Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[task0778]

Hey a little theater! "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now! (when are you going to move it to politics? Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)

Dude, you're getting a little too annoying. If you got that much of a problem with the Mods here then maybe you should consider posting somewhere else. Kindly stick to the topic, the constant bitching is ridiculous.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey a little theater! "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now! (when are you going to move it to politics? Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)

Dude, you're getting a little too annoying. If you got that much of a problem with the Mods here then maybe you should consider posting somewhere else. Kindly stick to the topic, the constant bitching is ridiculous.

Or they can just un-dungeon the thread. Hey, aren't you supposed to be a banter buddy for this thread? Now you're speaking for the mods? Which is it?

 

[task0778]

Hey a little theater! "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now! (when are you going to move it to politics? Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)

Dude, you're getting a little too annoying. If you got that much of a problem with the Mods here then maybe you should consider posting somewhere else. Kindly stick to the topic, the constant bitching is ridiculous.

Or they can just un-dungeon the thread. Hey, aren't you supposed to be a banter buddy for this thread? Now you're speaking for the mods? Which is it?

Don't know what a banter buddy is, and I do not speak for anybody but myself and definitely not the Mods. They do not need any assistance from me, that's for sure. I'm just saying that the constant bitching is getting really old, so I'd appreciate it if you would cease and desist. There are other forums out there, so go find one if you think the USMB is so bad.

 

[AZGAL]

Remember my thread anyone??? it was in "legal'. Well well, the "B" is back(me) to tell you all: "I told you so!" HA! AND this thread is well placed in where it is: "breaking news" because- uh- it is so obvious this is breaking news. In addition this case decision by Scotus is not a "punt", it is a carefully considered complex case that is what it is, not broad nor narrow. The baker hauled the arses of the ironically bigoted civil rights el groupo all the way to the top court because he is a man wth strong convictions (no doubt) and the decision clearly informs future US law and society that governmental commissions Shall NOT/CAN NOT use their power in a biased way against persons. The Supremes clearly topped the Colorado CRC by emphasizing freedom of religion as part of the US Consitution (a right) weighing federal authority over a messed up state governmental body. There is precedent in that. The decision is final. This case DOES NOT go back to the Colorado commission. In other words, the baker got the Supreme "not guilty" verdict in a way. The baker's rights are affirmed by the Supreme Court and the US Constitution and he is finally FREE to go home and lead his life and work his business again (after many years) like he did a long time ago. There were MANY irregularities made by the Colorado CRC and those combined with the fact that as the baker stated he refused to create a wedding cake for a same sex ceremony IN Colorado, there never existed "gay marriage" at that time/that year. In addition, there is an underlying concern that perhaps the baker was targeted for a "stunt"/case, and that the "civil rights" commission in sum total supplied a whole lot of ANIMUS that sank their arrogant arses in the end.- AZ gal: I told y'all so that the baker would win!- thanks I'll be congratulating myself for days....and...


SEE: Politics & Policy
Christian Baker 1, Officious Bureaucrats 0
By Rich Lowry

 

[Silhouette]

Oh for God's sake...you too?

 

[AZGAL]

"Masterpiece states an important ideal. But the Supreme Court has not been good over the years at identifying government bias or hostility that is the least bit shrouded. In a case without smoking-gun expressions of hostility, objectors will need evidence of inconsistent treatment of tester cases." from

Douglas Laycock and Thomas Berg Guest

Posted Tue, June 5th, 2018 3:48 pm

Bio & Post Archive »
Symposium: Masterpiece Cakeshop — not as narrow as may first appear

 

[AZGAL]

By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist June 05, 2018

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was not a legal landmark. It broke no constitutional ground. It affirmed no important new principle in the interpretation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments. The justices ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips, the owner of the specialty cake shop who was punished for refusing to design a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. But their verdict was widely downplayed as a temporary stopgap, limited to the somewhat unusual facts of Phillips’s case, and holding out little reassurance to other vendors with religious objections to gay marriage.

I think that misses the point.

It’s true that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion sidestepped the hard questions posed by this litigation. Can someone who opposes gay marriage be compelled to support it through his work? Is the artistry involved in designing a cake a form of speech under the First Amendment? When should claims of religious liberty trump the principle of nondiscrimination? The resolution of those issues, Kennedy wrote, “must await further elaboration in the courts.” By and large, conservatives and religious-liberty advocates saw little to celebrate in Monday’s ruling — “empty calories,” the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro called it — while those who opposed Phillips rejoiced in the narrowness of the decision. “We lost a battle, but won the war,” gloated David Cole of the ACLU, which represented the gay Colorado couple in the case.

Yet the real significance of the ruling, and of the fact that only two justices dissented, isn’t the narrowness of its legal grounds. It is the sharpness of its rebuke to the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for their bigoted comments when Jack Phillips was summoned to a hearing before them. After the baker explained that his Christian faith does not allow him to use his creative talent to celebrate same-sex marriage, one of the commissioners dismissed his plea for freedom of conscience as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric.” No other commissioner objected as he lectured Phillips that “freedom of religion” is just a pretext that has been used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history,” including slavery and the Holocaust.

 

[westwall]

Hey a little theater! "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now! (when are you going to move it to politics? Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)

Probably never.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

You can keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, they didn't want THIS case to be precedent on the parameters of Public Accommedation.

 

[JoeB131]

That's not true. You can get in big trouble for discriminating against someone for the race they were born, their country of origin, their actual gender or the faith they adhere to.

