Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Weatherman2020]

Reading thru the posts, the fascist left are very unhappy.

 

[BlindBoo]

No dice, the KKK are not designated as protected by Co. laws.

Maybe, maybe not. The Triple K uses a cross, they might qualify as a religion, and free practice of religion is guaranteed, no?

Using religion as a weapon of discrimination violates the rights of other. Burning crosses and lynching black folks is not protected under the 1st Amendment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

How does the baker know that if they do not come right out and proclaim it?

Doesn't matter.

If the baker wants to live a life free of sin it is up to him to make sure he is not baking cakes for sinners

 

[Skull Pilot]

The first amendment only states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As far as I can tell there was no law made that prohibited the baker from exercising his religion.

Unless of course the baker provided the quote from his religious text that expressly says baking a cake for sinners is itself a sin

It's not up to the government to decide how a person exercises their religion, unless there is a compelling government interest involved.

Saying "my religion allows me to murder people" is a compelling government interest.

To me enforcing equality in point of sale transactions is a compelling government interest.

Asking a couple to spend 15 minutes finding another baker for a non time sensitive, non nessasary, easily replaceable service is not a compelling government interest.

You can argue that all you want but doesn't the bible tell Christians how to practice their religion?

I'm just asking where in the bible it says it is a sin to bake cakes for sinners

It considers homosexuality to be a sin. One doesn't have to jump that far to assume a wedding celebrating a homosexual union is a no-go.

And in none of these cases was there a denial of point of sale services, it was for a specific cake for a specific event.

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

You don't think 600 lbs people could not have a medical condition which causes their excessive weight and not because they are gluttons?

Sure all fat people have a condition

But then again it would still be up to the baker to make sure he wasn't baking a cake for a sinner. So he should ask that 600 lb person for a note from his Dr to make sure it is an actual medical condition and not just gluttony

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude

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.
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.

Yeah sure....you lost

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.

You realize of course I consider you an idiot, right?

You lost this one, like we told you that you would long ago

Huh...you calling me an idiot is like a badge of honor. You do realize that I consider you a low IQ brainwashed religious zealot who reveals her ignorance with every post, right?
Just to get our positions out there. There is no 'we'--I was told nothing cogent..especially by you..a person who has the ridiculous audacity to think she represents any point of view other than that of the ignorant.

Not that you will listen..as you are impervious in your stupidity..but, once again, i agree with the decision..and the decision decided nothing..on the merits of the original case.

Back to Colorado.

If I had my way..everyone would see that this is moot, and just let it go.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This whole cake thing is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then the baker is a sinner because we all know he still bakes cakes for thieves, rapists, adulterers, murderers etc

you're saying, if Al Capone and Ma Barker wanted a cake baked celebrating the St Valentines Day Massacre, they should be out of luck?

Wouldn't it be a sin to bake a cake for them since baking a cake is an acceptance of their lifestyle?

Might work for Al and Ma.

how about baking a cake for the Boston Strangler?

same thing isn't it?

If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?

Again, how will you know?

Again it doesn't matter.

It's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin by baking a cake for a sinner so he should vet all of his customers so he can deny service to all the sinners only then will his immortal soul be safe

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, dude

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.
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.

Yeah sure....you lost

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.

You realize of course I consider you an idiot, right?

You lost this one, like we told you that you would long ago

Huh...you calling me an idiot is like a badge of honor. You do realize that I consider you a low IQ brainwashed religious zealot who reveals her ignorance with every post, right?
Just to get our positions out there. There is no 'we'--I was told nothing cogent..especially by you..a person who has the ridiculous audacity to think she represents any point of view other than that of the ignorant.

Not that you will listen..as you are impervious in your stupidity..but, once again, i agree with the decision..and the decision decided nothing..on the merits of the original case.

Back to Colorado.

If I had my way..everyone would see that this is moot, and just let it go.

Go bug someone else with you nonsense. You're just annoying, I don't read your garbage

 

[Flash]

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.

The Supremes told them to go back and get it right this time. That is done quite often in these cases.

The part where Kennedy says the Colorado Civil Right Commission were jerks in siding with the queers is the way of Supreme Court telling the idiots in Colorado to go back and get it right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the glutton was going to eat the cake then the baker is complicit in the sin of gluttony

And FYI a wedding cake is not for the wedding ceremony it is for the party after the ceremony

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?

