Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[sparky]

 

[LittleNipper]

this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples

So, as expected, still doubling down on the same crazy, unsupportable speculations. Zero substance at all. But there is a fine admission hidden in there. Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim has- or hasn't- baked, which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.

See problem is anyone could make up such excuses after the fact if all it took to thwart the law was to claim Jesus made me do it! Because I'm religious I get to ignore any law that strikes me as contrary to my indoctrination! Freedumb baby! Suck it all you nonbelievers! God made us sinful so those of us who kiss His ass and beg His forgiveness at least once during our lifetimes can be saved! Screw the law! We get to go to Heaven regardless and you don't. You go straight to Hell, neener neener!

Many, but one guy in particular, someone I'd worked with daily for at least a year and had grown to consider a pretty solid friend,.. yes, even though he was a devout Christian,... one bright, sunny day, finally got around to asking me dead seriously, "Why don't you just kill yourself? Or go rob a bank?" Never forget that incident because it initially left me so speechless. All I thought was "WTF?" That's the insane product of such indoctrination. Religion has continued to spread because it's the easiest way to turn otherwise smart, caring people into compliant, babbling idiots.

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.

I would say your co-worker's choice of woods was over the top, but the reality is that without GOD there is honestly no purpose. This becomes more apparent as one ages. You either see heaven at the end of a series of worldly struggles or you just die and that is it! The Christian will see his Christian friends and family in heaven. The atheist will not even be remembered eventually --- and will not know it even if is is!

And that is the truth of eternity. The unsaved (according to the Bible) will have nothing but remorse of what could have been (the worm dieth not). The Saved will not remember anything that would bring them sadness. In fact, it is likely they will only live in the NOW of heaven quite amazed for all eternity...
Revelation 21:4
4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes (no more crying or pain) for the old order of things has passed away.”

 

[JoeB131]

Christians clearly have an obligation (albeit a desire) to keep you informed of the Gospel, we do not impose our religion on you as much as you impose your demands on us. As for Muslims, they are nothing like the Amish

If we were constantly bombing the Amish, they'd be just like the Muslims.

Our problem with the Islamic world has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with our idiotic policies.

 

[LittleNipper]

I love Dark Double Dutch Chocolate Cake --- rainbow cake is for little kids! Which is another issue regarding "gays". It's the Peter Pan mentality! They are insecure and need constant reassuring (which is likely why they are so obsessed with getting seemingly full support from every aspect of society). It's all they have to go on! As for this cake, it is as unreal as their marriages and all sugar!

 

[LittleNipper]

Christians clearly have an obligation (albeit a desire) to keep you informed of the Gospel, we do not impose our religion on you as much as you impose your demands on us. As for Muslims, they are nothing like the Amish

If we were constantly bombing the Amish, they'd be just like the Muslims.

Our problem with the Islamic world has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with our idiotic policies.

The Muslims bombed the Israelites first on numerous occasions. Those that bless the Jews will receive blessings and those that curse the Jews will receive a curse. Our policies (to some degree) are founded on biblical principles and not public opinion or fads.

 

[sparky]

Christians clearly have an obligation (albeit a desire) to keep you informed of the Gospel, we do not impose our religion on you as much as you impose your demands on us. As for Muslims, they are nothing like the Amish

If we were constantly bombing the Amish, they'd be just like the Muslims.

Our problem with the Islamic world has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with our idiotic policies.

The Muslims bombed the Israelites first on numerous occasions. Those that bless the Jews will receive blessings and those that curse the Jews will receive a curse. Our policies (to some degree) are founded on biblical principles and not public opinion or fads.

~S~

 

[Silhouette]

....Christians keep trying to impose their religious stupidity on us and the Jews keep getting us into wars...

On the other hand, if we just left the Muslims alone, we probably wouldn't have any problems with them.

Let me translate that from Crybully to English: Christians are an easy mark for lgbt activist-strikes because they really are a passive faith. Jews are too controversial to hit because the outcry of WWII is still too fresh.

And LGBT activists leave Muslims alone because if they sued a Muslim baker trying to force him to promote butt sex lifestyles, they would need life insurance.

 

[Pop23]

this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples

So, as expected, still doubling down on the same crazy, unsupportable speculations. Zero substance at all. But there is a fine admission hidden in there. Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim has- or hasn't- baked, which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.

See problem is anyone could make up such excuses after the fact if all it took to thwart the law was to claim Jesus made me do it! Because I'm religious I get to ignore any law that strikes me as contrary to my indoctrination! Freedumb baby! Suck it all you nonbelievers! God made us sinful so those of us who kiss His ass and beg His forgiveness at least once during our lifetimes can be saved! Screw the law! We get to go to Heaven regardless and you don't. You go straight to Hell, neener neener!