But that's the problem you don't seem to get. If you can say, "I won't serve you because your gay because my Imaginary Friend in the SKy said so", it's not a big leap to "I won't serve you because you are black, because my imaginary friend in the sky said so!"

In fact, racists in the 1960's used THESE EXACT ARGUMENTS, which is why PA Laws were written to start with.

It's right there in the Constitution. Colorado violated the baker's civil rights. Habitual behaviors outside spirituality aren't mentioned as protected in th US Constitution. Nowhere. I've scanned it numerous times & I can't find a line about those endless possibilities anywhere.

Dude, you are like the vegetarian who can't stop talking about steak.

 

[JoeB131]

Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender. Wooot!

That would be great, and how it should be. But what does "PA" mean?

Public accommodation. Being forced to accept that which you normally would not.

Your business doesn't have a religion. Your business operates under the laws of the state.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender. Wooot!

That would be great, and how it should be. But what does "PA" mean?

Public accommodation. Being forced to accept that which you normally would not.

Your business doesn't have a religion. Your business operates under the laws of the state.

My business is my business. You don't have a clue.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

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.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

Participation

Get rid of all PA laws...and any business can reject anyone based on religion, race, handicap or gender. Wooot!

That would be great, and how it should be. But what does "PA" mean?

Public accommodation. Being forced to accept that which you normally would not.

Your business doesn't have a religion. Your business operates under the laws of the state.

It is not the "States" business. It is that of the owner. And if the owner wishes to be closed on Sundays, because it is the LORD's day, it is not for the "State" to insist that the business remain open. Likewise, if the owner feels that supporting Gay unions with cake (or any other form of assistance) is a form of participation, then it is not for the "State" to insist it is nothing of the sort. Christians are not to worship the State.

 

[LittleNipper]

That's not true. You can get in big trouble for discriminating against someone for the race they were born, their country of origin, their actual gender or the faith they adhere to.

But that's the problem you don't seem to get. If you can say, "I won't serve you because your gay because my Imaginary Friend in the SKy said so", it's not a big leap to "I won't serve you because you are black, because my imaginary friend in the sky said so!"

In fact, racists in the 1960's used THESE EXACT ARGUMENTS, which is why PA Laws were written to start with.

It's right there in the Constitution. Colorado violated the baker's civil rights. Habitual behaviors outside spirituality aren't mentioned as protected in th US Constitution. Nowhere. I've scanned it numerous times & I can't find a line about those endless possibilities anywhere.

Dude, you are like the vegetarian who can't stop talking about steak.

Sir, again you are missing the entire point. GOD designed red, yellow, black and white. Satan and the sinner are the only ones who can lay claim to the creation of Homosexuality and gay marriage. The fact is you are trying to force the vegetarian to serve steak, and there is no reason that he should.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

Correct, if the gay couple just bought a pre-made cake it would have been no problem. They wanted the cake makers to participate which they could not do because of their religious beliefs.

Participate?? They expect him to be a ring bearer? I fail to see how putting a little plastic stature of 2 guys on a cake with names and Best Wishes violates ones religious beliefs. Well, considering what passes for religion today, maybe it would. Seems pretty stupid to me, but then I don't go to a church that teaches hate and intolerance.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hey a little theater! "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now! (when are you going to move it to politics? Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)

Translation ~ you want to burry the story and hopes it goes away..just like the same reason you want to take down Democrat statues. ..

 

[JoeB131]

It is not the "States" business. It is that of the owner. And if the owner wishes to be closed on Sundays, because it is the LORD's day, it is not for the "State" to insist that the business remain open. Likewise, if the owner feels that supporting Gay unions with cake (or any other form of assistance) is a form of participation, then it is not for the "State" to insist it is nothing of the sort. Christians are not to worship the State.

Quite the contrary. If you don't want to be open on Sundays to praise your imaginary friend in the sky, that's your business, since the business is closed to everyone.

When you say, "I'm not going to serve gays or blacks or unmarried women because my imaginary friend in the sky says so", that's breaking the law. This isn't complicated.

 

[MisterBeale]

Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith

"WASHINGTON, D.C.—By issuing a ruling in favor of a Christian baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case this morning, the Supreme Court dragged the nation right into a dystopian nightmare in which business owners can openly practice their faith and run their businesses in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs, somber sources reported Monday. . . . "

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith
Supreme Court Drags Nation Into Dystopian Nightmare In Which Business Owners Can Openly Practice Their Faith

"WASHINGTON, D.C.—By issuing a ruling in favor of a Christian baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case this morning, the Supreme Court dragged the nation right into a dystopian nightmare in which business owners can openly practice their faith and run their businesses in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs, somber sources reported Monday. . . . "

 

[LittleNipper]

It is not the "States" business. It is that of the owner. And if the owner wishes to be closed on Sundays, because it is the LORD's day, it is not for the "State" to insist that the business remain open. Likewise, if the owner feels that supporting Gay unions with cake (or any other form of assistance) is a form of participation, then it is not for the "State" to insist it is nothing of the sort. Christians are not to worship the State.

Quite the contrary. If you don't want to be open on Sundays to praise your imaginary friend in the sky, that's your business, since the business is closed to everyone.

When you say, "I'm not going to serve gays or blacks or unmarried women because my imaginary friend in the sky says so", that's breaking the law. This isn't complicated.

Who made up the law? If you don't wish to believe in GOD that's your mistake. You wish to make the lawyer and judges your gods --- they are not mine. They are no better than anyone else. I want a society that is safe for children and families. I don't see that as YOUR goal. You are trying to make out that blacks and gays are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the biblical truth. Natural physical appearance is not the same as choice or personal hygiene.