Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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. . . . "

Nonsense, when you have a party at your home, is everyone invited? I dare say that you select who you wish to entertain in your home. I see no reason to imagine that a good businessman cannot be selective in who he hires, fires, and decides to service. The proof is in the bottom line. Not every person who shows up at the dance club is admitted.

Hasty generalization
False equivalency
Non sequitur
Red herring
Appeal to ignorance

Congratulations! You packed FIVE (5) logical fallacies into one short paragraph! YOU are the winner!

 

[Leo123]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling

Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied

Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.

Seven members of the court seemed to ignore the fact that some people have adapted a bastadised and distorted view of religious beliefs and religious freedom

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
:

There is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in real life. The sexes are clearly and scientifically defined as male and female...there is no other sex.

Sexual minority does not just refer to physical gender, but I suspect that you knew that already.

Scientifically it does. There is no provable other sexes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling

Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied

Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.

Seven members of the court seemed to ignore the fact that some people have adapted a bastadised and distorted view of religious beliefs and religious freedom

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
:

There is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in real life. The sexes are clearly and scientifically defined as male and female...there is no other sex.

Sexual minority does not just refer to physical gender, but I suspect that you knew that already.

Scientifically it does. There is no provable other sexes.

Actually there is but I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about that. But I will say that "sexual minorities " also refers to those with a sexual orientation that is in the minority. And don't try to tell us that scientifically they don't exist either. They exist legally and that is what matters

 

[LittleNipper]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

 

[LittleNipper]

Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.

Seven members of the court seemed to ignore the fact that some people have adapted a bastadised and distorted view of religious beliefs and religious freedom

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
:

There is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in real life. The sexes are clearly and scientifically defined as male and female...there is no other sex.

Sexual minority does not just refer to physical gender, but I suspect that you knew that already.

Scientifically it does. There is no provable other sexes.

Actually there is but I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about that. But I will say that "sexual minorities " also refers to those with a sexual orientation that is in the minority. And don't try to tell us that scientifically they don't exist either. They exist legally and that is what matters

Well, hopefully incestual couples, and sex with children in presently in the minority --- but you can never know what 20 years may bring.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Seven members of the court seemed to ignore the fact that some people have adapted a bastadised and distorted view of religious beliefs and religious freedom

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
:

There is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in real life. The sexes are clearly and scientifically defined as male and female...there is no other sex.

Sexual minority does not just refer to physical gender, but I suspect that you knew that already.

Scientifically it does. There is no provable other sexes.

Actually there is but I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about that. But I will say that "sexual minorities " also refers to those with a sexual orientation that is in the minority. And don't try to tell us that scientifically they don't exist either. They exist legally and that is what matters

Well, hopefully incestual couples, and sex with children in presently in the minority --- but you can never know what 20 years may bring.

Red herring,slipper slope logical fallacy horseshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Geaux4it]

Interesting. I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason. Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.

However, they want their cake and eat it too

-Geaux

 

[Leo123]

Actually there is but I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you about that. But I will say that "sexual minorities " also refers to those with a sexual orientation that is in the minority. And don't try to tell us that scientifically they don't exist either. They exist legally and that is what matters

Actually there is no other sex other than male and female. If you have proof of a 3rd sex please provide it. You don't have to 'educate' anyone just provide scientific proof.

 

[AZGAL]

SORE LOSER DUMB ASS:
Opinion
Supported by

After Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the ConstitutionAfter Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the Constitution itstimeto itstimeto uh uh uh gawd !!!

By Jennifer Finney Boylan

Ms. Boylan is a contributing opinion writer.

• June 4, 2018

 

[dblack]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption

I think you mean "illegal discrimination".

I don't mean to nitpick. It's just that not all discrimination is illegal.

 

[task0778]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated. We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

 

[LittleNipper]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling

Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied

This lady is a very selfish woman. She holds herself as a superior thinker to anyone else and thinks religion is good only when it is convenient for everyone else..
Ruth seems to have ignored the baker’s religious beliefs which is why the original decision was overturned.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg pens angry dissent from Supreme Court bakery ruling

Ginsburg wrote: “I strongly disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”
Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

Asserting that the actions of the baker were discrimination, she wrote: “Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.

“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied

But Christians and Orthodox Jews do not believe that they (the homosexuals buying the cake) are capable of consummating a marriage. They are in fact living a lie that this baker had no intention of sharing with them. Living a lie and forsaking one's personal convictions to appease the government or society is not the right thing to do.

It was a total failure in Nazi Germany and Mrs. Ginsburg should recognize the continuous push to make individuals conform to governmental tyranny.

 

[dblack]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated. We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

That's no such thing as a "right to equal treatment".

 

[Leo123]

SORE LOSER DUMB ASS:
Opinion
Supported by

After Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the ConstitutionAfter Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the Constitution itstimeto itstimeto uh uh uh gawd !!!

By Jennifer Finney Boylan

Ms. Boylan is a contributing opinion writer.

• June 4, 2018

There is no such thing as a 3rd sex so whatever you call it....queer, lbgtq....etc. is essentially scientifically meaningless. Sex wise they are fetishes.

 

[Leo123]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated. We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

That's no such thing as a "right to equal treatment".

Correct, somehow lefties have conflated equal opportunity with equality of outcome.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Timeline

Many questions and contradictions...

 

[LittleNipper]

if there are other bakeries nearby then how much harm is done to the gay couple? Who is the more intolerant here, a baker who will sell them anything else but a decorated wedding cake or a gay couple that could go anywhere else to get their cake?

How much hard would you feel is done to you if you were refused good or service because you were Irish, or Jewish, or Catholic, or anything at all that the proprietor disapproved of and you were embarrassed, humiliated or just inconvenienced by not getting the same treatment as others.? And maybe there is not another service of what ever kind you need that you feel will meet your needs and desires

I'd do it myself. I tend to be self reliant and self sufficient. And if only Christians can bake cakes or do anything homosexuals can't ---- it doesn't say much for the homosexuals.

 

[task0778]

And do you think churches should be made to officiate gay weddings?

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated. We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

That's no such thing as a "right to equal treatment".

I think you know what I meant. Is there a better way to say we have the right not to be discriminated against? Feel free to suggest or correct what I said.

 

[dblack]

Hell no! And I will add that even bringing that up is idiotic. Who the hell would want to get married in a place or by a person who is hostile to the union. Ya think that it might case a pale over their future? Most people would.

So, why would you want a person who is "hostile" (as you call it) to make cakes for individuals that they pity?

Pity ? Really? Actually that is a pretty good point. But that does not change the fact that it is discrimination and that they are not entitled to a religious exemption


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, the question of an entitlement to a religious exemption has not yet been adjudicated. We have here an issue of someone's right to equal treatment vs someone else's right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

That's no such thing as a "right to equal treatment".

Correct, somehow lefties have conflated equal opportunity with equality of outcome.

There's no such thing as equal opportunity either. The only equality government is responsible for is equality under the law. That means that, regardless of who or what you are, everyone - black, white, rich, poor, or Mad King Donald himself - must to follow the same rules.