Many, but one guy in particular, someone I'd worked with daily for at least a year and had grown to consider a pretty solid friend,.. yes, even though he was a devout Christian,... one bright, sunny day, finally got around to asking me dead seriously, "Why don't you just kill yourself? Or go rob a bank?" Never forget that incident because it initially left me so speechless. All I thought was "WTF?" That's the insane product of such indoctrination. Religion has continued to spread because it's the easiest way to turn otherwise smart, caring people into compliant, babbling idiots.

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.

Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim has- or hasn't- baked, which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.

What speculation? That he won't bake a cake for same sex weddings? Well, I guess when he does bake a same sex wedding cake that would clear that up. Just let us know when you have proof that he has. Then, at least then, you would have proof he discriminates instead of that he just doesn't provide that service. The burden of proof is not on the accused. Maybe in Cuba it's different, But here in the United States, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

You are still under the false assumption (Naive as it is) that there is a law creating something known as "Gay Marriage". Do some homework G-Nuts and you will find, that simply does not exist. Again, what the SCOTUS created was "Same-Sex" Marriage. That gives EQUAL ACCESS to Marriage to Heterosexuals as it does to Homosexuals.

You should know this shit, it's your side that fought so hard for this.

Funny, you folks created this, and you have the hardest time coming to grips with its realities?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes or No, Pops, did the baker in this case discriminate against the two men in any way?
If so, how?

 

[Pop23]

Yes or No, Pops, did the baker in this case discriminate against the two men in any way?
If so, how?

Nope, he did not as that would be impossible as he does not provide the requested service.

Not to males, females, straights or gays.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes or No, Pops, did the baker in this case discriminate against the two men in any way?
If so, how?

Nope, he did not as that would be impossible as he does not provide the requested service.

Not to males, females, straights or gays.

Mr. Phillips did not dispute that he made and sold wedding cakes. Now, he refused to sell wedding cakes to some customers but not others, but that doesn't change the fact that the goods and services offered were part of Masterpiece Cakeshop's business model as there is no difference in the construction of a wedding cake for a different-sex couple and one for a same-sex couple.

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece CakeShop - Decision


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Yes or No, Pops, did the baker in this case discriminate against the two men in any way?
If so, how?

Nope, he did not as that would be impossible as he does not provide the requested service.

Not to males, females, straights or gays.

Mr. Phillips did not dispute that he made and sold wedding cakes. Now, he refused to sell wedding cakes to some customers but not others, but that doesn't change the fact that the goods and services offered were part of Masterpiece Cakeshop's business model as there is no difference in the construction of a wedding cake for a different-sex couple and one for a same-sex couple.

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece CakeShop - Decision


.>>>>

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

 

[Grumblenuts]

this Baker won't bake a cake for Heterosexual same sex couples

So, as expected, still doubling down on the same crazy, unsupportable speculations. Zero substance at all. But there is a fine admission hidden in there. Notice you're reduced to speculating "won't bake" instead of being able to verifiably claim has- or hasn't- baked, which would likely still make zero difference in regard to this case, still being irrelevant, but at least it would be substantive.

See problem is anyone could make up such excuses after the fact if all it took to thwart the law was to claim Jesus made me do it! Because I'm religious I get to ignore any law that strikes me as contrary to my indoctrination! Freedumb baby! Suck it all you nonbelievers! God made us sinful so those of us who kiss His ass and beg His forgiveness at least once during our lifetimes can be saved! Screw the law! We get to go to Heaven regardless and you don't. You go straight to Hell, neener neener!

Many, but one guy in particular, someone I'd worked with daily for at least a year and had grown to consider a pretty solid friend,.. yes, even though he was a devout Christian,... one bright, sunny day, finally got around to asking me dead seriously, "Why don't you just kill yourself? Or go rob a bank?" Never forget that incident because it initially left me so speechless. All I thought was "WTF?" That's the insane product of such indoctrination. Religion has continued to spread because it's the easiest way to turn otherwise smart, caring people into compliant, babbling idiots.

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told.

I would say your co-worker's choice of woods was over the top, but the reality is that without GOD there is honestly no purpose. This becomes more apparent as one ages. You either see heaven at the end of a series of worldly struggles or you just die and that is it! The Christian will see his Christian friends and family in heaven. The atheist will not even be remembered eventually --- and will not know it even if is is!

