Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

This is a messy question. I come down on the side of PA laws, because I believe in treating people equally and fairly, and for sure in the public sphere. I also have no religious beliefs and no opposition to homosexuality, so all that is easy for me to say. But however passionately I believe in anti-discrimination laws, I can put myself in the shoes of Christians who really, truly believe homosexuality/gay marriage is a bad, bad thing that they should stay well clear of, because there are things I believe are "wrong," too, and would not want to be forced to get involved in them.

I just hope everyone can give some respect to the other side here. There are two sides and they both feel they are perfectly within their rights. If they had a previous relationship with the baker, it is all the more unfortunate that this had to happen, since the baker hadn't discriminated against them in any way until he was faced with the wedding.

Reasonably put.

And in the end, it’s about a cake. There are far more important things to make a stand on.

This whole issue is simply silly.

 

[dblack]

This issue is never going away

But it will stay forever lodged in "Breaking News" in USMB though.

Hmmm.... at what point does it become "Broken News"?

 

[OldLady]

This is a messy question. I come down on the side of PA laws, because I believe in treating people equally and fairly, and for sure in the public sphere. I also have no religious beliefs and no opposition to homosexuality, so all that is easy for me to say. But however passionately I believe in anti-discrimination laws, I can put myself in the shoes of Christians who really, truly believe homosexuality/gay marriage is a bad, bad thing that they should stay well clear of, because there are things I believe are "wrong," too, and would not want to be forced to get involved in them.

I just hope everyone can give some respect to the other side here. There are two sides and they both feel they are perfectly within their rights. If they had a previous relationship with the baker, it is all the more unfortunate that this had to happen, since the baker hadn't discriminated against them in any way until he was faced with the wedding.

Reasonably put.

And in the end, it’s about a cake. There are far more important things to make a stand on.

This whole issue is simply silly.

Ah, it has nothing to do with the cake, Pop. For any of them--the Court, the Commission, the baker or the gay couple.

 

[Silhouette]

Ah, it has nothing to do with the cake, Pop. For any of them--the Court, the Commission, the baker or the gay couple.

Have to agree with the Old Lady here Pop. It's about if lifestyles have rights to push people of faith around and force them to abdicate core values in order to stay in the market place.

Though the Court did not scream "NO!!!", it whispered "no.."

 

[Pop23]

Ah, it has nothing to do with the cake, Pop. For any of them--the Court, the Commission, the baker or the gay couple.

Have to agree with the Old Lady here Pop. It's about if lifestyles have rights to push people of faith around and force them to abdicate core values in order to stay in the market place.

Though the Court did not scream "NO!!!", it whispered "no.."

For some reason it appears need to destroy religion to boost their cause. That’s plain as day, and it’s already losing steam and support.

 

[Silhouette]

For some reason it appears need to destroy religion to boost their cause. That’s plain as day, and it’s already losing steam and support.

To be fair, the Devil did disclose that at the start of his campaign...

 

[JoeB131]

Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?

Or do they wan't the State Legislatures to define what qualifies as sanctioned sex? How much Sex would be required to keep a valid license? Would a women in a male/female marriage be forced to engage in anal sex?Can you imagine the Utah legislature debating what qualifies? And if sex is a requirement, then wouldn't a man forcing himself on his wife be sanctioned as well?

I find it amazing that you guys want to redefine even love if you don't get your way on things.

Okay, one more time, tell me how gays being able to get married effects your life in any way, shape or form.

Thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

Well the baker didn't go to their business trying to destroy them financially with fines and a lawsuit did he? So you're either going to have to face the reality that these activists...I mean "couples" are targeting Christians to "conform or be cast out of the marketplace". The Court said they shouldn't do that. But they are. And everybody but a brain dead toad knows it.

Except no one proved this guy was selected specifically because of his beliefs. They went to his store, started talking business, and then this idiot decided to start ranting bible verses at them.

 

[Pop23]

Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?

Or do they wan't the State Legislatures to define what qualifies as sanctioned sex? How much Sex would be required to keep a valid license? Would a women in a male/female marriage be forced to engage in anal sex?Can you imagine the Utah legislature debating what qualifies? And if sex is a requirement, then wouldn't a man forcing himself on his wife be sanctioned as well?

