.

Should society be allowed to use the law to force the issue?

 

[dblack]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

The baker was an artist
They were forcing him to draw pornography
Just chewing thru the fat for your disengous poll (smoker)

Try again.

 

[OldLady]

If he doesn't agree with gay marriage or gay whatever, then he must be destroyed. You would think they physically harmed or murdered someone. Leftists are totally out of control.

Liberalism = intolerance. Think like we do or we will destroy you. Only liberal thoughts and beliefs are allowed. Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote accurately about it.

Bullshit. Discrimination is not allowed. GET USED TO IT.

Thankfully you don't have any control over how other people might think and feel about things. The ruling in this case says otherwise. The ruling was that you cannot force a person to overlook their religious convictions so that you can have a fucking cake. K? Go somewhere else for your cake. There are plenty of businesses out there who are more than willing to make you any damn cake that you want.

Chris, do you have a bunch of posters on ignore or what? Because it has been clearly shown and restated over and over what the SC actually decided, and it was not that.

Maybe you should look up things for yourself instead of blindly accepting the words of leftists?

Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

The justices' decision turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

I did, Chris, read the decision itself and (at least) three articles about it as well. The Commission violated his rights, not the situation itself. The situation itself has not been decided and the decision itself says that, front and center.

 

[OldLady]

In the past week, I've been thinking about "right" and "wrong" in a few different situations that I would normally expect there not to be any disagreement. But there is. If somehow I was asked to be part of that "wrong-ness " in a direct way, I would not like it either and would probably refuse. If I were forced, for some reason, to participate in it, I'd be very upset.
I suppose we all need to remember that to the folks who strongly disagree with gay marriage or even gay lifestyle, they have as deep convictions about that as we do about other things that we consider fundamentally wrong.

Geez, it's hard though.

Doing the right thing isn't as hard as it seems. You simply listen to that churning feeling in your gut when you know something is wrong and you just don't do it. Just like the clerk in Kentucky. You choose jail over promoting an abomination unto God. You take the lesser of two evils because you know your very soul is at stake.

See how easy that is?

Yes, I understand exactly how it feels, but about other things. To me it is not an abomination against God for a man to love a man or a woman to love a woman. Love is not an abomination to me. However, I understand how strongly you feel about it being "wrong" because there are things I also consider "wrong."

 

[Polishprince]

.

What the court did instead in a 7-2 vote was issue what's being called "a narrow ruling," i.e. the justices tailored the decision to the case specifically instead of issuing a decision on the topic of religious liberty as many expected.

That is unfortunately true, however, this is the way the courts often act.

Those of us who were hoping that the SCOTUS would use this case to overturn the Lawrence decision of 2003 were understandably disappointed.

But it takes time to move the court.

 

[dblack]

.

What the court did instead in a 7-2 vote was issue what's being called "a narrow ruling," i.e. the justices tailored the decision to the case specifically instead of issuing a decision on the topic of religious liberty as many expected.

That is unfortunately true, however, this is the way the courts often act.

Those of us who were hoping that the SCOTUS would use this case to overturn the Lawrence decision of 2003 were understandably disappointed.

But it takes time to move the court.

This Court, in particular, has proven itself utterly cowardly in the face of these kinds of decisions.

 

[Valerie]

...the opinion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might decide future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who have cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2015 same-sex marriage decision.

In the 7-2 decision, the court said legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility to the baker's religious views. Monday's ruling was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision.


The ACLU said in a statement Monday, "The Supreme Court today reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all. ... The court did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable, but reversed this case based on concerns specific to the facts here."


narrow ruling

 

[Wry Catcher]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision, it seems the bigots and their supporters want to believe Christians have been given permission to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian's, which is not what the Supreme Court decided.

However, states have the right and duty (IMO) to protect everyone from discrimination in the public domain, and one must hope that at the very least the owners of Bakery's, and of all other business establishments licensed in the state, are required to post signs in a prominent place in their windows and in all of their advertisements, that that alert the customers to their policy:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, and that includes Gay and Lesbian Couples who want us to be complicit in their Sin, and their attack on Marriage"

This will allow the couples to keep their dignity and not be embarrassed and hurt by a callous disregard for their feelings (and allow heterosexual men and women who believe in the Golden Rule the ability to boycott the establishment, as many of us have done to Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A).

 

[OldLady]

.

What the court did instead in a 7-2 vote was issue what's being called "a narrow ruling," i.e. the justices tailored the decision to the case specifically instead of issuing a decision on the topic of religious liberty as many expected.

That is unfortunately true, however, this is the way the courts often act.

Those of us who were hoping that the SCOTUS would use this case to overturn the Lawrence decision of 2003 were understandably disappointed.

But it takes time to move the court.

I'm not sure what the Lawrence decision represents, but I think we were ALL disappointed in this nothing burger of a decision.

 

[NightFox]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision, it seems the bigots and their supporters want to believe Christians have been given permission to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian's, which is not what the Supreme Court decided.

However, states have the right and duty (IMO) to protect everyone from discrimination in the public domain, and one must hope that at the very least the owners of Bakery's, and of all other business establishments licensed in the state, are required to post signs in a prominent place in their windows and in all of their advertisements, that that alert the customers to their policy:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, and that includes Gay and Lesbian Couples who want us to be complicit in their Sin, and their attack on Marriage"

Er.. um.. "anyone" is all inclusive and doesn't require clarification but personally I prefer "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, at any time, for any reason we deem worthwhile".

This will allow the couples to keep their dignity and not be embarrassed and hurt by a callous disregard for their feelings .

LOL, "disregard for their feelings", fuck their feelings and their "dignity", if refusal of service is all it takes to destroy your self-esteem then you've got bigger problems than being refused service and society can't help you.

 

[dblack]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're willing to forgo their own special protections.

 

[OldLady]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision, it seems the bigots and their supporters want to believe Christians have been given permission to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian's, which is not what the Supreme Court decided.

However, states have the right and duty (IMO) to protect everyone from discrimination in the public domain, and one must hope that at the very least the owners of Bakery's, and of all other business establishments licensed in the state, are required to post signs in a prominent place in their windows and in all of their advertisements, that that alert the customers to their policy:

"We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, and that includes Gay and Lesbian Couples who want us to be complicit in their Sin, and their attack on Marriage"

This will allow the couples to keep their dignity and not be embarrassed and hurt by a callous disregard for their feelings (and allow heterosexual men and women who believe in the Golden Rule the ability to boycott the establishment, as many of us have done to Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A).

I know this isn't going to fly, but I think it would be helpful to EVERYONE on both sides of this issue to have little signs that can be posted in the window or on the door of a business that indicates if the owner has a strong aversion to gays. Like a Christian fish symbol or .... more positively, for businesses that don't have an aversion, a sign saying We Welcome ALL
Like the We Accept VISA sign. It would be helpful but I'm sure there's got to be something wrong with it, because it's too simple.

 

[buckeye45_73]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Ever heard the term None of your business

 

[buckeye45_73]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Nope, since most Christian's are not bigots; those who are do not serve Jesus Christ, who they claim to deeply revere.

What does this have to do with the question?

As to the most recent Supreme Court Decision...

That's not the point of the thread. I'm basically asking the Christians who think they should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they're will into forgo their own special protections.

Why do you want to force people to interact with each other?