And that is the truth of eternity. The unsaved (according to the Bible) will have nothing but remorse of what could have been (the worm dieth not). The Saved will not remember anything that would bring them sadness. In fact, it is likely they will only live in the NOW of heaven quite amazed for all eternity...
Revelation 21:4
4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes (no more crying or pain) for the old order of things has passed away.”

Truly "the greatest bullshit story ever told." This "all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest." Awe inspiring, but really no wonder once one really thinks about it long and hard. That's why such a high percentage of atheists are religious scholars and former clergy. They've had that opportunity. To think about it long and hard. Most people remain (are deliberately kept actually) too busy and distracted their entire lives to really give it a second thought. Git 'em while they're young and they'll never look baaack!

How's this for a "revelation"? Don't worry. Nothing divine or shocking except perhaps in the reverse sense of being astoundingly simple or common sense. As in stuff right under your nose the whole time that you've somehow never noticed... Probably because almost nobody talks about it... It's that mundane. You have to try and clear your mind a bit so come back when you're feeling no stress and ready to focus on nothing else...

Good. Now imagine you were born say in what many now call "The Holy Land" an eon ago. You're advanced beyond hunter gathering so enjoy a somewhat sedentary existence, tending some livestock and trading olives for all the other stuff you need. Of course there's no electricity so you must at least keep some embers glowing to light whatever oil lamps you may use inside to see at night. You get your water from a shallow well with a pot or basket on a rope when there is any. Otherwise you have to get it from the nearest stream down the hill and about a half mile away.

No TV! No internet, computers, phones, radios, newspapers, cars, paved roads, glasses, telescopes,... Not even books!

So what do you do at night? It's pretty arid and warm. Firewood is scarce so you generally just use it to cook and heat water. The house is tiny, cramped, and your bed is no more comfortable than laying on some piled hay outside... Odds are you spend a lot of time out there, just looking up at the stars. Pondering... Connecting the dots... Discovering recurring patterns in them that sort of look like animals, ladles, and stuff... What's it all about? Whenever friends drop by you wow each other with stories of giant serpents, falling stars, all manner of magical things you've seen or imagined seeing...

Gardening one day, someone finds that big meteor everyone's been yammering about .. Someone else notices that metal stuff flies straight to it when dropped from quite a distance - real magic! Right here in River City! With a capital M that rhymes with.. hmm?

And so began religion.

Hmm, thank you very much!

 

[WorldWatcher]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

 

[Grumblenuts]

Afterword - Many, certainly the Greeks, began really figuring stuff out despite all the noise and carrying on about religion. Then along came Isaac Newton who really kicked us into high gear despite the Church's efforts to shut him up. Then came Tesla who figured so much out that we seemingly have centuries to go before most catch up. Then Einstein went nuts, doubling down, much like Pops here, on his ridiculous "curved space" notions and everything came to crashing halt. Now we're so mired in the religious delusions of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics we'll likely never escape. None of us to Heaven or Hell anyway, that's for sure!

 

[Pop23]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

 

[Pop23]

Afterword - Many, certainly the Greeks, began really figuring stuff out despite all the noise and carrying on about religion. Then along came Isaac Newton who really kicked us into high gear despite the Church's efforts to shut him up. Then came Tesla who figured so much out that we seemingly have centuries to go before most catch up. Then Einstein went nuts, doubling down, much like Pops here, on his ridiculous "curved space" notions and everything came to crashing halt. Now we're so mired in the religious delusions of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics we'll likely never escape. None of us to Heaven or Hell anyway, that's for sure!

I'm glad you finally figured out who the true progressive is in this discussion. Here's a clue.........

It ain't you conservatard!

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

As to the last part you don't get to measure the validity of someones personal religous beliefs.

As a matter of fact that is spelled out in Federal law:

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 - Definitions


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

As to the last part you don't get to measure the validity of someones personal religous beliefs.

As a matter of fact that is spelled out in Federal law:

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 - Definitions


.>>>>

The last part is less a part of the argument than the first however, and the Baker likely would not use religion as his defense, if so, it would be challenged and likely a lost cause.

 

[Flopper]

The new market was created in 2015. He chose not to participate in such.

Obergfell simply created a market that the baker could partake in. It did not create a gay wedding market, it created a same sex wedding market.

He opted not to serve this market. In doing so he refused service to all within the market.

You may claim he did so because he didn’t want to serve gays, but he doesn’t serve straights as well. And the traditional market he does serve? Treats gays and straights, males and females equally.

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, yet will write Best Wishes Mary and John, it's still discrimination because the law does not allow you to discriminate based on sexual preference.