Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[dblack]

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

bigots yes
discrimination no

Discrimination is a daily activity for everyone. This is about biases that government has targeted for suppression.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Religion is just another tool of discrimination.

Indeed it is, and you will never see a gay couple try and do this to a Islamic fundamentalist baker either. I wonder why they only pick on christians?

Oh my. You are persecuted. It's horrible.

Not me sweetcheeks. I could care less about baking a cake for a gay couple. i personally think the baker is a moron for not doing the job. However...this is the USA and it is his RIGHT to be a fool. So long as he doesn't harm anyone, he can be as dumb as he wants to be.

Somehow, I don't think you can remain consistent on that POV.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

bigots yes
discrimination no

Discrimination is a daily activity for everyone. This is about biases that government has targeted for suppression.

Incorrect.

 

[Flash]

There are two villains in this case.

First are the queers that were so arrogant that they tried to make this man do something that was again his religion. Just because they are queers doesn't mean other people are required to kiss their asses.

Second is that despicable Colorado Civil Rights Commission that was hostile to the baker's religious views.

This country was founded upon the concept of religious freedom and if those assholes on the commission don't like it then they go someplace and live. We sure don't need them here.

 

[dblack]

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

bigots yes
discrimination no

Discrimination is a daily activity for everyone. This is about biases that government has targeted for suppression.

Incorrect.

Faulty

 

[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.

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.

Did you not read the opinion? Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started. He won.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You're pretty famous for your hatred, your use of childish name calling validates it.
And your inability to even comprehend your childish name calling targets almost every Democrat at some point as well.

I'm famous??? Hmmm...gotta think that one through.

Here's the thing..I'll engage on any level you wish...I prefer the intellectual..but I'll roll in the gutter as well.

I do hate the haters though. I realize the inherent contradiction in my stance..but being human...I'm as irrational as the next guy, from time to time.

All that aside..I don't think calling people who use the term fag or homo or cum guzzler etc, homophobic, childish at all. I think I hit the nail square on the head. Now, I'd be happy to debate that...but i find that many here, while secure in their hatred and prejudices, are reluctant to defend those stances intellectually...they prefer to insult and deflect. Usually when Hillary or Obama come up..it's a deflection, IMO.

A last word on name calling and insults here in general. I go to many boards in the course of a week..and this is one of the very worse for name-calling and insults. I've read some truly vile remarks here..and when called on it..all they say is but Obama..blah, blah...It's not me, it's you...the Dems...blah, blah, blah....Deep State..blah, blah...fuck you!

So yeah....I'm going to respond in kind--don't like it? Prove me wrong using your intellect and facts..or STFU!

Sure you prefer the intellectual. That's why you call people who disagree with you childish names.

Your intellect is that of a pissed off 5 year old.

Thank for being so prompt to prove my point. You don't address my post or my points at all--just a whiny plaint, a cheap insult and a repetition of your previous post, ***yawn***

One could disagree with me, get their point across..and not use pejorative terms for gay men and women..yet they choose not to..this choice is indicative of homophobia, IMO. Not sure as to why you see this term as a 'childish name'--I've yet to hear a child use it..although I get a bit of a laugh out of imagining it, "Hey Billy..you're a homophobe!"
Billy, 'Huh?"

Why should I allow you to ignore your childish name calling? I’m going to rub your nose in your pile of crap every chance I get.

ROTFLMAO! This is your idea of the height of intelligence and wit? A constant repetition of the same term..a total refusal to actually engage? You're nothing but a garden-variety troll! I gave you entirely too much time and credit.

My bad..please troll though--

There you go again - a pissed off 5 year old kicking and screaming in a busy public setting.

My apologies to pissed off 5 year olds for the analogy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Learn to debate honestly.

The left can't debate because their positions are always wrong. So it's just a bunch of name calling and stupid strawmen arguments.

 

[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.

Did you not read the opinion? Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started. He won.

I did read the ENTIRE decision. The case is returned to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling, with an admonition not to trample on the Baker's religious rights. That's all..period.
His win is transitory..the commission could still choose to rule against him. The court took no stance on the larger issues.

BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Learn to debate honestly.

The left can't debate because their positions are always wrong. So it's just a bunch of name calling and stupid strawmen arguments.

You are so funny..the guy who just trolls and never debates..deploring the left for not debating!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I'm famous??? Hmmm...gotta think that one through.

Here's the thing..I'll engage on any level you wish...I prefer the intellectual..but I'll roll in the gutter as well.

I do hate the haters though. I realize the inherent contradiction in my stance..but being human...I'm as irrational as the next guy, from time to time.

All that aside..I don't think calling people who use the term fag or homo or cum guzzler etc, homophobic, childish at all. I think I hit the nail square on the head. Now, I'd be happy to debate that...but i find that many here, while secure in their hatred and prejudices, are reluctant to defend those stances intellectually...they prefer to insult and deflect. Usually when Hillary or Obama come up..it's a deflection, IMO.

A last word on name calling and insults here in general. I go to many boards in the course of a week..and this is one of the very worse for name-calling and insults. I've read some truly vile remarks here..and when called on it..all they say is but Obama..blah, blah...It's not me, it's you...the Dems...blah, blah, blah....Deep State..blah, blah...fuck you!

So yeah....I'm going to respond in kind--don't like it? Prove me wrong using your intellect and facts..or STFU!

