Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[JoeB131]

So you are implying hetro same sex marriage is illegal?

Now prove it.

This should be funny.

Naw, man, I don't care one way or the other. If Chuck and Larry want to get married for the health benefits, I'm totally fine with that, just like I'm fine with Dora getting married for a green card.

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.

But that's the problem, it's really not his place to determine who is "sincere" in their beliefs when they order a wedding cake. If you are selling wedding cakes, then you sell a wedding cake to whoever wants it.

The first commandment of business.

The Customer is Always Right.

The second commandment of business.

Nobody ever won an argument with a customer.

 

[JoeB131]

Well let's see, the baker's shop isn't the privacy of the two gay lifestylists' home. The lewd sex acts they perform "in pride" in public (where they anticipate children will be watching and even inviting children to march in these parades) aren't done in the privacy of the LGBT homes. So, you're chasing a strawman there pal.

He wasn't asked to participate in a parade. He was asked to bake a cake for a wedding ceremony.

But if Lewd Behavior bothers you, I don't see you complaining about Madris Gras

 

[JoeB131]

Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years.

In fact, if LGBTs are SO proud of their lifestyles then we should require every single court case with gay litigants in it to have reels of gay pride parades shown to the judges or Justices as the opening argument for the gay litigants.

I'm sure you have reels and reels of them to show people.. and a bottle of baby lotion and kleenex...

Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable.

Ain’t going to work and the electoral map will continue to get more red because of it.

Guy, 2016 was a fluke... not a trend. The trend is going against you because even the Churches are realizing Homophobia is something they are going to be really embarrassed about in 20 years.

Kind of like the Churches are embarrassed about their role in slavery and segregation now.

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.

Guy, here's the thing... just because these things don't float your boat, doesn't mean other people can't enjoy them.

If you want to be a killjoy because you think your Imaginary Friend in the Sky (you know, the one with omnipotent power who won't save starving children or moms with cancer) will be angry, that's on you.

But leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, and don't forget men using each other's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas. No little amount of closeted heterosexuality in the LGBT cult for sure. Also always seems to be a butch and femme in any of their couples..

Okay, one more time.

99% of straights engage in Fellatio and Cunnilingus... and 37% of straights engage in Anal sex.

You wonder if any of this goes through the heads of the Justices while they're hearing these cases? The confusion-factor has to play into how they deliberate on "innate vs behavioral" in all this. And I think it's why they are starting to "break the news" to the LGBT camp that lifestyles cannot command people of faith with real, actual Constitutional protections into abdicating their faith to promote the new Rainbow-Religion...

Oh, I don't think the justices are the ones with the problem. They wrote a very narrow ruling that actually set a much higher bar for the next bigot who tries to hide his homophobia behind religion.

 

[LittleNipper]

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.

Yes, and don't forget men using each other's lower digestive tracts as artificial vaginas. No little amount of closeted heterosexuality in the LGBT cult for sure. Also always seems to be a butch and femme in any of their couples..

You wonder if any of this goes through the heads of the Justices while they're hearing these cases? The confusion-factor has to play into how they deliberate on "innate vs behavioral" in all this. And I think it's why they are starting to "break the news" to the LGBT camp that lifestyles cannot command people of faith with real, actual Constitutional protections into abdicating their faith to promote the new Rainbow-Religion...

The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...

What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?

Do you believe that those Justices and Senators send their children to public schools. When the Bible was removed from public school where do you imagine Caroline and Jon Jon attended school --- public or parochial? Do you honestly imagine that these individuals go out of their way to hire homosexual gardeners, maids and cooks? When was the last time any of them instituted a pay cut for themselves! Do you believe that they actually pay for their healthcare? Do they wonder if they are not above everyone else --- smarter, nobler, better educated, special? When was the last time they took the back pew?

You imagine that Christians and religious people are out to hurt gays? Honestly, until all the hoopla, I didn't even know what a homosexual was! The man beating up a "gay" in a bar was either a drunkard or some gang member. Most Christians I know would not even frequent a bar much less get into fights.

 

[LittleNipper]

Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years.

In fact, if LGBTs are SO proud of their lifestyles then we should require every single court case with gay litigants in it to have reels of gay pride parades shown to the judges or Justices as the opening argument for the gay litigants.

