Prejudicial treatment of different categories of people is daily human behavior. What we're talking about with these laws isn't the removal of bias from human interaction. It's only bias that government has targeted for suppression. This isn't about equal rights. It's a social engineering project attempting to change the hearts and minds of people by force. And it's backfiring badly.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker
- Thread starter Billy_Kinetta
- Start date
Prejudicial treatment of different categories of people is daily human behavior. What we're talking about with these laws isn't the removal of bias from human interaction. It's only bias that government has targeted for suppression. This isn't about equal rights. It's a social engineering project attempting to change the hearts and minds of people by force. And it's backfiring badly.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Thanks for the link on page 1 Marty! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
The crux: (page 12 of the Opinion of the Court)
There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection. That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business
******
OK folks. Here's the writing on the wall. The Court could've written their decision on one sentence: "People doing certain behaviors and claiming an identity from those behaviors cannot punish, sue or exclude from the business sphere people of faith who object to those behaviors."
Behaviors
Behaviors
Behaviors.
Annnndd… Dunno if you caught it, but the Court was signaling to Phillips, and any other Christian so told "your beliefs better stay in the closet", that he and they have GROUNDS FOR A CIVIL SUIT FOR VIOLATION OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.
FINALLY the USSC got it right. I guess they had trouble finding language in the Constitution about "protection of a deviant sex cult's rights to force people of faith to abdicate their faith". They searched, but they just couldn't find it.
Wonder how that's going to play out in Michigan in Dumont v Lyon, the case where lesbians are seeking to punitively remove food directly from the mouths of orphans (they're not even shy about seeking to do this) in order to punish people of faith for screening them based on their homosexual "marriages". That means that the lesbians have declared as a matter of public record that they celebrate putting the agendas of adults before the needs of kids. That's the #1 question on any adoption application by the way. So suing, they have disqualified themselves from being able to adopt.
Also, a homosexual marriage, unique among all parenting situations, carries a contract that promises to banish a child from either a mother or father for life. So not only would religious orphanages have a right to object, but any orphanage that has psychologists on staff who are aware of the deleterious effects of boys never having a father or girls never having a mother. Oopsies.
Behaviors
Behaviors
Behaviors
Edit: Sotomayor & Ginsburg dissented. Sotomayor was the Justice doing the can-can dance on New Year's Eve n Times Square NY just after twerking Miley Cyrus performed. Ginsburg gave an interview a month before she Heard Obergefell, to a hotly divided American public clearly in the majority against states being forced to assent to gay marriage that "gay marriage is a thing that America is ready for". She also was openly officiating at gay weddings before Obergefell. Both things violated her Oath to remain impartial in the eyes of the American Public as required (not suggested) of her High Office.
December 31, 2013
Ginsburg officiating at a gay wedding as she knew Obergefell was heading her way: August 2013.
The crux: (page 12 of the Opinion of the Court)
There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection. That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business
******
OK folks. Here's the writing on the wall. The Court could've written their decision on one sentence: "People doing certain behaviors and claiming an identity from those behaviors cannot punish, sue or exclude from the business sphere people of faith who object to those behaviors."
Behaviors
Behaviors
Behaviors.
Annnndd… Dunno if you caught it, but the Court was signaling to Phillips, and any other Christian so told "your beliefs better stay in the closet", that he and they have GROUNDS FOR A CIVIL SUIT FOR VIOLATION OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.
FINALLY the USSC got it right. I guess they had trouble finding language in the Constitution about "protection of a deviant sex cult's rights to force people of faith to abdicate their faith". They searched, but they just couldn't find it.
Wonder how that's going to play out in Michigan in Dumont v Lyon, the case where lesbians are seeking to punitively remove food directly from the mouths of orphans (they're not even shy about seeking to do this) in order to punish people of faith for screening them based on their homosexual "marriages". That means that the lesbians have declared as a matter of public record that they celebrate putting the agendas of adults before the needs of kids. That's the #1 question on any adoption application by the way. So suing, they have disqualified themselves from being able to adopt.
Also, a homosexual marriage, unique among all parenting situations, carries a contract that promises to banish a child from either a mother or father for life. So not only would religious orphanages have a right to object, but any orphanage that has psychologists on staff who are aware of the deleterious effects of boys never having a father or girls never having a mother. Oopsies.
Behaviors
Behaviors
Behaviors
Edit: Sotomayor & Ginsburg dissented. Sotomayor was the Justice doing the can-can dance on New Year's Eve n Times Square NY just after twerking Miley Cyrus performed. Ginsburg gave an interview a month before she Heard Obergefell, to a hotly divided American public clearly in the majority against states being forced to assent to gay marriage that "gay marriage is a thing that America is ready for". She also was openly officiating at gay weddings before Obergefell. Both things violated her Oath to remain impartial in the eyes of the American Public as required (not suggested) of her High Office.
