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.
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.
Not what they said dude..but your homophobia is noted..and laughed at.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.
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.
I hope that couple never spends money at his store. All civil right advocate should boycott him. It doesn't affect me but what about my grandchildren, I'm sure L. Ingraham never planned on her brother being gay nor Dick Cheney ever thought one of his daughters would be a lesbian.
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 sinnershow are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?
He killed for years before he was caught.
same with rapists, etc.
their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.
If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?
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.
Neither government nor society has the right to tell a person what sins they can choose to commit.
Never said they should
I am questioning the reasoning of the baker that is all.
If baking a cake for sinners is a sin then he is committing a sin every time he bakes a cake for a sinner
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
Nope, totally different.
Gluttony is the act of overeating.
Baking a cake for a fat person is not endorsing him overeating it. He has to exercise self control. But taking your thought process, why sell food to a fat person? Why stop at a wedding cake? Why give them ANYTHING? Or what is allowed? Can they have cheese? Bread? Tacos? Spinach?
A cake by itself is not endorsing gluttony. But a wedding cake FOR A GAY COUPLE can easily be seen as directly against Christianity. But another baker might ask the Lord for forgiveness and bake the cake because he needs the money. But that choice is up to the person, not the fags.
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.
Was he being forced to attend?
I've been to a lot of weddings and the guy who baked the cake was never forced to attend
Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but he was willing to bake the cake, just not deliver.
I don't know. But even delivering the cake is not being forced to attend the event.
My mother was a baker and I delivered many wedding cakes. Usually the cake is delivered to the reception venue hours before the reception even starts
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
Nope, totally different.
Gluttony is the act of overeating.
Baking a cake for a fat person is not endorsing him overeating it. He has to exercise self control. But taking your thought process, why sell food to a fat person? Why stop at a wedding cake? Why give them ANYTHING? Or what is allowed? Can they have cheese? Bread? Tacos? Spinach?
A cake by itself is not endorsing gluttony. But a wedding cake FOR A GAY COUPLE can easily be seen as directly against Christianity. But another baker might ask the Lord for forgiveness and bake the cake because he needs the money. But that choice is up to the person, not the fags.
Its not one of the commandments and so Paul overrules the words of Jesus. By the baker anything goes by the way one interprets the bible. How fortunate for him he can pick and choose who he bakes for.
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
7-2 decision.
And that means nothing.
Dred Scott, is it? LOL! You reference what is commonly considered to be one of the three worst SCOTUS decisions of all time? The one that affirmed a slave owners right to retrieve his 'property' even outside the jurisdictions where slavery was legal?The Bakers were people and the fags were semi human as well - The reference to Dred Scott refers to a case , a legal decision that addressed local laws.Local Laws ? You mean like Dred Scott ? Oh My...Local laws are local laws
Dred Scott was a person, not a law.
They aren't bigots. They just don't recognize and will not participate in a new definition of marriage.I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.
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.
I neither won nor lost...perhaps you need to get out more..and clear your head..as you seem to be suffering from some confusion. Your post had nothing to do with what i said..why is that? If anything...not that i really thought about it..i won..as did every American did...with a balanced SCOTUS decision.Not I...I agree with the ruling..as written. I'm just a bit amazed at all the false interpretations that are being attributed to it. I would think that you would cheer..as do I ...the Justices recognizing the religious hostility of the Colorado Commission..and re-affirming our religious freedom. That they did so..still still upholding Gay rights...was a rare breath of sanity, IMO. 7-2 is a SCOTUS landslide, these days.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.Praise Jesus! The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.
LOL. Wanna bet? The decision applies to everyone, not just that baker.Basically it seems like they ruled in favor of the baker, but NOT in favor of all religious people who want to discriminat
You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.
Yeah sure....you lost
No dice, the KKK are not designated as protected by Co. laws.
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.
Why does government get to decide about someone's religious consistency?
The Bakers were people and the fags were semi human as well - The reference to Dred Scott refers to a case , a legal decision that addressed local laws.Local Laws ? You mean like Dred Scott ? Oh My...Local laws are local laws
Dred Scott was a person, not a law.
I neither won nor lost...perhaps you need to get out more..and clear your head..as you seem to be suffering from some confusion. Your post had nothing to do with what i said..why is that? If anything...not that i really thought about it..i won..as did every American did...with a balanced SCOTUS decision.Not I...I agree with the ruling..as written. I'm just a bit amazed at all the false interpretations that are being attributed to it. I would think that you would cheer..as do I ...the Justices recognizing the religious hostility of the Colorado Commission..and re-affirming our religious freedom. That they did so..still still upholding Gay rights...was a rare breath of sanity, IMO. 7-2 is a SCOTUS landslide, these days.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.Praise Jesus! The SCOTUS affirmed our liberty and our 1st Ammendment right.
LOL. Wanna bet? The decision applies to everyone, not just that baker.
You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.
Yeah sure....you lost
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
Nope, totally different.
Gluttony is the act of overeating.
Baking a cake for a fat person is not endorsing him overeating it. He has to exercise self control. But taking your thought process, why sell food to a fat person? Why stop at a wedding cake? Why give them ANYTHING? Or what is allowed? Can they have cheese? Bread? Tacos? Spinach?
A cake by itself is not endorsing gluttony. But a wedding cake FOR A GAY COUPLE can easily be seen as directly against Christianity. But another baker might ask the Lord for forgiveness and bake the cake because he needs the money. But that choice is up to the person, not the fags.
Its not one of the commandments and so Paul overrules the words of Jesus. By the baker anything goes by the way one interprets the bible. How fortunate for him he can pick and choose who he bakes for.
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.
Why does government get to decide about someone's religious consistency?
They have a compelling interest in being fair. Being able to selectively decide which sinner you will not serve, but will continue to provide that service to all others in a business open to the public, would set an unfair precedent in a state that has decided to protect Gay Civil Rights.