Sure you prefer the intellectual. That's why you call people who disagree with you childish names.

Your intellect is that of a pissed off 5 year old.

Thank for being so prompt to prove my point. You don't address my post or my points at all--just a whiny plaint, a cheap insult and a repetition of your previous post, ***yawn***

One could disagree with me, get their point across..and not use pejorative terms for gay men and women..yet they choose not to..this choice is indicative of homophobia, IMO. Not sure as to why you see this term as a 'childish name'--I've yet to hear a child use it..although I get a bit of a laugh out of imagining it, "Hey Billy..you're a homophobe!"
Billy, 'Huh?"

Why should I allow you to ignore your childish name calling? I’m going to rub your nose in your pile of crap every chance I get.

ROTFLMAO! This is your idea of the height of intelligence and wit? A constant repetition of the same term..a total refusal to actually engage? You're nothing but a garden-variety troll! I gave you entirely too much time and credit.

My bad..please troll though--

There you go again - a pissed off 5 year old kicking and screaming in a busy public setting.

My apologies to pissed off 5 year olds for the analogy.

Do you ever actually consider what you must look like..to an objective reader? I read my posts..and then your responses---how can you not cringe when considering how lame your responses are?

 

[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.

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.

Did you not read the opinion? Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started. He won.

I did read the ENTIRE decision. The case is returned to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling, with an admonition not to trample on the Baker's religious rights. That's all..period.
His win is transitory..the commission would still choose to rule against him. The court took no stance on the larger issues.

BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.

It was returned because that filthy ass commission was hostile to the baker's religious views. Hello?

I am sorry but just because you are a queer don't mean I have to bake a cake for you. Bake your own cake or go find another queer to bake one for you.

 

[Darkwind]

It will be interesting to see if the Commission gets it right this time.

Reasonable accommodation laws are important to curb the extreme of some prejudices, but the entire issue is one of intent.

It was the intent of the gay couple to force someone to violate their religious convictions, or did they have other recourse to procuring a wedding service? As I understood it, it wasn't about baking the cake but having to participate in the wedding in some manner. However, even if it WAS just to bake a cake if the couple had other places within a reasonable distance to perform the service or provide the tangible asset, then the real crime here lies with the couple.

Then the question becomes, do protected groups have the right to deliberately, maliciously, and with purposeful intent, force someone to act against their principles?

I think we haven't seen the end of this legal battle just yet.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Interesting ruling.

I may not entirely agree with it- but it is the ruling of the Supreme Court and I will not pretend the Court ruling is not valid.

 

[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.

Did you not read the opinion? Filthy gay rights ended where the baker's religious views started. He won.

I did read the ENTIRE decision. The case is returned to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling, with an admonition not to trample on the Baker's religious rights. That's all..period.
His win is transitory..the commission would still choose to rule against him. The court took no stance on the larger issues.

BTW..your homophobia is noted..and deplored.

It was returned because that filthy ass commission was hostile to the baker's religious views. Hello?

I am sorry but just because you are a queer don't mean I have to bake a cake for you. Bake your own cake or go find another queer to bake one for you.

You can bake..who knew?

In a funny parody of life and the net..my grand-kids are in the kitchen as we speak..baking a cake.

I'm not gay..but you needn't bake me a cake..i got my own.

 

[Crixus]

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.

Nope..very narrow ruling..effects the case only...the larger question remains open--

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters

I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

As well as Halloween and other Holliday’s the baker finds offensive. The reason you homos always lose this fight is because you find it nessicarey to lie.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Nope..very narrow ruling..effects the case only...the larger question remains open--

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters

I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

As well as Halloween and other Holliday’s the baker finds offensive. The reason you homos always lose this fight is because you find it nessicarey to lie.

**ouch*** Spellcheck is your friend.

Why do you insist in thinking that because one is not homophobic..they're Gay? Very odd.

I don't find it 'nessicarey' to lie at all..and I defy you to find where I did!

 

[Crixus]

Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.

The baker was pretty clear about what he will and will not do. Like Halloween cakes and so on. The homos tried to make it like it was just them personally. Meh, Colorado is more red then many think. The homos will lose again.

Sounds like a crazy zealot.

Don’t like it? Take your business elsware. It’s the American way.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well it is a victory of sorts for their argument that Co didn't consider the religious objection of the baker, but it still goes back to Colorado for the next round.

The baker was pretty clear about what he will and will not do. Like Halloween cakes and so on. The homos tried to make it like it was just them personally. Meh, Colorado is more red then many think. The homos will lose again.

Sounds like a crazy zealot.

Don’t like it? Take your business elsware. It’s the American way.

Now that..I agree with. Vote with your wallet..it works.

 

[Crixus]

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.

Nope..very narrow ruling..effects the case only...the larger question remains open--

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters

I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

As well as Halloween and other Holliday’s the baker finds offensive. The reason you homos always lose this fight is because you find it nessicarey to lie.

**ouch*** Spellcheck is your friend.

Why do you insist in thinking that because one is not homophobic..they're Gay? Very odd.

I don't find it 'nessicarey' to lie at all..and I defy you to find where I did!

Lied by omission. Did also won’t bake cakes for druids, or these folks who copy the religious crap from the show Vikings, you know your type. This wasn’t about a guy not making cakes for fags like your self. It was about his freedom of expression and his ability to run his business as he sees fit.