I'm sure you have reels and reels of them to show people.. and a bottle of baby lotion and kleenex...

Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable.

Ain’t going to work and the electoral map will continue to get more red because of it.

Guy, 2016 was a fluke... not a trend. The trend is going against you because even the Churches are realizing Homophobia is something they are going to be really embarrassed about in 20 years.

Kind of like the Churches are embarrassed about their role in slavery and segregation now.

Bi-sexuality is proof that homosexuality isn't all it is reputed to be and is still fornication. Transgender is taking a human with natural GOD given sexual abilities and turning them inside out into a mere facade that lacks any procreative purpose. Women with women can only play with toys that mimic what they themselves claim to abhor. The entire rationalization is hypocrisy and abuse of nature.

Guy, here's the thing... just because these things don't float your boat, doesn't mean other people can't enjoy them.

If you want to be a killjoy because you think your Imaginary Friend in the Sky (you know, the one with omnipotent power who won't save starving children or moms with cancer) will be angry, that's on you.

But leave the rest of us the f--k alone.

And that is the point of Christian business people. Let them alone. They honestly don't need or want your business nor your attitude that comes alone with it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well let's see, the baker's shop isn't the privacy of the two gay lifestylists' home. The lewd sex acts they perform "in pride" in public (where they anticipate children will be watching and even inviting children to march in these parades) aren't done in the privacy of the LGBT homes. So, you're chasing a strawman there pal.

He wasn't asked to participate in a parade. He was asked to bake a cake for a wedding ceremony.

But if Lewd Behavior bothers you, I don't see you complaining about Madris Gras

I've never been to New Orleans and frankly, I do not see Mardis Gras as anymore than a secular perversion. It doesn't honor Christ and it isn't worthy of my time. I doubt most of them in the picture even attend church, and likely view Christmas as Santa Claus/gift Day. I'm not impressed and I'll stay away. Just don't bring it to my neighborhood.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've never been to New Orleans and frankly, I do not see Mardis Gras as anymore than a secular perversion. It doesn't honor Christ and it isn't worthy of my time. I doubt most of them in the picture even attend church, and likely view Christmas as Santa Claus/gift Day. I'm not impressed and I'll stay away. Just don't bring it to my neighborhood.

Just so some know...

"Mardi Gras (/ˈmɑːrdi ˌɡrɑː/), or Fat Tuesday, refers to events of the Carnival celebration, beginning on or after the Christian feasts of the Epiphany (Three Kings Day) and culminating on the day before Ash Wednesday (known as Shrove Tuesday). Mardi Gras is French for "Fat Tuesday", reflecting the practice of the last night of eating richer, fatty foods before the ritual fasting of the Lenten season."

"Lent (Latin: Quadragesima: Fortieth) is a solemn religious observance in the Christian liturgical calendar that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends approximately six weeks later, before Easter Sunday. The purpose of Lent is the preparation of the believer for Easter through prayer, doing penance, mortifying the flesh, repentance of sins, almsgiving, and self-denial.[1] "

Mardi Gras - Wikipedia
Lent - Wikipedia


.>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

And that is the point of Christian business people. Let them alone. They honestly don't need or want your business nor your attitude that comes alone with it.

That all works fine and good, until you put out a sign that said, "I offer this service". Then you kind of aren't asking to be left alone. You are asking for someone to come in and give you money to provide this service.

I've never been to New Orleans and frankly, I do not see Mardis Gras as anymore than a secular perversion. It doesn't honor Christ and it isn't worthy of my time. I doubt most of them in the picture even attend church, and likely view Christmas as Santa Claus/gift Day. I'm not impressed and I'll stay away. Just don't bring it to my neighborhood.

I think you are missing my point. Silhoette seems to think that lewd behavior on a certain day invalidates people. But the fact is, Madris Gras is a big old party that started the day before Ash Wednesday when Lent begins.... So party hardy because for the next 40 days you'll be fasting.

Except no one really fasts on Lent anymore, so it's just an excuse for a lewd party and has been for a long time.