I find it amazing that you guys want to redefine even love if you don't get your way on things.

Okay, one more time, tell me how gays being able to get married effects your life in any way, shape or form.

Thanks.

Tell me one more time why you think I care.

 

[JoeB131]

Tell me one more time why you think I care.

Because you are on a thread ranting about it... that's why I think you care.

 

[Pop23]

Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?

Or do they wan't the State Legislatures to define what qualifies as sanctioned sex? How much Sex would be required to keep a valid license? Would a women in a male/female marriage be forced to engage in anal sex?Can you imagine the Utah legislature debating what qualifies? And if sex is a requirement, then wouldn't a man forcing himself on his wife be sanctioned as well?

I find it amazing that you guys want to redefine even love if you don't get your way on things.

Okay, one more time, tell me how gays being able to get married effects your life in any way, shape or form.

Thanks.

Not the point now was it.

Do you want State Legislators to define love and/or sex? And what qualifies to be married?

As I stated earlier, neither are required to be legally married. And as it applies to this subject, because such is not a requirement, nor is sexuality, heterosexual same sex marriage is perfectly legal.

 

[Pop23]

Tell me one more time why you think I care.

Because you are on a thread ranting about it... that's why I think you care.

Where? I’ve made no such statement.

You smoking something?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Which again is nonsense in this case since he clearly rejected them before any "custom design" could even be discussed - as argued by their attorney by the way and ignored in favor of the baker's fantasy version of events. They could have just wanted a plain wedding cake that they could then "custom design" themselves later. We'll never know... didn't allow them to even ask.

You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.

It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.

Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!

I certainly didn't mean it as hostile. Sorry you took it that way.

Forgiven in any case. But baking a generic wedding cake is neither rocket science nor unheard of in any sense. And honestly never could find what "simple question" you were supposedly addressing from the beginning. Not for lack of trying...

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

I guess you think I missed your point.

No, but from the beginning I haven't seen this "question" you've claimed to be simply answering... A quote of said "question" remains most welcome...?

I thought you were saying, from that first post, that you thought the guys came in and were refused service outright for being gay.

Close. In any case, they were refused (a) service outright. That service being selling them a wedding cake. Refused outright because they were gay. Just the facts, ma'am... (not simply my opinion) easily distilled directly from the court report.

You were actually inserting a strawman (not meant hostilely) that the couple requested a "cake for an every day secular ceremony."

You've inferred wrong. Not meant hostilely. Wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth. Just injecting my opinion that weddings are basically every day secular ceremonies. Been through two of them myself. No religion required. Just adds extra noise and expense. Unlike the State which is required for one to be legal... as in, you know, "the law"... which is the realm we should be logically confined to here? I mean, how about, for a change, we actually stick to known facts instead of this modern norm of wasting time entertaining speculations from everyone's personal point of view... projected upon the parties involved from everywhere under the Sun. What is legally required? What should selling "the public" a wedding cake legally require at a minimum? What is the verifiable essence of the case? Those sort of questions are all I'm interested in here.

That is not the case when it comes to this baker. He did not see it as an every day secular ceremony, but a sin against God that he would not take any part in.

How he may or may not have viewed his duty to serve the public is irrelevant. The State granted him a license to sell directly to the public. He accepted and signed off on those conditions. Be it hot dog, medical marijuana, or wedding cake. Same deal. Minimal requirements must be met to retain said license. They weren't. No excuses. Case closed. Laws can't logically be crafted to satisfy individual tastes, particularly those of majority class members, at the expense of a minority's basic civil rights. Just because Christians cry "Woe is me!" louder than any doesn't mean they actually suffer compared to most.

 

[JoeB131]

Not the point now was it.

Do you want State Legislators to define love and/or sex? And what qualifies to be married?

As I stated earlier, neither are required to be legally married. And as it applies to this subject, because such is not a requirement, nor is sexuality, heterosexual same sex marriage is perfectly legal.

Okay, Lord Zenu, you're spinning yourself in circles here...you might have a meltdown...

I suppose there could be two guys who might play out the real life version of this movie...

But then again, there are people who get married for Green cards.

