Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[rightwinger]

This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.

Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?

Why should an artist be forced to create art that offends his religious beliefs?

Because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law

You are in business......you don’t discriminate

 

[asaratis]

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

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

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

Exactly! It is for the CELEBRATION OF THE GAY WEDDING!

 

[asaratis]

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

Only if the cake was designed to celebrate gluttony, and even then government shouldn't be calling people out on their religious beliefs.

The baker is exercising their constitutional rights. They were on record saying they are not contesting point of sale items, just specific items for a specific ceremony.

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?

He offered to sell them any other cakes. They could have had it redecorated by someone else....or polished their own skills instead of each other's knobs and done it themselves.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

This is real bad news for Tommy Tanaint who thinks everything is going the way of gays.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.

Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?

Why should an artist be forced to create art that offends his religious beliefs?

Because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law

Indeed. Ergo, the customer's rights end where the provider's begin.

 

[asaratis]

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

Shame on the parents for naming their innocent child after a notorious murdering despot.

 

[asaratis]

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case


Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

Hmm, wonder who the two were? Likely Gorsich and Thomas.

Wrong! It was Ruth Bader and some other idiot.

 

[asaratis]

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

Only if the cake was in celebration of said sinful purpose, and again, government shouldn't care unless it has a compelling interest.

That's not what the baker said he said baking a cake for a gay wedding is an endorsement of their lifestyle

It is the lifestyle he has a problem with not the celebration

If one objects to a lifestyle, one certainly objects to the celebration of it.

 

[asaratis]

how 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.

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 sinners

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.

He would have been participating by providing his work of art as the centerpiece.

 

[skews13]

7-2 decision.

Have you read the premise of the decision on scotusblog? No?

This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow:

Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs.

The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that,

in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples,

and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

Kennedy, the author of some of the court’s most important gay-rights rulings, began by explaining that the case involved a conflict between two important principles.

On the one hand, society has recognized that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” and their rights are protected by the Constitution.

On the other hand, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained,

the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone.

Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised”

But the majority left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently,

particularly if the decision maker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly. Other cases, the majority emphasized, “must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated] - SCOTUSblog

 

[Leo123]

The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision

They set no precedent and failed to enforce guidelines for business that were established 50 years ago

Justice Thomas wanted a decisive decision.

The Supreme Court basically whiffed on their decision

They set no precedent and failed to enforce guidelines for business that were established 50 years ago

Every SCOTUS decision can be a precedent.

 

[asaratis]

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.

He doesn't refuse to serve gay people. He refuses to decorate a gay wedding cake. Kudos to him!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

I would not get to wild eyed over this:
In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

Kennedy wrote:

The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.

He went on...

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

and consider:

On Monday, Justice Kennedy chose a third path, one that seemed to apply only to the case before the court.

Writing for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision, he said the Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, had been infected by religious animus. He cited what he said were “inappropriate and dismissive comments” from one commissioner in saying that the panel had acted inappropriately and that its decision should be overturned.

Do not think for a moment that the decision gives blanket license to discriminate in the name of religion.

 

[asaratis]

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?

I doubt that he would decorate a cake extolling any of these.

 

[asaratis]

A bakery had a right to refuse to bake a child's birthday cake because the baker didn't like the child's name.

Child named after Adolf Hitler is refused cake request

As well it should be. If the Triple K brought they sheets down to an African American cleaner to have them dry cleaned and pressed, the cleaners would have the right to turn down the business if they wanted.

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

Neither were the engaged men at the time of the refusal to decorate their cake.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

7-2 decision.

Have you read the premise of the decision on scotusblog? No?

Yes. Media was labeling it a narrow vote, which it was not. A narrow decision? Yes, of course.

Kennedy, the author of some of the court’s most important gay-rights rulings, began by explaining that the case involved a conflict between two important principles.

On the one hand, society has recognized that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” and their rights are protected by the Constitution.

On the other hand, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

Indeed, but again, "Your rights end where mine begin." The unmovable object versus the irresistible force.

the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone.

It is quite clearly absolute as written in the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law" could not be more clear. Case law and precedent do not have authority to amend the Constitution.

But the majority left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently,

Of course, and that case will likely follow a similar path to the SC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.

Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?

Why should an artist be forced to create art that offends his religious beliefs?

Because he is offering his product in public commerce.

I am curious to see what the Commission will do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The commission is going to have inspect the inference that the bakers were interpreting their religious belief.

What happens if the government provides evidence of other Christian bakers who happily make cakes for gay and lesbian couples?

What if this? What if that?

Not all Christians hold the same beliefs. The couple could easily have gone to any other baker, Christian or not, that happily makes cakes for same sex marriage ceremonies.

So you can't answer the question. OK.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.

Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?

Why should an artist be forced to create art that offends his religious beliefs?

Because he is offering his product in public commerce.

I am curious to see what the Commission will do.

Aren't we all?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's settled law. You'll just have to live with it.

Nope. It was returned to the Commission to look at again.