As for Christians, They'll impress me a lot more when they stop trying to yank school lunches out of the mouths of hungry kids to give tax breaks to billionaires.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So if a person who is 600 lbs overweight wants a cake is it a sin to bake it for him?
Gluttony is one of the big seven sins so baking a cake for a glutton is endorsing gluttony is it not?

This baker is just one more hypocrite

Nope, totally different.

Gluttony is the act of overeating.

Baking a cake for a fat person is not endorsing him overeating it. He has to exercise self control. But taking your thought process, why sell food to a fat person? Why stop at a wedding cake? Why give them ANYTHING? Or what is allowed? Can they have cheese? Bread? Tacos? Spinach?

A cake by itself is not endorsing gluttony. But a wedding cake FOR A GAY COUPLE can easily be seen as directly against Christianity. But another baker might ask the Lord for forgiveness and bake the cake because he needs the money. But that choice is up to the person, not the fags.

Its not one of the commandments and so Paul overrules the words of Jesus. By the baker anything goes by the way one interprets the bible. How fortunate for him he can pick and choose who he bakes for.

This is obviously written by someone who has never cracked a Bible in their miserable existence.

I guess you are an accomplished Googler. Good job! I guess that is better than actually putting your own words into a discussion.

Now, what does any of that which you posted have to do with that particular person's beliefs? I didn't say they were right or wrong.

I believe most religions have stupidity written all over them, but that is between them and their God. It's cafeteria religion. They can pick and choose their beliefs. You don't get to decide. for them.

 

[Silhouette]

He wasn't asked to participate in a parade. He was asked to bake a cake for a wedding ceremony.

But if Lewd Behavior bothers you, I don't see you complaining about Madris Gras

If you read my posts you'd see me complaining about both. The difference with Fat Tuesday is that it is a known parade of debauchery (not "Pride!") where parents know or should know to not bring their children. What a difference the theme of a parade makes...

And acts of indecency and nudity should be handled in those parades the same as any other public display. One or two arrests would send a message to the participants to keep it to the bright colors and keep the flesh tones well hidden.

The problem for the baker, among many with gay lifestylists wanting to sully the word "marriage" is that the baker has heard of the gay pride parades as culture. It's a culture he cannot abide hijacking the sacred word "marriage". You act as if people make complex decisions on faith in infantile compartmentalized ways. The baker knows the rest of the iceberg under the water when "two innocent gays just want to get married and have their cake"..

 

[dblack]

As for Christians, They'll impress me a lot more when they stop trying to yank school lunches out of the mouths of hungry kids to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Something tells me they're not trying to impress you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

That’s not exactly what the ruling was. The ruling was that it had to go back to the state because the law had changed subsequent to the ruling and Kennedy thought they were too derisive of religious beliefs.

You might want to try reading the decision

Great terse summary! And Kennedy strayed far off the mark due to being generally full of beans.

 

[OldLady]

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.

A quote of said "question" remains most welcome...?

You said,
Yep?

Your move.

Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court. The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment, which we hold as self evident. This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?

If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?

 

[Pop23]

So you are implying hetro same sex marriage is illegal?

Now prove it.

This should be funny.

Naw, man, I don't care one way or the other. If Chuck and Larry want to get married for the health benefits, I'm totally fine with that, just like I'm fine with Dora getting married for a green card.

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.

But that's the problem, it's really not his place to determine who is "sincere" in their beliefs when they order a wedding cake. If you are selling wedding cakes, then you sell a wedding cake to whoever wants it.

The first commandment of business.

The Customer is Always Right.

The second commandment of business.

Nobody ever won an argument with a customer.

And he is not obligated therefor to provide a service that he has never provided prior to the request.

 

[JoeB131]

Something tells me they're not trying to impress you.

NO, they are trying to impose their backward-ass bronze age superstitions on my by claiming a magic sky man is going to awful things to me.

The problem for the baker, among many with gay lifestylists wanting to sully the word "marriage" is that the baker has heard of the gay pride parades as culture. It's a culture he cannot abide hijacking the sacred word "marriage". You act as if people make complex decisions on faith in infantile compartmentalized ways. The baker knows the rest of the iceberg under the water when "two innocent gays just want to get married and have their cake"..