 

[Pop23]

You ever seen a wedding cake? Bakers don't make them up ahead of time and put them in the display case. They are all created one at a time using the specifications of the customer. If they wanted a plain old sheet cake, they would have gone to the supermarket. Or baked it themselves and used Betty Crocker Decorator Icing in a tube.

It seems you are trying to make the baker out to be more of a monster than he is, same as some people are making the gay couple out to be monsters. Neither argument is going to solve this problem.

Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!

I certainly didn't mean it as hostile. Sorry you took it that way.

Forgiven in any case. But baking a generic wedding cake is neither rocket science nor unheard of in any sense. And honestly never could find what "simple question" you were supposedly addressing from the beginning. Not for lack of trying...

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

I guess you think I missed your point.

No, but from the beginning I haven't seen this "question" you've claimed to be simply answering... A quote of said "question" remains most welcome...?

I thought you were saying, from that first post, that you thought the guys came in and were refused service outright for being gay.

Close. In any case, they were refused (a) service outright. That service being selling them a wedding cake. Refused outright because they were gay. Just the facts, ma'am... (not simply my opinion) easily distilled directly from the court report.

You were actually inserting a strawman (not meant hostilely) that the couple requested a "cake for an every day secular ceremony."

You've inferred wrong. Not meant hostilely. Wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth. Just injecting my opinion that weddings are basically every day secular ceremonies. Been through two of them myself. No religion required. Just adds extra noise and expense. Unlike the State which is required for one to be legal... as in, you know, "the law"... which is the realm we should be logically confined to here? I mean, how about, for a change, we actually stick to known facts instead of this modern norm of wasting time entertaining speculations from everyone's personal point of view... projected upon the parties involved from everywhere under the Sun. What is legally required? What should selling "the public" a wedding cake legally require at a minimum? What is the verifiable essence of the case? Those sort of questions are all I'm interested in here.

That is not the case when it comes to this baker. He did not see it as an every day secular ceremony, but a sin against God that he would not take any part in.

How he may or may not have viewed his duty to serve the public is irrelevant. The State granted him a license to bake and sell directly to the public. He accepted and signed off on those conditions. Be it hot dog, medical marijuana, or wedding cake. Same deal. Minimal requirements must be met to retain said license. They weren't. No excuses. Case closed. Laws can't logically be crafted to satisfy individual tastes, particularly those of majority class members, at the expense of a minority's basic civil rights. Just because Christians cry "Woe is me!" louder than any doesn't mean they actually suffer compared to most.

This individual taste, as you put it, is constitutionally protected.

Nice try at minimizing that fact though.

 

[Pop23]

Not the point now was it.

Do you want State Legislators to define love and/or sex? And what qualifies to be married?

As I stated earlier, neither are required to be legally married. And as it applies to this subject, because such is not a requirement, nor is sexuality, heterosexual same sex marriage is perfectly legal.

Okay, Lord Zenu, you're spinning yourself in circles here...you might have a meltdown...

View attachment 197530

I suppose there could be two guys who might play out the real life version of this movie...

View attachment 197531

But then again, there are people who get married for Green cards.

So you are implying hetro same sex marriage is illegal?

Now prove it.

This should be funny.

It is legal, and it does not matter whether anyone has ever used it, is not relevant. The baker would deny his services as it would violate his religious belief AND be a product he’s never offered.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some people would be correct to recognize that the Supreme Court missed the whole point. Here's a great discussion on it.

''While many conservatives may cheer what appears to be a victory for their cause, the Supreme Court ruling missed the central point -- property rights -- in favor of a highly subjective "deeply held views" test. The decision is very shaky territory even for social conservatives -- who gets to decide which views are "deeply-held"? -- and it is little help at all for libertarians.

We look at the pros and cons of the decision in today's Liberty Report:''

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Kicks the Stalinists right in their non-descended nuts.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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!

I believe the "custom design" was the basis of the baker's legal argument. An artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment?

That's what I read also, he wasn't. Just a baker

It's like a Jerry sienfield episode..they wanted the best.
No soup for you..

 

[Grumblenuts]

But then again, there are people who get married for Green cards.

Good point. Bet they generally go for the generic wedding cake.