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Where did you acquire the omnipotence to see into a sinner's heart, and judge them to be a sinner without their knowledge?

I'm not judging anyone

It is up to the baker to make sure he is not baking cakes for sinners so he is the one who has to find out if the person who walks into his shop is indeed a sinner so he can deny service in order to protect his immortal soul.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Reading thru the posts, the fascist left are very unhappy.

Yup..and the alt/right homophobes are celebrating way too prematurely--this case decided nothing--about the actual merits. Both sides knees are just a-jerkin'!

Amazed at how many, on both sides of the issue, choose to comment without reading the decision..must suck to show their asses in such an ignorant way.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Where did you acquire the omnipotence to see into a sinner's heart, and judge them to be a sinner without their knowledge?

I'm not judging anyone

It is up to the baker to make sure he is not baking cakes for sinners so he is the one who has to find out if the person who walks into his shop is indeed a sinner so he can deny service in order to protect his immortal soul.

How do you propose he find out everyone's sins? This has been debunked to death

 

[Flash]

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.

They aren't bigots. They just don't recognize and will not participate in a new definition of marriage.

They just applied the concept of strict scrutiny to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion trumps a queer's demand to have somebody serve them.,

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.
This was a finely nuanced decision--and not likely to settle the larger matters.

Yeah sure....you lost

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.

You realize of course I consider you an idiot, right?

You lost this one, like we told you that you would long ago

Huh...you calling me an idiot is like a badge of honor. You do realize that I consider you a low IQ brainwashed religious zealot who reveals her ignorance with every post, right?
Just to get our positions out there. There is no 'we'--I was told nothing cogent..especially by you..a person who has the ridiculous audacity to think she represents any point of view other than that of the ignorant.

Not that you will listen..as you are impervious in your stupidity..but, once again, i agree with the decision..and the decision decided nothing..on the merits of the original case.

Back to Colorado.

If I had my way..everyone would see that this is moot, and just let it go.

Go bug someone else with you nonsense. You're just annoying, I don't read your garbage

And yet, you answered..like the ignorant knee jerk puppet that you are. I understand..since you cannot reason your way to actually rebut anything i say..far better to run and hide.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is what the commission and the Supremes must answer: "If baking a cake for gays is endorsing and accepting their lifestyle isn't baking a cake for any sinner an endorsement of their particular sin or sins?" How will the commission or the Supremes know.

 

[OldLady]

Reading thru the posts, the fascist left are very unhappy.

Nope. Just sorry it still hasn't been decided. The SC upholding PA laws still stands in all cases unless the Civil Rights Commission has been biased.

 

[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.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

The Supremes told them to go back and get it right this time. That is done quite often in these cases.

The part where Kennedy says the Colorado Civil Right Commission were jerks in siding with the queers is the way of Supreme Court telling the idiots in Colorado to go back and get it right.

Again, as much as you'd like it to be, that is not what was ruled.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

They were willing to make a cake, just not a cake with pervert bullshit on it.

 

[Penelope]

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 Bible is explicit....homosexuality is a sin

Give me some quotes from it. We do not live under the law of Moses, what the 213 commandments , if we did most of the people in the US would be stoned, including Trump, and Jesus never said a word, are you even aware of what the bible says. The only one was Paul and he said not to even get married unless you can't control yourself.

 

[Penelope]

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?

So he want's to not bake a cake in one narrow situation and thus can't bake any cakes ever?

The reason is his own, it's based on his religion, and in this country that is protected.

And your theoretical is just that, an assumption in an attempt to create and "Oh yeah? so's your mother" situation.

Like I said IDGAF if he bakes a cake I am saying that if he lived by his reasoning in this case that it would be impossible to bake any cakes for any sinners without committing a sin

Where did you acquire the omnipotence to see into a sinner's heart, and judge them to be a sinner without their knowledge?

I'm not judging anyone

It is up to the baker to make sure he is not baking cakes for sinners so he is the one who has to find out if the person who walks into his shop is indeed a sinner so he can deny service in order to protect his immortal soul.

He needs to become a priest and have a confessional before he sells to anyone. LOL.