Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Flash]

For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable
pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his
religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as
despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetori-
cal—something insubstantial and even insincere. The
commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’
invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses
of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappro
priate for a Commission charged with the solemn respon-
sibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-
discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.

 

[Penelope]

It wasn't a refusal to bring the cake to the reception it was a refusal to bake it in the first place.

So it wasn't the baking and decorating, but the delivery for the reception. Wow.

 

[Tresha91203]

This is obviously written by someone who has never cracked a Bible in their miserable existence.

Give me the quotes, only Paul said it, I kid you not and Christians do not follow the laws of Moses. Now give me some quote of the NT??? I suspect you have not studied the bible.

It's clear if you don't know homosexuality is a Biblical sin YOU have never studied the Bible.

Good grief

Give me a quote and not from Moses or Paul. You have never studied the bible. In Eze 16 it says why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and homosexuality was not the reason.

Listen whackjob if you had the first clue you'd know what is immoral on the Old Testament is also immoral in the New Testament.

You're fucking clueless

So give me a quote, and Christians do not live by the laws of Moses, sweetheart. Now give me some quotes that marriage should be between a man and a women in the NT, I will ask until you do, because you can't. The baker is sinning more than the homosexuals that are getting married, according to the words of Jesus.

Most Christians are lot literalists. Many Christians believe Jesus is the Word of God, but many believe the Bible is the Word of God. When discussing beliefs with a Southern Baptist, I often have to say, "I'm Catholic." That ends the discussion around these parts, unless you've got a newly saved literalist.

 

[BlindBoo]

cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon

Of course they can, and do.

You can't deny rights to other citizen based on your religious beliefs. Especially not from the OT. You can't sell your daughter as a slave anymore either.


7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment

 

[AvgGuyIA]

7-2 decision.

And that means nothing.

Isn't there a name of a mental illness for this sort of reaction? ^^^

 

[AvgGuyIA]

One more who doesn't understand what narrow means in legal opinions.

We know where you're going with this. The opinion of the Supreme Court does not allow a baker or any business to refuse to sell cakes to gays. Nobody is arguing that and nobody had a problem with that...including the baker. You just can't compell them to participant in an activity against their religious beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

task0778, the gays want their cause to be equal with hetero rights, nothing more.

The problem is both prog left and recessive right won't budge to a recognition of equal rights.

Dschrute3's commentary below is an excellent reprisal of one side of the problem.

 

[Dschrute3]

I tried to tell Communists/Democrats, 'Gay Rights' aren't the only rights protected in our country. Folks' religious rights are to be respected and protected as well. And even two Democrats on the Court had to agree.

Now hopefully these people can get their lives back. They lost everything. The 'Gay Mafia' forced them out of business. It was wrong. Hopefully they'll be justly compensated. I'm prayin for em.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Match this with the recent 'rule' that hospitals and doctors of the Catholic persuasion I believe can refuse service to any patient that is in discord with their religious beliefs.

The Christian Taliban has arrived. Watch now, this is going to get ugly as every single batshit fake Christian that owns a doughnut shop will be allowing some people in while barring others. It is so blatantly unAmerican and reminds one of the denial of service and business to Jews in the 1930s. Think that too harsh? Wait a while, see the effect this will generate.

It would be so much better to just break the country up into two, three, or four smaller countries where this whacko religious fanatacism that rivals Isis can go have their Christian Caliphate because it is wholly unsuited for a democracy. Go all you phony Christians, go have your own walled in televangelist paradise and stop demanding that everyone else live your fake religion. It's fake because you are not Christians.

 

[Dschrute3]

Match this with the recent 'rule' that hospitals and doctors of the Catholic persuasion I believe can refuse service to any patient that is in discord with their religious beliefs.

The Christian Taliban has arrived. Watch now, this is going to get ugly as every single batshit fake Christian that owns a doughnut shop will be allowing some people in while barring others. It is so blatantly unAmerican and reminds one of the denial of service and business to Jews in the 1930s. Think that too harsh? Wait a while, see the effect this will generate.

It would be so much better to just break the country up into two, three, or four smaller countries where this whacko religious fanatacism that rivals Isis can go have their Christian Caliphate because it is wholly unsuited for a democracy. Go all you phony Christians, go have your own walled in televangelist paradise and stop demanding that everyone else live your fake religion. It's fake because you are not Christians.

You could always leave. In America we have a Constitution that protects religious rights. Sorry bout that. Bon Voyage.

 

[dblack]

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

The specific excuses for not serving someone are irrelevant.

 

[Flash]

So, a civil rights commission was violating someone's civil rights? Only in America!

 

[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.

"The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”

And why do you call Obama and Hillary homophobes?

Dang..you almost had a cogent post..and then you just had to throw Obama and Hillary into the mix.

I agree with the bolded.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

For those people that are confused about what the ruling said here is opinion.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable
pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his
religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as
despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetori-
cal—something insubstantial and even insincere. The
commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’
invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses
of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappro
priate for a Commission charged with the solemn respon-
sibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-
discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.

Get it right..you posted a part of the opinion...one that i agree with---but don't leave out Justice Kennedy's defense of Gay rights. That's part of the opinion as well. The commission was wrong..but the larger questions still remain unresolved.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

"The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”

And why do you call Obama and Hillary homophobes?

Dang..you almost had a cogent post..and then you just had to throw Obama and Hillary into the mix.

I agree with the bolded.

You're the one calling people who believe in traditional marriage childish names, just reminding you who your childish hate is aimed at.

 

[Weatherman2020]

cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon

Of course they can, and do.

You can't deny rights to other citizen based on your religious beliefs. Especially not from the OT. You can't sell your daughter as a slave anymore either.


7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment

Yes you can, and we did.
Have a nice day.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I tried to tell Communists/Democrats, 'Gay Rights' aren't the only rights protected in our country. Folks' religious rights are to be respected and protected as well. And even two Democrats on the Court had to agree.

Now hopefully these people can get their lives back. They lost everything. The 'Gay Mafia' forced them out of business. It was wrong. Hopefully they'll be justly compensated. I'm prayin for em.

Nope..just as they chose whom to serve and whom not to...people are free to choose where they spend their money. Perhaps...they should have just baked the damn cake?

So..they took a religious stand? OK...stands have consequences..often unforeseen.

 

[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.

"The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”

And why do you call Obama and Hillary homophobes?

Dang..you almost had a cogent post..and then you just had to throw Obama and Hillary into the mix.

I agree with the bolded.

You're the one calling people who believe in traditional marriage childish names, just reminding you who your childish hate is aimed at.

Hate? Odd choice of words. I hate very few..and none that I don't know. I'll not even buy into whatever weird logic you seem to have as regards Obama, Hillary and this issue..it really does not matter. Reading these posts..seeing the words fag, cum-guzzler,..etc., etc. leads me to have used the term homophobic. you disagree..that's your right..just calling it as I see it.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Which baker?
Anita Baker?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The media called it a "Narrow Win".

7-2 is not a narrow win.