December 31, 2013
Ginsburg officiating at a gay wedding as she knew Obergefell was heading her way: August 2013.
Last edited:
Polishprince
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2016
- 46,001
- 35,614
- 3,615
I'd be afraid to eat it after forcing them to bake it. Don't piss off the chef before you order...just sayin'.
Anyway...instead of fighting this person..why not go to a gay baker who would love to have the business???
It doesn't even have to be a homosexual baker, or even a liberal one.
I am entertained by High Camp, and there is nothing which is more of a farce than a guy in a dress pretending to marry another guy. I'd bake it in the shape of a man's butt which would be appropriate for the event.
task0778
Diamond Member
“To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.” But the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not fairy review Phillips’ position. They were unfair to the Christian, publicly hostile to him and the religion, and biased in favor of the gay couple, Kennedy explained.
Important to take away from this decision is that the court recognized the legal interests of the gay couple and stated that businesses cannot deny selling all goods and services to protected groups.
“… if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
Phillips’ case is different, Kennedy wrote, because he was asked to use “his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation,” which is narrower in scope and specifically invokes the First Amendment.
With the Supreme Court’s decision, both Christians and gays received protection from the Court for their beliefs. This decision was fair and balanced in its analysis, protective of all.
JUSTICE for the Christian Cake Baker! Supreme Court Rules Colorado Was Unfair and Hostile
I hafta wonder if this case goes back to that Colorado Commission, could they still rule against the baker? I dunno, in this case it sounds like the baker did not deny service for all goods and services, which he cannot legally do. But he can legally deny the use of his artistic skills if his religious beliefs are compromised.
Important to take away from this decision is that the court recognized the legal interests of the gay couple and stated that businesses cannot deny selling all goods and services to protected groups.
“… if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
Phillips’ case is different, Kennedy wrote, because he was asked to use “his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation,” which is narrower in scope and specifically invokes the First Amendment.
With the Supreme Court’s decision, both Christians and gays received protection from the Court for their beliefs. This decision was fair and balanced in its analysis, protective of all.
JUSTICE for the Christian Cake Baker! Supreme Court Rules Colorado Was Unfair and Hostile
I hafta wonder if this case goes back to that Colorado Commission, could they still rule against the baker? I dunno, in this case it sounds like the baker did not deny service for all goods and services, which he cannot legally do. But he can legally deny the use of his artistic skills if his religious beliefs are compromised.
task0778
Diamond Member
Then there's this:
.
.
" Had Kennedy stopped his opinion at that point, Phillips’s victory would have been important, but profoundly limited. The obvious response would be for the commissioners to reconsider the case, cleanse their rhetoric of outright hostility, deliver the same result on a cleaner record, and put the more difficult free-speech claim right back in the Court’s lap. But Kennedy didn’t stop. He found a separate ground for concluding that Colorado was motivated by anti-religious animus, and that separate ground will make it difficult for states to take aim at “offensive” religious exercise, even when it occurs in a commercial context.
It turns out that the state of Colorado had protected the right of bakers to refuse to create cakes with explicitly anti-gay messages. Here’s Kennedy again:
On at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory.”
But wait. Can the state make those distinctions? Can it protect the right of one baker to refuse an “offensive” message without extending protection on an equal basis to other bakers? Kennedy’s words are key:
A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. . . . The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs."
Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: Religious Liberty Victory | National Review
In other words, the Court not only prohibited favoritism, it imposed a high cost on censorship.
.
.
" Had Kennedy stopped his opinion at that point, Phillips’s victory would have been important, but profoundly limited. The obvious response would be for the commissioners to reconsider the case, cleanse their rhetoric of outright hostility, deliver the same result on a cleaner record, and put the more difficult free-speech claim right back in the Court’s lap. But Kennedy didn’t stop. He found a separate ground for concluding that Colorado was motivated by anti-religious animus, and that separate ground will make it difficult for states to take aim at “offensive” religious exercise, even when it occurs in a commercial context.
It turns out that the state of Colorado had protected the right of bakers to refuse to create cakes with explicitly anti-gay messages. Here’s Kennedy again:
On at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory.”
But wait. Can the state make those distinctions? Can it protect the right of one baker to refuse an “offensive” message without extending protection on an equal basis to other bakers? Kennedy’s words are key:
A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. . . . The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs."
Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: Religious Liberty Victory | National Review
In other words, the Court not only prohibited favoritism, it imposed a high cost on censorship.
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.
