Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[AZGAL]

not good to rush a specialty cake...

 

[Grumblenuts]

There ya go. Keep "rush"ing to judgement.. and execution!

 

[OldLady]

Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.

I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.

I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.

Yep?

 

[OldLady]

Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.

I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.

Yep?

The very first sentence of the Opinion. Link on page 1 of this thread.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages

 

[Grumblenuts]

Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.

I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.

Yep?

The very first sentence of the Opinion. Link on page 1 of this thread.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages

Are you suggesting that indicates he was asked to do something beyond the POS or what?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Put aside the plausible objection that treating cakes as speech — especially cakes without writing, as in the Masterpiece case — abuses the First Amendment. And put aside the even more plausible objection that whatever “speech” is involved is clearly that of the customers, not of the baker: As law professors Dale Carpenter and Eugene Volokh explain in a Masterpiece brief, “No one looks at a wedding cake and reflects, ‘the baker has blessed this union.’ ” After all, that objection is arguably just as applicable to the Bible-cake case.

Finally, put aside the objection that “It’s just cake!” That could be said to any of the parties in these disputes, and it doesn’t alter the deeper rationale for anti-discrimination laws, which are about ensuring equal access in the public sphere — not just for cakes, flowers, and frills, but for a wide range of vital goods and services.

It is tempting to describe Marjorie Silva’s Bible-cake refusal as the moral mirror-image of Jack Phillips’s wedding-cake refusal: Neither baker was willing to assist in conveying a message to which they were morally opposed.

But that’s not quite right. For recall that Silva was willing to sell the customer a Bible-shaped cake and even to provide an icing bag, knowing full well what the customer intended to write. She was willing to sell this customer the very same items that she would sell to any other customer; what he did with them after leaving her store was, quite literally, none of her business.

Therein lies the crucial difference between the cases: Silva’s objection was about what she sold; a design-based objection. Phillips’s objection was about to whom it was sold; a user-based objection. The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. Indeed, Masterpiece once even refused a cupcake order to lesbians upon learning that they were for the couple’s commitment ceremony.

He would not sell them a wedding cake at all - because they were gay. Period.

 

[AZGAL]

He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Cannot would indicate a disability, and we do not hold disability against those that with a disability. As far as rights go, no one is denying homosexuals any different rights than heterosexuals.

I thought that you people consider gays as having a disability- mental illness.

Not being denied rights? They do not have the right to not be discriminated against in housing, employment or public accommodation in many states and at the federal level. Some states are fucking their right to adopt children.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

I addressed that earlier. There is the traditional interpretation of religious freedom and the new , contrived view that religious freedom means imposing your religious views on others.

Since homosexuality is not a scientific fact (there is no 3rd sex) then it is only a belief. Belief can be construed as religion so, apparently, the gay couple were trying to impose their gay, religious dogma on the baker.

Ya know, Bubba....I hate to break it to you, but it is only you and the dwindling numbers of bigots and homophobes who are still ruminating about why people are gay. The courts have not concerned themselves with the issue and have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . You might also want to study up on the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity as well as the well documented, underlying biological factors that have been identified in relation to both sexual orientation and gender identity. I'm sure that you won't though. You are to afraid that you might learn something that challenges your ridiculous beliefs.

So there is no 3rd sex. Thanks

That is not what I said. If you think that it's what I said it is only because your ridged, concrete thought process does not allow you to see the intricacies and nuances of an issue. You can only deal with yes and no answers and all or nothing concepts.

The fact is that biological gender -like sexual orientation exists on a continuum . Most people are either male or female but some fall in between. Look it up. Do the research like I did if you're really interested in learning. Again, I'm sure that you aren't . You content to ignorantly blather and bloviate about that which you know nothing.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He refused to custom design an original wedding cake that celebrated a same sex marriage in a state (CO) that didn't even have a legal version of/ actually forbade same sex marriages at the time.

And where ya pullin' this "custom design" BS from now? And you think the State's civil rights commission wasn't "legal" and "forbade same sex marriages at the time"? Yet, that's who the Supremes returned the case to anyway? Incredible!

 

[AZGAL]

google the story over the 6 years of the bakers ordeal...a half a dozen of misery thank you and a coffee to go...

 

[Grumblenuts]

google the story over the 6 years of the bakers ordeal...a half a dozen of misery thank you and a coffee to go...

Ah, the poor bigot... got a couple phone calls from wackos Meanwhile, the gay couple? Ah, who cares amiright!

 

[AZGAL]

Meanwhile the gay couple refused to patronize a gay or gay friendly business at first.

 

[AZGAL]

GoF-$ME are bigots:


by Ryan Fitzgerald • ChurchMilitant.com • April 27, 2015 12 Comments
Left-wing activists have worked to shut down a fundraising campaign for a bakery defending itself against the gay agenda

...GoFundMe then closed the fund, issuing the following statement:

After careful review by our team, we have found the “Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa” campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions. The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal. While a different campaign was recently permitted for a pizzeria in Indiana, no laws were violated and the campaign remained live. However, the subjects of the “Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa” campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.

A new fund started by a Christian group is now up. The Kleins' business now operates out of the family's home, as it had to close its storefront because of financial trouble.

 

[Silhouette]

Meanwhile the gay couple refused to patronize a gay or gay friendly business at first.

You think they were aggressively targeting a known Christian business with the premeditated intent of ruining the guy for a political statement and "example to others"?

No!

 

[AZGAL]

Extremely troublesome is how one of the 2 men of the couple was in deep with the Matthew Shepherd Foundation long before by "chance" they found this baker.

Matthew Shepard Foundation
Non-profit organization in Denver, Colorado

Everyone feels bad about what happened to Matthew. Yet this one of the couple was already a seasoned activist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The color of the participants is not a choice. You kind of missed that point.

Sure it is, in an interracial marriage you have to choose.


.>>>>

 

[AZGAL]

"the color of the participants" not the mix of colors in a partnership.

 

[Pop23]

same sex heterosexual couple

Say whaa?!

You realize that's completely legal, right?

Or are you going to now going to argue that only gays can marry when they are same sex, or that Sex is now actually important to Marriage?

Can't wait to hear this!

Say whaa?

Hmmm, so if a gay male married a gay female = Baker bakes the cake

straight male married a straight female = Bakes the cake

Straight male marries a straight male = no cake

Gay male marries a gay male = no cake

Everyone is treated equally

Nope, the refusal is not based on sexuality