Okay, here's the thing. How is it that a loving gay couple who has been together for years "sullies" the sacred institution of marriage, but some idiot who does a drunken Las Vegas wedding that is annulled the next week doesn't?

If the Baker wants to be a social engineer, he needs to close down his bakery and open a church...

 

[Silhouette]

Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court. The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment, which we hold as self evident. This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?

If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?

They did. Pretty directly too. They said that people, gays and cities passing PA laws need to be respectful and even handed when it comes to Christian business people. Kennedy said a man's faith follows him into his workshop. Which of course we all knew or it wouldn't pass the test of "earnestly held convictions" would it? I mean if everyone suspended their earnestly held convictions on behaviors whenever a dime was to be made, we'd have bars, brothels and casinos on every streetcorner; even right next to elementary schools all run by "otherwise devout Christians".

I think this gay-militant yes "Krystallnacht" being practiced with the state acting as thug-enforcer for the LGBT cult is just like a spinoff of The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. (A book that every US Supreme Court Justice should read by the way.) It's the clever extermination of faith values being enacted by insidious agents or otherwise anesthetized vectors with the end goal being "free for all!" in human values. The Devil hates deep and soberly held convictions of morality. HATES THEM. They must go.

 

[Silhouette]

Okay, here's the thing. How is it that a loving gay couple who has been together for years "sullies" the sacred institution of marriage, but some idiot who does a drunken Las Vegas wedding that is annulled the next week doesn't?

If the Baker wants to be a social engineer, he needs to close down his bakery and open a church...

Because a man expressing (behavior) latent hetero tendencies using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and kids having to accept that "bottom" "as the only mom I'll know for life via contract" is a grotesque defilement of the thousands-years-old IDEAL (not the failures, but the brass ring society sets for itself) of the sublime thing that is marriage.

You suggesting that a person of faith needs to leave the marketplace because of their deep convictions means you are attempting to violate that person's Constitutional rights. I caution you to be careful. In this Matter, the Court just sent a message that this is so. Practitioners of violation of Constitutional rights beware. The Supremes ain't gonna fuck around much more in this question of "lifestyles vs faith". You're going to be schooled very soon on which one has top dominance in any legal challenge. Buckle up buttercup.

You are entitled to your twisted lifestyle. But your entitlement stops when you try to force society to promote it with you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court. The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment, which we hold as self evident. This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?

In Newman v. Piggie Park, the court found that religious beliefs were not an exemption to generally applicable PA laws.

Then there is the case Bob Jones University where the University could not practice discrimination because of religious beliefs.

Then there is Employment Division v. Smith were the court ruled that religious beliefs do not exempt one from generally applicable laws.

If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?

#1 I disagree, IMHO PA laws violate rights of association and property rights. PA laws in general (again IMHO) should be repealed. A KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks. A Muslim baker should be able to discriminate against Jews. A gay baker should be able to discriminate against evangelical Christians. A redneck baker should be able to discriminate against Mexicans.

#2 To answer your question, the acts and comments of the Commission tainted the case due to public displays of hostility against religion. Therefore the court reversed the lower court judgement on that narrow issue and specifically left Colorado's PA law in place and punted on the main question. They want a "clean" case to make a ruling on religious exemptions to generally applicable laws.

#3 On issue that has not been address is the unequal treatment under the law. If they grant an exemption for religious beliefs of the baker we end up with a situation where a baker can deny gays and claim religious beliefs, but a gay baker would still be in violation of the law for refusing full and equal service to an evangelical Christian (or Muslim or Jewish person) because of the customers religious views. Clearly unequal treatment under the law.


.>>>>

 

[OldLady]

What you are referring to as a gay lifestyle is basically a stereotype. Just as there is no heterosexual lifestyle, there is no homosexual lifestyle.

Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years.

In fact, if LGBTs are SO proud of their lifestyles then we should require every single court case with gay litigants in it to have reels of gay pride parades shown to the judges or Justices as the opening argument for the gay litigants.

Tell it to the judges after they've viewed like 100 reels of gay pride parades over the years.
This case has nothing to do with Gay Pride parades or children or anything else, Sil. That is your own personal offendedness. If you find those types of celebration offensive, don't attend them and don't avidly follow pics of them on social media. It's pretty simple