Feel free to use the wayback machine and you will find that that has ALWAYS been my position. I am in favor of gay marriage, I always have been. I believe that the Declaration of Independence covers that aspect of human life when it states that we are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Marriage is certainly a part of that pursuit.
Flopper
Diamond Member
In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #388
I lean toward civil liberties and avoid fallacies of false speculation. Heteroes and homosexuals have the same liberties. Why do you deny the Constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans?You make me laugh out loud. The insecurity in their sexuality is so apparent in so many of the alt right.Nope. It was returned to the Commission to look at again.It's settled law. You'll just have to live with it.
Your sex life is your business, I won't bake a cake for you Jake. You have the "right" to your faggotry.
View attachment 196710
But Jake, you seem to envision yourself as non biased yet you seem to lean toward pro homosexuality. Why? Can you deny that heterosexuality is, by far, the overwhelming scientific definition of sex?
In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.
Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,860
- 19,389
- 1,915
Well, that is an outright bigoted view.Normal is just a set of rules devised by people out of fear of others that are different than themselves. It is a favorite word of bigots, racists, bullies, and hatemongers. Which are you?Bullshit. Any normal boy would be offended, even sickened, at the thought of having sex with another male. That doesn't take training to be homophobic because it's not homophobic. It's being normal.Well..homophobia for sure. Childish? Nah..kids are not naturally homophobic. It take adults to program that into them.Using terms like "fag" or "homo" or "cum guzzler" are expressions of childish homophobia.
Normal behavior is behavior that can be observed by the majority of a species. The 'hardwired drive to procreate" is normalized by that very need. Evolution is predicated upon this 'normalized' behavior.
I Myself don't care. Evolution will always attempt divergence and many behaviors lead to evolutionary dead ends or the extinction of a species. Homosexuality is one of these blind evolutionary paths and survives only because the 'normalized' behavior of humans to have relations with the opposite sex keeps us going. These are not agenda driven rules devised by people, but nature acting in accordance with natural laws.
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,860
- 19,389
- 1,915
Correct.In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.
Yup... they said that they said bad things about his Bronze Age superstitions and they shouldn't have.
the problem here is that any bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe POS can claim a religious exemption from Public Accommodation laws if they gave in to this baker.
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
There is no way a lower court can rule against a business who refuses to participate in a gay wedding anymore and also force the business to participate. The SCOTUS will always have to rule in favor of the business. So time for the gays to move on. There are plenty of businesses to help you out.Because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law
You are in business......you don’t discriminate
SCOTUS ruled 7-2 the Free exercise of religion is supreme over any PA law.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Prejudicial treatment of different categories of people is daily human behavior. What we're talking about with these laws isn't the removal of bias from human interaction. It's only bias that government has targeted for suppression. This isn't about equal rights. It's a social engineering project attempting to change the hearts and minds of people by force. And it's backfiring badly.
i think it's working just fine. The bigots are outing themselves and we all get to laugh at them.
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
They would find a dark fudge center.never never never eat a cake that you had to sue someone to make for you
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 285,201
- 157,986
- 2,615
The Supreme Court had a chance to set a precedentThe 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.
They passed on a real decision and sent it back to a lower court
Yeah they kicked the can down the road basically because of the staunch leftists on the court.
Instead, they punted
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
If the gays think this decision is ultimately good for them, then why did Ginzberg and Sotomayer dissent? The intent of the majority may be found in the dissent's remarks.
Last edited:
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,009
- 34,344
- 2,300
I don't think this particular commission can do anything. It has already condemned the baker's religious beliefs.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.
A link to the decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.
Yup. Those beliefs were discounted in the original case. Now the free exercise clause must be applied. It's quite a significant decision in the overall order of things.
The key is will the commission do the right thing, or double down on persecution.
They can when he baker again denies service based on his religious beliefs.
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,009
- 34,344
- 2,300
A quick scan of it makes me think this isn't a 100% win for the baker. Their case goes back to the commission that made the original ruling, but the SC directs the commission they have to take into account the baker's religious beliefs, something they did not think the commission originally did.
Yup... they said that they said bad things about his Bronze Age superstitions and they shouldn't have.
the problem here is that any bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe POS can claim a religious exemption from Public Accommodation laws if they gave in to this baker.
Religious beliefs are protected by the 1st amendment, precisely to protect them from neanderthal atheist assholes like you.
Not so. The ruling doesn't say they have to accept all religious reasonings in all cases, just that they have to take them into account. That also means they have to use the least intrusive method to resolve the situation, not "fine them into oblivion"
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
Naah, you don't actually believe that.As long as PA laws are gone for ALL instances. All instances.I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 114
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 137
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 701
- Replies
- 144
- Views
- 949
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 50
- Replies
- 158
- Views
- 682
- Replies
- 165
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 215
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8499
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-